Oh no. Iâve become a statistic.
Oh no. Iâve become a statistic.
1 virgin is a tragedy, 1 million virgins is a statistic
1 million virgins is a statistic
Sometimes, this is also called a 'Fanbase'.
The collective word for a group of virgins is called a reddit
Noun. A reddit of virgins is a collective noun.
Please make this a thing
*an âOnlyFanBaseâ
FTFY
đ¶You can do it, it's all up to you, m'kay...
With a little plan you can change your life todayđ¶
The increase in women choosing not to have sex obviously impacts males not having sex, I just wonder the % that is abstinent by choice.
1million virgins is a subscriber base
So if you're gay, you're a virgin?
If you're gay, you're not a statistic
This is not for virgins it is for gay people i think.
I mean this doesn't at all mean you are virgin lol it means you had sex woth the opposite gender under 18 or that you aren't straight.
-Ioseb Sexin
Communism anthem
Oh. I assumed this stat meant more youngsters are becoming more comfortable being gay.
Yeah , thats me
Don't worry panda, we are all statistics.
"Somewhere Over The Rainbow" ;)
You are and always have been a myriad of data points. đđ»
Reddittor moment
looser! I'm not in this one. I'm 32...
I think people just feel more comfortable with telling the truth about this now. I have a feeling itâs always been around this range.
Nope it wasnt. Suddenly people become more truthful? Thats a very big leap. Besides that inquiries are most of the times anonymous to increase truthfulness. See how the numbers start rising with the release of several social media platforms/algorithms? The more probable explanation seems to be that people are way more attached to screens and insecure about their lives because of all the heightened social comparing going on through social media. Leading to less confidence, less confidence means less sex.
You say that someone else's explanation is a very big leap, but then describe an even bigger leap of your own. An interesting tactic.
How is mine a bigger leap? The person just claimed people became more truthful without an explanation. My explanation is based what is becoming increasingly more clear in several social sciences. Look up statistics for depression, suicide attempts, loneliness, ... for the last twenty years in the west. They all are increasing the latest 10-15 years. What changed? Social media seems like an educated guess. Is it a leap:yes, but there seems to be a lot of evidence pointing that way. Social media is great but seems to be very destructive too.
Depends how you read the data. If you take it as zero sexual partners at all, then you might have a point but certainly it is still a huge leap to say that the correlation between this data and social media is causation. If you take it as is implied, however, that this is people admitting to only having sex with same sex partners, then the statement that this data, which is certainly not suddenly increasing as you said (unless you count a decade as sudden), is due to society becoming more accepting of people admitting to this therefore they are more comfortable telling the truth... Doesn't seem as far-fetched.
Not the guy you replied to and I can only speculate but I believe that your perceived implication is actually not what this graph implies at all. More than likely, the statistics shown here don't consider or control for bisexuality or homosexuality because, unlike what is shown in the media, they are still a statistical minority. If the data did control for those things, then surely a separate line would have been included.
What the graph is more likely trying to say is that more people between the ages of 18-30 just don't have any sexual partners at all. You are right to say that correlation does not mean causation however, as we could point to various other things that have increased over the same time period, like increased use of plastics, increased consumption of GMOs, increased education levels, among who knows how many others.
I donât need an explanation when Iâm offering an arbitrary opinion. It doesnât come off as fact nor was it intended to. Thanks.
It says opposite sex so this can just be more guys are gay than girls.
My personal experience says guys are usually either straight or gay and girls are usually straight or bi.
I think women experimenting with other women is wayy more socially acceptable, or even encouraged in some cases, while guys experimenting with other guys is often met with homophobia and ridicule.
I think there a ton of bi-curious men out there who will never admit it, or act on their desires.
Nah. Guys who are bi just donât say anything when theyâre in relationships with women. Also, women are not turned on by the idea of a bi guy in the same way that a lot of men find bi women to be exotic, for lack of a better word. Thereâs no point for a bi guy to be openly bi unless he gets into a relationship with another guy.
Plenty of bi men on Grindr who are married. Itâs an easy way to cheat because none of her girlfriends are going to be using that app. Seen it a million times.
Source: bi male
EXACTLY all the comments are talking about the loneliness epidemic as if cis relationships are the only ones that exist
I mean, anecdotes ahoy and all, but since I quit social media (outside Reddit, of course) my ability to get laid shot way up.
i will join you in a few months
I guess i have finally increased the avatage on something in my life.
Bacuase you didn't have sex or you did have sex but it was exclusively with someone of the non-opposite gender?
I read this in the âoh no out table itâs brokenâ voice.
There should be a circle jerk vigil. Hold on to your candle and the one on the right.
Suddenly gay?
I mean, why not âsexual partnersâ, excluding gay couples from the data makes it meaningless.
Data may be beautiful, but that title was not.
The data and title are pretty awful. OP could have said 'never sexually active' and instead we have data showing ~30% of people having MSM or FSF.
The sample size is clearly tiny based on how much itâs zigzagging, but those numbers are very high compared to any usual study of people whoâve never engaged in sexual activity, so it has to include folks whoâve had same-sex activity.
Also where are non-binary people?
The data isn't even beautiful. It's just a normal pointy line chart with poor labels in default Excel colors :/
Dammit Furio. What did we tell you about writing Reddit titles?
I think this just reflects the "loneliness epidemic". Communities are increasingly atomised and people are lonelier than ever before; there was another chart posted here showing how people nowadays have significantly less friends than people decades earlier.
Add to that how internet make thing worst (supply vs demand caused some change in the supply to make it harder)
People don't know how to interact in person anymore. And if they get to know somebody that doesn't fit their world view, they get dumped. The supply of possible "friends" in this internet age is immense, so people are extremely selective on who they interact with.
Back in the day, your friends were people on your street or small group you could find at school or eventually a couple people at work. If they saw the world in a different way, then...oh well. Either be alone or learn to interact in other ways to form a bond over something.
This times a million. I'm from a small European country, moved away as a kid and recently went back.
Things back there still function as the pre-Internet world; and although we have high speed internet - you always say "Hello" to your neighbors, nobody normal would consider using dating sites, people still cook barbeques and the whole neighborhood is invited/shows up by default, there are only several small local businesses (coffee shop, store, local mom and pop shop) and people from the neighborhood just show up daily to have a cup of coffee or beer and chill/talk. You're a car mechanic and your neighbor is a plumber? He'll do your plumbing if you fix up his car, the barter system is local and functional. The friends you grow up with/live near to stay your friends, and the friends I made in my neighborhood after only a year of being there remain to be the best friends I ever had. It's almost family-like friendships. Something I've never personally seen or experienced in the US; where I didn't even know the name of the neighbor I lived next to for 15 years and occasionally gave them the "sup" head-nod like once a year maybe.
Don't get me wrong, there's some cons that come with that "traditional" way of life - things move verrrryyy slowly and nothing new ever happens, but some people prefer that and good friendships over spamming garbage social media posts to gain attention from people whom they've never met and never will
That's the kind of social environment humans used to live in since the beginning. The internet has changed a lot of things in a very short amount of time, and the current world is too different while we humans haven't changed at all from that time. We aren't made for the modern world and the consequences of that are now really easy to see.
It's not just a matter of Internet, big cities are a cause of the same behaviours. It becomes natural to humans when the nearby circle is too big. Indeed something went wrong both when building online communities and when building metropolitan cities.
I live in a 60ish unit condo building with a population of about 140 people in Chicago. I know probably 30-40% of the residents by first name, know generally what their interests are and where they work. Honestly, I interact with way more people here than I ever did growing up in a suburb or living in a suburb after college. People love blaming cities while the real issue is that people move to the suburbs to be shut-ins and avoid people.
And?
Some of us like being shut-ins.
It's the dangerous, whiny other people that are the problem. They are becoming willing to attack women.
It's totally up to the people, though. It is definitely possible to build a community out of your neighbours - just start a whatsapp/signal/whatever group and invite them all in. Have a monthly informal get-together on the street or wherever. I know it works because I've done it twice. I since moved but the groups still exist and stay alive.
It's a choice and people choose to isolate.
Thereâs so much more to this than the way youâre portraying it.
Itâs not just a personal choice. Youâre attempting to deny any issues with society or the current structures that are in place.
People used to have free amenities and public spaces they could use in many places. The trend for the last 40 years has seen those places be privatised and profit driven while people are working longer hours in more precarious situations.
Itâs hard I meet people if you have 3 jobs, or your town doesnât have anywhere affordable to spend 5-6 hours with other people.
Thatâs before we get in to then affect pop culture has had on people.
And many other factors I donât have time to get in to.
I agree with your sentiment and in hindsight I should have pointed out that I'm not a US citizen. Where I live it definitely is the way I describe.
[deleted]
But surely not in a crowded metropolitan city.
Have you ever lived in a dense urban core? You get to know a lot of people very fast. Back when I was commuting every day to downtown Chicago, I got to know the people who used my bus stop, I got to know my neighbors very easily, I got to know a good number of people who left at the same time as me and used the same train stop. Like, it's not hard to meet people here. There's over 3K people living on my block alone. My train station services over 30K people per day during the pandemic. Meeting people isn't hard, you can literally just walk outside and meet people. Or great to the park and meet people. Or to the community center. Or the board game cafes. Or to the coffee shops.
Your complaints sound a lot more like complaints about life in suburbs not life in a dense urban core.
I live in NYC and though know a few ppl doesn't mean anyone would hang out with me. Really depends on your socioeconomic position and your looks
Don't think it's just the internet. Large cities make it increasingly common to not interact with strangers. My experience from living in a small town (<1k pop) to an exurb of Dallas pre-internet is very different.
Id like to just get in on this... The internet and social media makes it easier to get what u want for some people. Lots of peoples #s are up by taking advantage of it. I know its not like that for everyone but its happening
We aren't made for the modern world and the consequences of that are now really easy to see.
We aren't made for anything. We're an evolving species, and change always strains some of us more than others.
Hey, you're describing my 4,000 person small town. Things still go that way here.
I live in a 4000 small person town too!
God that sounds awful!
Its almost like some forms of technology are making things worse.
This is why I think communitarism is the future
Give me back that life, man
Fuck social media and its consequences
like thatâs ever gonna happenâŠ
-âall stars smash mouthâ start playing in n the background-
It's almost like those people were friends because there was no real alternative.
Good point
I'd put money on young people just not having money. Under 30s are overworked and don't have money or time for leisure activities.
Ya my days off consist of sitting on the couch focusing on not spending any money whatsoever
Hey its me I even make good money but this living shit is expensive
I make pretty good money all things considered, but living in the area to get this income is expensive, so essentially it's moot.
Yeah also here making the best money I ever have, but no time or somehow money to socialise. Living close enough to IT work just means spending it all on rent to live alone...
Why do you live alone then? Having some roommates would open up some cash for fun and you may meet people through your roommates!
I am actively trying to sort that. But itâs funny how much time at work takes away from my ability to meet people to broaden these options. Before knuckling down into full time work I always felt like I was spoilt for choice.
Totally understand work getting in the way. Have that issue too, even with a regular full time (no overtime). I think one of the best ways to make friends now adays is find a social hobby! I climb and have a dog so when i moved cities recently i planned to use that to meet people. Now I've met several people from the gym and dog parks that i can hang out with on weekends and weeknights.
Thanks man, Iâm really trying to push myself to get into a good hobby too. Funnily thinking climbing will be it for me!
Hell ya, climbing is such an amazing sport!
It's so fun, helps get you in great lean shape, and the community is one of the best. When you climb, you WILL have spectators, but they aren't judging you. If a V1 is hard for you, they'll cheer you on to send the route. While resting I make friends asking about their favorite places to climb outside, favorite routes/problems in the gym, or what problem they're projecting.
But how do you get from "hey we both have dogs" to "let's hang out and do X"?
hey we both have dogs
That is your first "let's hang out and do X"
A big prospect of friendship is your ability to do 'nothing' entertainingly. You stand around at a dog park, you're effectively doing nothing. You small talk with the people there and cycle through subjects to find stuff you both like and can talk about to get past the small talk. Once they enjoy interacting with you over what they would normally do, you can start interacting with them more regularly and even maybe start making other plans.
"Hey my dog needs a doggy friend, wanna take both our dogs on a hike/to the beach?"
If they ain't interested, no problem! Someone else will be. Can't be afraid of failure/rejection/ghosting. If it's someone you barely know, none of that will even bother you after experiencing it a few times.
You've only got a while while that is socially acceptable.
Fuck it man, if housing prices and rent continue to be so high, you gotta do what makes sense. I know plenty of people in their 30s still having housemates. Hell one of my housemates is a 50s-year-old mom of kids in their 20s.
Yep. Some my best friends came from having roommates.
Depending on your personality type having a roommate is been a dead loss including when it's a romantic partner (I say looking in the mirror). The older you get the less tolerance people seem to have for roommate bull shit
But even those that seem to survive having a roommate, there's an awful lot of complaining about the other person.
You gotta weigh that against the financial benefit then.
In my experience, I've had 12 roommates. Only 1 did I have major issues with and1 other that somewhat annoyed me. On the flip side, having a good roommate is really handy!
You are very fortunate then. I have had roughly the same number of roommates and after about two or three months, it was very clear that the roommate situation was a mistake.
I've had the cockroach roommate, the daughter of the landlord roommate who made very clear I was not welcome in any other part of the house than the room I was renting, various college roommate that were mismatches for a variety of reason (slobs, night owls insisting on studying noisily at night with lots of light), had a couple of not obvious alcoholic roommates and another one addicted to OxyContin. I've had property destroyed, stolen and living space definitely not respected.
Maybe I saved you from having a bunch of bad roommates.
Itâs very rare for living with roommates to not be awful
I agree here. My last 4 room mates in a row have been terrible. The worst out of all them moved out completely while I was away. Said nothing. One of the biggest shocks I've ever gotten...
Highly disagree
Either you need to pick better roommates or be a better roommate
Not necessarily, remote work had never been more common in IT. I and plenty others that I know are never going back to the office.
[deleted]
Yeah it feels like a waste of time sitting around doing nothing. So instead I sit around on Reddit....
[deleted]
Agreed. For the past like 10 years I've used reddit 5+ hours a day, until recently. I've had the past 3 weeks off it (this is my first time back), during which time I've read 3 books (2 non fiction, one fiction) and worked out 6-7 days a week. I also feel more satisfied, more present and less impulsive in general.
I miss reddit but fuck it. I would like to learn to use it whilst limiting it to particular times. For now I'm logging back out.
What are you doing here posting? Get back out there and enjoy life!
Iâm gonna have to think about this for a while haha
Being on Reddit doesn't really count as nothing, depending on how you use it. I come here to learn new things mostly, learning is being productive.
If Reddit had a tagline.
Toxic productivity. A lot of us grew up in a world where you didn't play with neighborhood friends after school, instead you were shuffled from activity to activity. Your summers filled with more school, more volunteer work, all with the goal of getting into college. At least that was the reality for me and a lot of my friends growing up in the late 90s, early 00s. We weren't allowed to do nothing so now we don't know how to.
My life wasn't like that growing up. I did a lot of just playing alone woth toys or out in the yard. I suppose I'm still "doing nothing" while out gardening. I have so little time to do nothing, that it feels like a waste of time to do nothing. If that makes sense....
It's not so bad. This is a form of socializing which if done right is very healthy.
So not WSB?
Hey, I made a little under 800k on the initial pump and dump. Then I bought Lithium. Man, the voices in my head are so much quieter now....but, I have chicken.
No reddit is a horrible place for your socialization.
Upvote/downvote system encourages people to follow the hive mind subconsciously or consciously.
You curate what you see, and vis a vis what opinions you see.
Anonymity allows people to post inflammatory comments
Demographics don't represent society.
At best, you can connect with others/expand a hobby you have outside of the internet. Like if you were into knitting, you could speak with other knitters on a subreddit dedicated to that and, learn strategies, get support, etc.
At worst it's no better than facebook in terms of misinformation and radicalization of people, leading to poor overall poor socialization.
My friends and I just sat in a diner booth and chain smoked or downed 5 cups of coffee
our generation is broke
Is a fact, relative to our parents'. We make less and living costs more. Now whether that has influenced our social lives is up for debate, but IMO the other guy made a better case that they are than you did that they aren't.
Even the additional hypotheses don't disprove his point; his statement can be right even if all those other things are contributing too.
The problem now is extremely good entertainment in the house. So no one leaves. If you want to meet people you have to leave the house. Join clubs, walk dogs and drink in bars.
I think the real problem is we avoid doing nothing in public nowadays.
I really don't know if this is as simple as you've framed it. I'm thinking of the Burning Man movement in particular. Since the 90s the Burners have been holding this particular event, AND other offshoot events across the US and around the world, and a lot of people save up their money to do this sort of thing once or twice a year, an extended camping event. It's not exactly public, and it's not exactly private either, although there is some amount of gatekeeping. But there sure is a lot of 'hanging out doing nothing' amongst people who are pretty much strangers.
It's just that Burners have found a very particular way of focusing their attention -- on their art parties. They'd rather having something very specific to work towards with that whole 'hanging out', rather than just bum around in the fucking yard or street because it's depressing as hell tbqh.
There are many "free" activities outside...but you have to be willing to go outside so there is that.
[deleted]
This so much. If something is 1 mile away and you have hours to kill why not walk there? If you can't walk there safely, is there a bus stop? Public parks exist. I know that I'm a man and am lucky to live in an area with a mild climate but look around people.
I didn't realize how true this was until I was homeless but yeah, go to the library, get a book, go somewhere nice to read it. You don't have to just settle on an ebook inside. These places are open now, damn.
Plenty of people have plenty of reasons for why they can't go out and do things that are solid barriers. How many of our barriers to that better life are the trip to the store to get something we don't actually need? How many times do we justify that as our outside time?
Go to a thrift store! You'll save money and have fun.
These morons think past generations were just swimming in extra cash, lmao.
For like two years we couldnât go sit around at a mall, or do anything social because of the covid.
Covid is an outlier and isnât represented in the graph. The issue predates it.
The reason women go out more and have more friends is simply because they are more desirable so they have more positive reinforcement and therefore more social opportunities. The avg man is worthless
I've given up on the idea of not being alone for the rest of my life, or achieving any kind of general happiness or goals. I'm just kind of coasting hoping that I just get a disease and die or something because I think that would be easier on my mother than killing myself. I don't even want to kill myself. I'm just bored and I don't like it here.
Yeah, but also your couch is indoors and you don't invite anyone over.
Pre \~ 1800s nobody had any money, but you sat on a porch or a balcony or a stoop or even just in the street. Vehicle traffic was really low almost everywhere so kids would also just be playing games like tag or ballgames in the street. As an adult you watched the kids play, and talked to the people who lived near you.
Even into the mid-20th century, large elements of this remained. You still see comedic references to the trope of two old poor people who have a relationship via shouting from out their windows across a narrow alley.
Talking to your neighbors doesn't cost any money. It just requires a strong society.
You don't really need to spend a lot of money to do anything with friends.
I'd believe this, if most people I know who bitch about not having any money didn't order UberEats and Grubhub at least four times a week.
Honestly, it seems like my friends who make under $15/hr are going out and doing more shit than my friends who make over $65k/yr.
Regarding the loneliness epidemic, we should overlay some data charts related to the obesity epidemic.
We are richer than ever armed with credit cards, eating and drinking ourselves to obesity, depression, and loneliness. Look at some of the obesity statistics. We have great restaurants, bars, and food choices everywhere now. Back in the day most things we ate were not that good or high calorie.
37.9% of men and 41.1% of women are considered to be obese in the United States. This is twice as many as three decades ago.
Source: CDC ...
That's nearly 50% of people which means nearly or more than 50% of people may be overweight instead of obese. That can affect social/dating life.
And of course atomizing of viewpoints, beliefs, diets (keto vs vegan etc. etc.), tribal politics, covid19, all these things can also factor into this multivariate analysis of less relationships and communications with strangers.
People have become less tolerant of dissenting viewpoints too.
[deleted]
Yeah I had Republican friends in high school and college but I would never be friends with someone that actively identifies as a Republican now. How could you be friends with someone who would vote for Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis?
So much for the fabled tolerant left
/s
You jest but that is indeed the end game. R demanding tolerance from D while being intolerant themselves. Leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance where D can, did and will only lose as long as they keep trying to prove how tolerant they are.
That's my point.
Seriously, when the difference is:
"Gee, it sure would be nice if billionaires paid more taxes so we can have a functioning society with real services and actual equality and equity"
vs.
"Anyone one millimeter to the left of me is a Communist terrorist Feminazi n**-loving POS and I can't wait to kill them in the coming Civil War"
the decision to cut the crazy out of one's life is fairly simple.
The fact that you think most Republicans are like this shows how politically insulated Americans are.
Miss me with that shit.
74 Million Republicans voted for Trump, racism, theocracy, obstructionism, and naked fascism.
They saw 4 years of that shit and doubled down.
4 years of open cronyism.
4 years watching scumbags go to jail for real crimes only for Trump to pardon them for the favors they did him (so much for law and order).
4 years of completely childish un-Presidential behavior from a bloated, demented toddler.
4 years of criminality, including an actual attempt to strongarm another country into making up a baseless investigation against his political opponent.
Ya'll looked at that and decided you wanted more?
Every single Republican is now the Enemy, the die cast by your own hand.
And right now trump is the 2024 frontrunner so far again. I do have a question to you. Do you think biden is also the enemy or is he a hero?
Why do righties always try to pull the Biden card as if leftists donât hate him more and with better reasoning than the right?
Idk I'm a leftist I was testing them to find out if they were a liberal or not.
[deleted]
I'm a dude working in high frequency trading as an engineer. I vote Socialist in the primaries (like most of my nearest coworkers) and Democratic in the general. Why do we do this? Because this country is fucked and we need to return to at least FDR's economic policies which ushered in the greatest period of economic growth and social stability this country has ever seen. Will all of us get severely impacted by higher taxes? Sure. But do we really need $300K per year instead of $250K per year? That $50K from each of us (on average) would go a long way to solving this nation's troubles. And yes, many of us don't actually want a Socialist to win the primary. But the more extreme you vote in the primary in aggregate, the more you can influence moving the Overton Window which moves the entire party.
I'm not exactly happy with Biden, but he's at least tried to put us back on the right course as a nation even as the Republican appointed judges try to stop him.
[deleted]
Dude, if I was making "only" $100K/year I'd be a -lot- happier. And most proposals I've seen really only start that level of tax pain at $400K+. So most of us wouldn't even take that much of a tax hit, if any at all.
Going from my defense industry job ($77K/yr) to my first HFT job ($135K/yr) to my second HFT job (way more) was absolutely liberating at each job change. From the first job to the second, I went from wondering how we'd ever afford a home and children to feeling like it could work. And from the second to the third, is like all money concerns have disappeared. I just want everyone in the richest nation on Earth to be similarly liberated. If that means that I get to keep less of what I earn because of taxes, so be it. It's not like I really need it while there are people living on the streets because the social safety nets have been destroyed.
not just a lowered tolerance for opposing viewpoints, but also that opposing viewpoints are increasingly extreme.
proceeds to bash one viewpoint as extreme and ignores all others
This is the exact problem people in this thread are complaining about. Aparently we just can't help ourselves, can we?
So what other views mught you call extreme then?
There are plenty of extreme views on the other side of the aisle. Wealth redistribution, gender malleability, modern monetary theory, and the ACAB/defund the police movement are a few. And of course I think imposing vaccination mandates on the general population at the federal level is an extreme view.
Those weren't really part of my point though. I don't deny that there are extreme views on both sides of the aisle. However, I think characterizing the entire Republican base as extremists is itself an extreme view, which is what I was referring to. My main point was that I find it ironic how many people in this thread want to complain that we have less tolerance of opposing viewpoints, while having no tolerance for opposing viewpoints. It seems to me that most people don't actually want more tolerance of other views, they just want them to go away.
And of course I think imposing vaccination mandates on the general population at the federal level is an extreme view.
Back when they rolled out the Smallpox vaccine this was seen as ordinary and acceptable. It was mandatory for over 80% of the population and enforced by police. Smallpox no longer exists in the wild on the Earth and has been entirely eliminated outside of lab samples.
You're half wrong. And the other half is irrelevant.
A) Laws passed by vote in a legislature are not the same as mandates.
B) There have been state and local vaccine laws, but there has never been a vaccine mandate at the federal level.
C) Smallpox killed 1/3 of everyone who caught it, and was particularly dangerous to children. Covid has a survival rate of >97% for people age 70+, and >99% for everyone else. That is before vaccination, not after. They are not comparable diseases in any way.
D) Smallpox is eradicated because the Smallpox vaccine prevented transmission and viral replication. The covid vaccine doesn't do either of those things, you can still get and transmit covid if you're vaccinated. Recent studies show no significant statistical difference between viral load in vaccinated and unvaccinated. The vaccine is effective at reducing chances of severe illness, but it will never eradicate covid.
Smallpox is eradicated because the Smallpox vaccine prevented transmission and viral replication. The covid vaccine doesn't do either of those things, you can still get and transmit covid if you're vaccinated. Recent studies show no significant statistical difference between viral load in vaccinated and unvaccinated. The vaccine is effective at reducing chances of severe illness, but it will never eradicate covid.
Wow. You... wow. Just wow. It's like you don't understand vaccines at all or the studies that came out. A 33% reduction in vial load is massive which is what the studies for the COVID vaccines have found. They've also found significantly reduced durations of active infections. Also, the Smallpox vaccine wasn't perfect because no vaccine was perfect. It worked because we reached herd immunity at which point Smallpox struggled to spread just as is happening with COVID-19 in cities like Chicago, NYC, and San Francisco where vaccination rates are extremely high right now.
It worked because we reached herd immunity at which point Smallpox struggled to spread
Smallpox was eliminated by a global vaccination campaign that focused on containing outbreaks by vaccinating nearby populations to prevent the disease from spreading. It worked specifically because the vaccine confers immunity and prevents transmission (and because Smallpox only infects humans, making it easy to track). Once again, the covid vaccine does not prevent transmission or confer immunity, it only reduces risk of severe illness. Please, elaborate on how we will eradicate a rapidly mutating respiratory virus with vaccines that don't confer immunity or prevent transmission and that lose 50% of their effectiveness in 5 months.
Yup. Go look at developing nations. They're waaay fitter than you fat US fucks. Imperialist losers
...add to this the unattainable expectations of many. If he/she isn't an Insta-model...many prefer to go without.
I honestly don't think it's related to money. I was poor as hell and dating in like 2015, and typically I would match with someone on Tinder and then get coffee or walk in the park. Many of the dates ended up as friends or even ghosting later, and some of them ended up as a relationship or sexual encounter. In general the CPF (cost per fuck) was probably in the range of a few dollars.
Sex is free and dependent on chemistry more than money spent. The money is just to give you an excuse to meet each other. I imagine the lack of sex has more to do with a lack of social skills or time spent doing other things.
"CPF" is a hilarious metric. Thanks a lot. ;)
you can't generalize your experience to other people.
my first thought after reading this was that you are either average+ girl or extremely attractive guy. most other people are way more likely to hook up in random real-life encounters than online actually.
I just posted earlier how tinder fucking sucks for dudes who rely on conversation and being a fun person to be around. Sure if you are a top 5% dude, tinder fucking rocks, but if you aren't it jusy hurts you. The same dude can talk to so many women at once and can schedule individual interactions with them all, while making sure they never even know about each other.
It was much harder to do that when everyone was at the bar. Can't talk to 5 women at the same time without them knowing. Sure you will take 1 home, but 4 other women are available to chat with now. Tinder is like naw this one dude handling all 5.
I understand this is blown out of proportion, but it definitely is happening to an extent.
edit2: i think i completely missed your point the first time i read it... now i understand it so that you actually give explanation to why tinders sucks rather than what the advantages are... so the rest of the response is not relevant
this really made me laugh.
if you are at the stage that you are talking to 5 different girls you already won. and it doesn't matter if you are interacting in real life or online.
the problem that rest of us have is that we are simply unable to initiate any interaction online whatsoever. just see the posts of people that post their tinder stats in this sub... it's usually something like 10 conversations per 100k swipes and half of them are bots.
edit: maybe the landscape changed since I was doing these kind of things and tinder also changed their algo, but what i wrote above was fully consistent with my experience. i literally had better chance to just chat up a girl while waiting for a bus, however creepy that is, than initiate any reaction online.
The last study on Tinder that I saw was that only 30% of men got 90% of matches from women and the other 70% got 10% of matches from women.
interesting. so essentially tinder makes it less fair environment for people to interact...
even in a real-life situation, say, singles bar, there would obviously be hot people, average people and bellow average people. but they all have roughly the same chance to interact with each other and even less physically attractive person can get a chance to show themselves as charming. on tinder bellow average people simply never get a chance and average people will be almost always ghosted as long as at least one attractive person is willing to interact... which leaves the attractive people with many more options they would get in the real world and everone else can sit at home...
Exactly and this is something I felt immediately when tinder released. It sucks.
Nah, everyone was fucking way more in the â90s for the price of a couple of Bacardi Breezers.
The person literally said 2015 on tinder, not 90s in person buying people drinks. Did you respond to the wrong person?
[deleted]
Dating apps objectively weed out anyone without a quality, attractive looking account there is tons of research on this. After getting matches sure, itâs all social skills, but getting a match is almost 100% how attractive you are and women having 90%+ match rates means they have inflated standards and even choice paralysis. Thereâs tons of information about this online.
[deleted]
Dating apps aren't the only way to date
For some of us they pretty much are/were. Back when I was still on the dating scene, I tried taking up tennis, went to a local bar for karaoke weekly, and still had trouble. Given my background I just didn't have well-developed social skills and had no one to vouch for me - I had just moved to a new city for work and didn't know anybody, and building a social network takes time, something twenty-somethings generally don't think they have (obviously this wasn't true).
I think the problem is there are increasingly more people for whom dating apps are really their only 'in' to entering the dating pool or even meeting people in general. Or at least that's the perception.
I agree with you that people have to get out of their own heads and try, and use a good approach to have a real shot, which isn't necessarily as intuitive as it might seem to some people. For most straight men, the intuitive thing to do has become to stay home and watch Netflix by themselves or have 'weak' hobbies (for meeting women) like video games, board games, technology, and don't go out to bars or do anything because that costs money.
I think part of the problem is many men go into online dating thinking it's a sure-thing, surefire way to meet somebody as long as they put in some effort and aren't a total creeper. It's not. Not remotely - if you're a moderately attractive man with only average-quality pictures, and a slightly-above-average profile, you'll likely only get a few matches for every hundred or more swipes you make. Almost certainly less than a 2% match rate, and probably closer to 1%.
There needs to be more reasonably expectations of online dating - the 'proper way' to date needs to be better-defined and more clearly articulated/visible online. Build skills, develop hobbies, get fit, be physically out in the world often (you should do things like go grocery shopping, go on walks, leave the house at least once a day). Engage socially with strangers, but not just just young women (that will come across as creepy). There are just so many things I wish I could say to my early-twenty self that I see in younger male friends, nephews, etc.
Online dating is super hard. I only met two people in person - and the second one became my wife. I freely admit that my social skills are inherently lacking (Iâm on the high-functioning end of the Aspergerâs spectrum) and Iâd be screwed without online dating platforms.
[deleted]
No? And I donât know why you would make that assumption.
The main comment thread here started by papasmurf is directly regarding dating apps so saying âyou can find dates outside of dating appsâ isnât a valid response. I never said you canât get matches if youâre not hyper-attractive, but the vast majority of people on swipe-based dating apps determine left/right based on looks, not personality. Youâre not wrong, but you seem to have a very PMA bootstraps mentality about it, even when you yourself say dating apps arenât ideal, which is exactly what Iâm saying.
Because you are pretty articulate and exceed the normative comment length of phones. Oh well, I was just excited to maybe run into someone else who uses the old ways.
Anyways, that's quite black and white of you to except that conversational segues exist. Sure, that's what Papasmurf was saying two or three comments prior, but another comment was made (paraphrasing, the idea was "You must be extremely attractive because only extremely attractive guys get matches") and I replied to that with a contrarian "it's more about personality than you think," and then you came in with
Dating apps objectively weed out anyone without a quality, attractive looking account
to which I did reply with a digression while also covering the base with
it's still quite possible to get matches even if you aren't the hottest person objectively
and this is normal in conversation and I don't see how digression is 'invalid', although I would agree with a bit skew, sure. I lost some context across the time of our exchange, apologies.
But otherwise, at the risk of sounding boomerish with the PMA mentality, but I do think that this actually works with dating. I can really only offer anecdote from my life and people hate this so I won't, but personally, having this sort of outlook and mentality in dating has been extremely successful for me and like I said, I don't think I'm objectively that handsome. Any time I got down on myself like that, dates dried up and I felt the loop sort of set. I just think that, socially speaking from dating to just making friends, any mentality that is 'I'm too weird or not attractive or this person won't like me,' is like a weird sort of self fulfilling prophecy and makes socialising an uphill battle. People can sort of sense desperation and I think associate it with hidden intentions.
It's hard to describe. Feels like it comes from the same place as the sort of sudden overcritical examination that causes one to choke at a clutch moment in a team game when a win is on the line and you come out of the flow, or fall while trying to perform a balancing feat, or takes you out of a piece of music you are playing. There are also studies that prove this phenomenon involving taking people in various disciplines and telling them prior to performing tasks that they were good at them or bad at them, and it turns out that such psychology has significantly appreciable results.
Anyways it seems like we mostly agree and are splitting hairs on something that's not that important tbh. I just sort of mention this stuff only rarely in the hope that someone who is feeling down about dating or whatever might glean something from it but it's probably just weird and out of touch for me to think that anyone can take anything from me and have anything in their life improved.
I agree that a PMA is good, but in the same way that âjust sucking it up and dealing with itâ is sometimes the only choice we have, it doesnât mean we canât also critique the systems in which we exist or those that we use. Yes, there are techniques to market yourself on dating apps that work and itâs better to have a good attitude than to quit, because you canât win if you quit. But that doesnât mean the frameworks themselves donât have skews, and when you throw in computers and algorithms, skews can become quite apparent, as computers deal only with raw data.
This is an engaging video on the topic if you wanna take the time to watch: https://youtu.be/X31izD4du38
Sure, but critiquing is different from insinuating one can't participate because of an absolutions perception that isn't true, that was the hook to me. :)
The framework of course has skews, and I think they're apparent, I just don't think it's valuable to mentally ostracise oneself because things are difficult.
I'll give it a glance. Oh, this is long but it sounds like it's going to be fun. I'll go ahead and give you fifteen minutes of my time and get back to you.
I feel like thatâs the exact misunderstanding conservatives have when they think liberals/leftists are racist for pointing out racial disparities in our system. Nobody is saying black people canât be successful, simply that the barriers that exist due to the framework of the system, makes it much harder for those individuals, to an unfair point.
Once they get to the soup simulator it loses some relevance but her overview of algorithms is basically what Iâm talking about.
I didn't take you critiquing the system as you saying you can't participate, I took that other person saying they can't as someone saying they can't participate. I also didn't suggest you shouldn't critique the system, I merely see the critique as skew to my initial idea that having a negative self mentality is a successful approach to dating.
Thusly I don't think its the same as when conservatives think liberals are saying they're racist for pointing out racial disparities; although ironically going to this argument because someone has a different perspective with something sort of is like that.
And again, I get that you're saying 'the framework makes being a less attractive male difficult' but again, I'm not arguing that, I adequately understand this and agree with you.
Honestly I think itâs more about personality than looks and sort of the trick is to get to where you genuinely donât think stuff like this because if you think âthey must have sex because theyâre more attractive than me and Iâm just not attractive,â or some paraphrase itâs sort of self defeating.
That was my original comment, which doesn't have any bearing on being gatekeeped by algorithms any which way. You're free to critique ~it~dating apps and their negative qualities, I will however keep asserting that this critique is skew of my idea, which is about the psychology I find successful for dating; which I think is true regardless of the framework of how rigged the odds are by algorithms.
I'm going to keep this open box for notes:
Admittedly, this is really interesting because I just spent the last year without a computer due to some weird circumstances, and interacting with YouTube beyond necessity is a novelty for me right now.
I've felt quite jaded about YouTubers and the ecosphere in the past but like the presenter and find her refreshingly authentic. She reminds me of when my wife was working in academia.
Monet seems like a really cool approach to dating apps and like it also prises open a tonne of ideas for new design space that is intriguing.
Haha, there's an ELO system, wow that's interesting, sad, and today I learned.
I really liked the notice about parasocial relationships.
Wow shit she's talented, she's where I am aiming to be in a year or two: Able to basically create dumb games with assets that I made myself.
Ouch unfortunately that broke down, still talented though.
Well, that was interesting and inspiring. I did learn about the ELO system, I think that was new information to me.
Out of curiosity, what do you do or study?
You're not necessarily wrong, but you're acting like it's a hard-coded fact of the universe, like some sort of caste system. The fact is the vast majority of people are a habit-change and a makeover away from being above average. If you're fat and wear shapeless T-shirts and don't floss, you're gonna default to be less attractive than practically everyone else who isn't fat, wears stylish outfits, and maintains proper hygiene. All of these things are in the control of the individual. The point of my comment about my dating experiences was that you don't need to spend money on a date to have a good time, but people who don't want to put the work into themselves will use money as an excuse not to even try.
i see...
so everyone who gets "swiped left" just should get better personality.
Generalizing their experience is exactly what every poster on this topic seems to have done, though. The reality is that inflation-adjusted median incomes have increased substantially over the course of the period in the original chart, so âwe have less moneyâ is pretty obviously a poor explanation of why Americans have less sex.
Another factor that seems like it would just be social skills but isn't is unresolved childhood trauma, especially of a sexual nature.
I can socialize and build friendships with wide swaths of people. But when it comes to romance...lets just say the contours of my soul have been so frazzled that I don't gel well romantically, or at least didn't before my salvation in 2020.
I'm sure that has an effect, but it doesn't really account for the disparity versus previous generations. I'm not sure child abuse has gotten worse, and actually I think it's probably gotten better over time.
I'm not sure to what degree child abuse impacts the trend of this graph - I was making the statement that sometimes what appears to be poor social skills is actually unresolved trauma.
I'm also not convinced child abuse has gotten better over time, mental illnesses across the board have been rising linearly from 1920 to today. Granted child abuse isn't the only cause of mental illness, but it is a significant and serious cause.
Is that rise since 1920 just due to better diagnosing criteria? In 1920 we didn't even have a concept of ADHD.
That is unlikely. The study that found this trend was using the same series of diagnostic tests (The MMPI and MMPI-II). For the illnesses that were being tracked (Depression, Schizophrenia, Psychopathic Deviance) net increases were found. If increases in accuracy of diagnosis were taking place the increase is unlikely to have accounted for all of the variance these analyses found.
How about as society we admit that most people don't want to take a random home or go to a rando's home to fuck. People get an idea that just because characters in TV shows need storylines and change partners constantly means that most actual humans live or want to live like that (and that they, for maybe being hesitant are somewhat wrong). Hookup culture is designed to take advantage of people and get people to spend money.
People want intimacy but physical intimacy is only skin deep. Everyone should be able to lovconsensually. But expecting me to want to fuck strangers is just as insane as wanting arranged marriages for everyone. How about we meet people where they are and don't let capitalism dictate how we express our most human of emotions?
Hookup culture is designed to take advantage of people and get people to spend money.
I'm not defending hookup culture or online dating (which have both largely negatively warped intersexual dynamics), but it's far cheaper to engage in hookup culture than long term relationships and marriage/family --- especially if you're a man. Arguably marriage is designed to make people spend money (when compared to hookup culture).
You save so much more money by avoiding LTR's and marriage/family. The expectations from your partner stay low, the gifts are not extravagant or consistently growing in cost. You go out to eat far less when not in an LTR as well; you see people on your terms. It's hard for me to think of a larger financial cost sink than the rat race of starting a family and keeping up with the Jones's. Obviously not everyone will engage in that behavior but the cost differential between that and hookup culture isn't even close IMO.
Lol I donât think marriage is designed to -spend money.- I mean married people do spend money but itâs not like thatâs what marriages are for, both people spent money before and honestly I reckon I spend less being married as many of our costs become shared like rent and utilities.
The average cost of a wedding is rapidly approaching $30K. Even with Chicago's cost of living, that's almost 2 years of rent at the median rental price.
Yes, but that sounds more like a perversion of marriage than the purpose of marriage. The purpose of marriage, at least as I understand it, was and is to enter into union with a loving relationship with one's spouse that was a reflection of the Holy Trinity, which naturally leads to the creation of kids.
Marriage existed long before modern religions and is not a holy ceremony unless you're religious.
How is hookup culture meant to get people to spend money excepting Tinder et al as paid services for finding people (which I consider a service not a culture and would consider that I participated in âhooking upâ sans Tinder)?
Yeah, super comes across as "our generation has it uniquely tough" while on the graph the GFC and like 4 other crashes or whatever are visible. Also, your youth does tend to be the time you work balls to the wall to establish yourself and has been for decades. Also the difference is higher in men and if it was to do with being too busy with work, well, women's workforce participation has never been higher. Doesn't really pass the smell test.
In my opinion, it could only be either social media or the advent of the internet/smartphones, as the graph takes off around 2008. That's also right around the time internet porn actually started getting good, so maybe that 17% of men get enough satisfaction from HD amateur titties.
There was always a ton of porn around but 2008 really was when tubesites took off. Post GFC people basically stopped paying for porn.
Trying to find porn before 2008 was a sad affair. Everything was either over-produced, fake as hell, or grainy as shit. It hasn't been until recently where you could see HD photos of regular people that they've taken themselves. That's gotta fill the needs of at least some people who would have otherwise gone out into the world seeking companionship.
Personally I think the growth of dating apps make things more difficult.
Bringing a date back to your parents place, or attempted coitus in a small car probably adds to the statistic
Turns out sex is free.
You obviously didn't read the fine print. There's always strings attached to that shit
âspecially when youâre fucking a marionette
Technically sex is super expensive unless you are either a.) sterile and immune to all stds, or b.) willing to shell out a quarter or so for a condom.
If you go with b.) sex is super cheap. but not free. But then you can only choose b.) if you are not an utter moron - and there's like 30% of the population that can't seem to clear that bar.
Look at this guy that doesnât realize there are plenty of places to get free condoms. That bar must be harder to clear than you thought.
Is it really free if you pay gas to go there?
Is sex really free if you burn calories while doing it?
If you couldn't get a bus to give you an anonymous ride to planned parenthood, then not one would go to planned parenthood. Just hop on the back of the bus like someone in an old-timey movie. Wave your fedora in one hand as you sail off to the bowls of free condoms (companies will mail them too).
whoosh. u/Yes_hes_that_guy missing the point like a pro.
Nah just pointing out that the point youâre trying to make is stupid.
You think that using condoms is stupid?
Yeah try changing the point of your comment because someone pointed out how stupid your actual point was.
Uh huh. What actually happened was that my original point about the importance of using condoms went straight over your head. Then, you felt very clever about pointing out that you could get free condoms as opposed by paying 25 cents for one - as if that's a difference most anyone on here cares about. Now you're going to keep patting yourself on your back about how you pointed out that someone was wrong by 25 cents, rather than acknowledging that you utterly missed the original point because you're an idiot who lacks the humility to ever improve.
There is no such thing as a free thing. do you make yourself the condoms? If your answer is no, you got thanks somebody (taxes) paid for you.
Free things: sun, wind... etc
âThereâs no such thing as a free thing. Hereâs a list of free things.â
The bar just keeps getting lowered.
There is no such thing as Free- there is always a cost- ergo there would be no entropy... unless you've figured out a way to bypass time?
I made my point. You know it
Naw u gotta buy it dinner
That doesn't fit the data on incomes. 25-34 year olds have weekly incomes adjusted for inflation at an all time high in America.
16 to 24 year olds are close to the same, but that's biased by the increase in college attendance. 16 to 24 year olds averaged 4 years experience before. Now it's more like 1.5 years average.
Young people have never had any money.
Q: Hey, wanna go do activity?
A: I can barely afford to breathe đđđ„Č
But there are two sides to this:
Also obesity
Trust me it's not about the money - in my small European country we would, even as adults, pool a couple dollars for food + drinks and then just hang out, cook, drink, listen to music, and socialize. If somebody didn't have money, we spot him; and then when we don't have money, they spot us. It's a trusting bond.
How do you think Gopniks socialize?
I can't imagine trying to have a good time with friends if you only have $3 to your name in the U.S., though.
Lol in Russia we had beer, the park, and cards. When it was bad outside we had beer, someone's tiny dorm or apartment, and cards. And we, you know, talked to each other about things. Life the universe and weather, ya know?
Blaming the internet is always an easy way out imo. Sure, its not perfect, but it's a symptom of the disconnections and alienations of late capitalism, not the cause of social issues.
I think itâs a negative feedback loop.
I hope this is some premium satire
[deleted]
stubbed my toe this morning...damn capitalism.
But sex is free*
So tiresome to hear itâs about money in every thread like this. Itâs not about money believe me.
This, working 9-10 hour days Plus all the other shit that needs to get done = zero time for fun. Lets not even talk about how hard it is to get time off from a corporate job these days... Lets not blame the internet for things that are caused by the boomers before us.
[deleted]
just because it was not about being poor for you does not mean its not for others. My fiance litterally left saying shes onlyy doing it to be with someone who could afford to buy her and her mom a house so they can be close to each other and live a life thats not paycheck to paycheck. Sure that could have been BS but im sure not all of it was.
Either way, im willing to bet you weren't poor to begin with.
I'm too fucking broke to take myself out for a nice meal or fun experience, and have been since I became and adult. I don't bother asking people to do things and always turn down event invites because I cant afford that shit.
i dont want to live this life anymore dogs get treated better than us right now
Like all the unemployed people right now?
Thatâs a ridiculous theory. Im pretty sure people had friends 200 years ago, mate.
I feel like technology has to have played a role. Social media, smartphones, even just online communication. Just think about how prevalent, even pervasive it is these days compared to 15 or 30 years ago. I don't see how a species can make such a major shift in technology/communication/interaction without experiencing some unforeseen consequences.
Thatâs been true since the industrial revolution, mate.
I feel like thatâs kind of a cop- out for a lot of people :/
Like, I lived in a communal home/apt setting for several years; with people slowly leaving as they became more financially able. And this was in literally one of Americaâs most expensive places to live.
Maybe when young people all try to live in the hottest and most expensive city around; yeah that is hard. Move to some Middle-grade town/city and save your money up with some friends as you build skillsâŠ
People worked all day 50 to 15,000 years ago, yet managed to crush it enough to outpace a 60% child mortality rate.
Ya but sex is free bro... you dont need money.
Having friends and fucking are both free. There's plenty of things to do that are free.
Lol, there have always been poor people who work hard, yet they had time for friends, community engagement, etc.
As opposed to who, the previous generations who were rolling in it?
There are plenty of things that don't require money, or very little. And as far as time goes, I still went out 1x a week when I was working 100+ hrs/week during residency.
I suspect much of this is due to internet dating surplanting going out to bars, etc. In those situations, people lose inhibition and hook up, or at least talk to someone, which has a much higher success rate than swiping a phone.
This ainât it chief. These kind of excuses are called rationalizations.
The problem is the people who see the world in a different way now are seeing the world as pure insanity. The bubbles we have now divide reality and fantasy.
I have so much problem learning to be okay with people who think I'm a Satan worshipping psychopath who wants to eat babies and destroy america.
It used to be those strange people were severely mentally ill but now it is a huge chunk of people who agree with a mainstream political ideology and that's nuts to me. Like, dude, there's no way in hell I can be friends with anyone who thinks so little of me by default and is happy when people die that don't look like them
I think there were definitely periods in the past when people were as politically divided if not more (civil rights and vietnam war protests come to mind). It's just that the division is much more visible.
But I think the actual rise in loneliness is not primarily a product of political polarization but other socioeconomic factors.
I mean, politics matter but they always have. I don't think it's really much worse now that it has been, and that you're right: it's just more visible. Maybe it is, but yeah, I don't think that's the core of the issue. After all, at worst you'd be looking at losing maybe a third of your potential friendpool (simply assuming thirds each of right/left/don't care), possibly offset by being more attractive to others in your category.
I think r/memtiger 's comment about how people are being so much more selective, coupled with friendships being made online primarily being vastly weaker and easier to break (they're based on the "you" you choose to project vs the "you" you really are, and your interpretation of the "them" your would-be friend is projecting, vs who they really are.
We build these weaker online friendships, don't bother making in person friendships or valuing them sufficiently, then we end up alone with lots of social media "friends" we don't really know at all ... And often these friendships are in fact mostly one-sided
My real answer is this :
Social media can have a bit of an impact on people's unrealistic standards, whether they are physical, of shared interest, political or even education level.
But I feel like the atomizing force at play is the disparition of institutions which would previously push people to socialize. I'm thinking of churches, unions, associations, political parties for adults, but also clubs, affordable extra-curricular activities for younger people.
It's complicated to attribute all those social trends to one thing but a lot of the functions previously attributed to communities (religious, political, associative or even welfare) were relegated to the state after WWII and then defunded in the 1980s/1990s with the rise of neoliberal politics and the focus on restrictive budgetary policies (austerity) which primarily targeted those institutions which weren't seen as cost-effective. This is because investment in things like sport and art clubs doesn't bring immediate fiscal or economic outcomes and there isn't any KPI by which to measure the social benefits of those institutions.
Ideally, investing in public services that strengthen the social fabric such as the ones cited above as well as giving more legitimacy to community organizing would be a good way to adress it.
âSocioâ doing a lot of work there. Nothings stopping people from joining the Elks. They just donât.
I don't want to assume anything about the person you responded to, but you are right. Right wing people love to complain about how left wing people don't tolerate their views, won't be friends with them, and won't date them.
They don't seem to grasp that people don't want to tolerate you when at best you want to take away rights from myself or people I care about (woman, minorities, and LGBTQ people) and at worst you want those people to be dead.
I can be friends with someone who wants to debate the best way to combat climate change. I can't with someone who wants to deregulate environmental protections that will slowly kill the planet.
That is actually one of the main strategies of divisive activism, accuse your opponents of strawpoints. X politician is against abortion? Well, she/he just hates women. Somebody said that trans-women have physical advantages in sports? A transphobic bigot who hates LGBT people.
I get that: you want to befriend people who have an ideological affinity with you. That's literally the point of the comment, people isn't tolerant of diversity of thought anymore. You're one of them.
I can be friends with someone who wants to debate the best way to combat climate change. I can't with someone who wants to deregulate environmental protections that will slowly kill the planet.
This is one example. You don't actually want to debate with someone the best way to combat climate change, you want somebody to actively agree with your previously formed opinion on the topic. There are several papers arguing about how the market fights against climate change and especially pollution as a mean to reduce negative externalities and to fulfill needs from climate-conscious customers (Tesla is one example). But it doesn't fit with your socioeconomic ideology, so you automatically label that academic discussion as "scientists wanting to slowly kill the planet".
1) banning abortion is removing womenâs rights. So yes, anyone who supports abortion bans is trying to remove rights.
2) Iâve happily debated Trans-athlete issues with people before. I honestly donât think there is a correct or simple view/solution to that. So not the best example to use. I wonât tolerate people who attack trans people right to exist, and right to be employed, and right to go to businesses.
3) I absolutely do and you somehow have taken a random guess at my stance and then also said I want people to agree with it and wonât listen to anyone else. I agree with you at least partially the market can help solve climate change which I think is what you are trying to say. Itâs why I support carbon taxes to help internalize the external costs of carbon use. I also think the government can create incentives to encourage private development of solutions to climate issues. But that doesnât mean I think itâs ok for someone to want to start drilling new oil wells in national parks or loosen regulations on oil wells so companies can make more profit and just hope we donât continue to have massive oil spills.
banning abortion is removing womenâs rights. So yes, anyone who supports abortion bans is trying to remove rights.
The other side says that allowing abortion is removing both women and men rights (more accurately, the right to live), so, why can't we agree that it's a divisive topic with good-hearted people at both ends of the discussion? I guess that it's more easy to say "you don't agree with me so you're an anti-rights đĄ"
2) Iâve happily debated Trans-athlete issues with people before. I honestly donât think there is a correct or simple view/solution to that. So not the best example to use. I wonât tolerate people who attack trans people right to exist, and right to be employed, and right to go to businesses
You're creating yet another strawman. Besides, sports is not a form of employment for many people? You all are full of contradictions but yet you act like you've any moral superiority.
) I absolutely do and you somehow have taken a random guess at my stance and then also said I want people to agree with it and wonât listen to anyone else. I agree with you at least partially the market can help solve climate change which I think is what you are trying to say. Itâs why I support carbon taxes to help internalize the external costs of carbon use. I also think the government can create incentives to encourage private development of solutions to climate issues. But that doesnât mean I think itâs ok for someone to want to start drilling new oil wells in national parks or loosen regulations on oil wells so companies can make more profit and just hope we donât continue to have massive oil spills.
You just said that you won't debate with somebody who wants to deregulate as a form to incentivize an alternative path to fight against climate change but suddenly you're open to debate. Another contradiction.
You're assuming that I support economic deregulation as an effective tool to fight climate change. You're debating the wrong person.
Oil wells in national parks is a matter of propertary rights. You can't drill (or build, trespass, destroy, transform, etcetera) in somebody else property without credible authorization, no matter what regulations to the oil industry there is
forcing someone to let a fetus leach off them is a violation of their right to bodily autonomy
[removed]
explain why its a dumb take, because unless you think contraception is 100 percent effective then you dont have a counter argument. You also seem to think i have a problem with the concept of carrying young until birth which means you might be retarded
[removed]
well if you consent to its not a leech is it
I don't only understand that, but I also fully agree. I support abortion, mostly because I don't want the State having any kind of power over citizen bodies (the same reason about why I'm against obligatory vaccination of adults).
But I also see the other side arguments. Of course I won't argue with somebody defending slavery because "state rights" or some bullshit, but being against abortion is not something controversial at all. There are GOOD arguments in the pro-life movement. These arguments convince a lot of people. Abortion is literally a philosophical debate nowadays, one side argues that the right to live is more important than the right to freely dispose of your property while the other side argues that either the right of property is more important or that they're both equally important so that the decision of continuing the pregnancy falls over the individual with the capacity to decide and consent.
There are other diverging points from the discussion (such as at what point a fetus is considered an independent human life), but at the end, the discussion stays in the same point. Is more valuable the right of that cluster of cells to develop into a human life or is more valuable the right of the woman to decide over her body?
The point is, there is no a single POV in the abortion debate. No side is morally superior to the other, pro-life people don't hate women and pro-choice people don't hate kids.
Ah yes, one of the corner stones of the right-wing ideology. "Kill all women". Sure.. đ
So first, I suppose I should ignore the alt-right incels that literally do want to kill women. I know I said âat worstâ but I guess those are just too terrible. I mean weâve only seen like half a dozen terrorist attacks by them.
But letâs ignore them and not lump them into the religious conservatives that do want to kill LGBT people and/or remove their rights. Which you donât address at all, is it because you know conservative âvaluesâ often involve hating LGBTQ people?
And donât want to lump them into the racist conservatives who want to kill minorities and/or remove their rights. Only like a dozen or so state level GOP congresses and governors have passed laws to try to make it harder for minorities to vote. But letâs not lump that all together with the conservatives who literally shoot a black jogger or the officials who tried to cover it up till a video surfaced. But you also didnât address that in your comment so I suppose you know conservatives and racism go hand in hand.
And I mean, conservatives biggest âwedgeâ issue is abortion. A majority of self described republicans support banning or increasing restrictions on that. So it would be hard to argue that not a conservative value removing womenâs rights. So glad you didnât argue that point. What really interesting is a live birth is 45x more like to lead to death than an abortion. Also when abortion is illegal, many people still get them, just insanely leading to many women dying unnecessarily. Seems like supporting abortions bans is actually supporting killing women.
You've really need to take a second look at the people and ideas around you. You're imagining face-eating demons where there are actually just people who think differently from you.
What did I say that was âface eating demonsâ? All my accusations are factual accusations of things conservative people have done or believe.
They are not accurate for every single conservative, because they are still people who vary in beliefs. I never said I was refusing to be friends with someone who believes in a small efficient government. Just people with the beliefs I described. I canât help that a majority of conservatives hold some of those beliefs. I canât help that even if they donât hold the beliefs personally they will still vote for politicians that do.
By that standard you could just as easily declare all lefties in support of genocide, gulags, and any war they can get their hands on.
Iâm not talking about world politics. Iâm talking about US politics.
No democrat currently elected in the US has ever created a gulag so no person voting for democrats has ever voted for that. The closest in modern history was internment camps under FDR. If I met someone who spoke favorably of those, I also wouldnât want to be friends with them.
On the other hand like I said in my original comments many Republican candidates have limited voting of minorities by attempting to make voting harder. Many have tried (and sometimes succeeded) in passing laws to limit LGBTQ rights. You canât give US lefties credit for Stalinâs gulags, because thatâs not a thing they did or support. I am only talking about issues that exist in the US and peopleâs beliefs and voting record on those.
I know âconservativeâ people who want a small efficient government, who want to own guns and smoke weed. Theyâve voted for some of the few sane republicans and theyâve voted for democrats as well. Iâm fine with that.
What the hell are you on about. You literally say a regular birth is 45x more dangerous/likely to kill a baby, than an actual abortion?
I don't even know how to reply to such stupidity.
You are just screaming "conservative" at people.
I don't see why people even think LQBTQ stuff has a place in politics past the fact it should be protected by both parties.
It definitely shouldn't be the reason you vote for a particular though, there are just to many more really important issues that should be more important to the idea of "whos going to run the country?" than "if they are nice to LGBTQ" or if they are going to impose more pro LGBTQ legislation.
Just like BLM, LGBTQ is also being used by communists to further their agendas, from within the country. All these identity politics are purposefully divisive. I wouldn't mind that they were communists so much if it wasn't for the fact they are purposefully hiding in the shadows and not being direct about what they want as an end goal...
The topic of abortion is often brought up as a big deciding factor in many peoples votes.
We are being made to vote with our emotions, and no real discussion about whats going on in the world internationally and foreign policy is ever taking place.
The truth is these parties are dead, we need a third party of equal magnitudes to the 2 existing ones, a party that represents the people as a whole, rather than the rich or the left
I will never understand why they donât get that.
Because they are sad and lonely.
Are you claiming that liberals aren't trying to take away things from Republicans?
Is this the least self-aware comment on Reddit?
Oh yeah just me and my lack of self awareness, not like a major political party actively endorses and spreads a batshit insane cult cooked up by a troll post on 4chan while also electing leaders that are major believers.
I think this is a lot of projection though. Its a gross generalization and easy to do. Largely affected by a tribal need to identify with a herd for survival.
Within that there is no critical thought it is just what the herd believes. The problem with the left is that it doesnt identify with primal aggression and confrontation but mostly passive aggression. Therefore it cant resolve understandings within its own chamber of thought, as it cannot be questioned which requires confrontation. If questioned it can quickly and easily be assumed to mean opposition - with me or against me. And it feels whole because in there is assumed one main goal about these ideologies. The right is usually minding your own business. The left it is usually to be good and kind to all. The right isnt interested in how they look because they're concerned with their local area first and foremost. The internet has changed this by giving people an optional avatar to exist alternatively. A space which we can choose. Therefore you dont need a local support if you have online. So it is to be understood this has shattered political parties into identities. Now these singular identities, not based much on policy, can be manipulated by information. The channels of which are limited at the sources from which they come. We are living the internet ramifications, we just cant see the water to our fish.
I suppose what im saying is being disconnected from local reality and giving more to online reality is making people mad in multiple uses of the term. Even if 1% of the world was online, to that online group it would feel it represented everything.
Edit im sorry some cant handle discourse. I feel bad for you.
I have so much problem learning to be okay with people who think I'm a Satan worshipping psychopath who wants to eat babies and destroy america.
Do you think those other people also have a big problem with "learning to be okay with people who think they're a severely mentally ill cultist that wants others to die."
I dunno, I'm not American, I don't live there, and I don't really care, you guys do you. But the way you all talk about each other seems crazy to me.
People don't know how to interact in person anymore.
Someone without a hint of irony on reddit last week tried to tell me that relationships of people you meet online (but never in person) are the same as in person relationships.
It's sad that they think that.
Why is it sad? My online relationships have, by and large, been significantly more fulfilling than those in person.
Welcome to the future. In person is so 20th century.
And every other century for the last 100,000 years.
People don't change as fast as technology does.
"The same" is the problem, not how fulfilling they feel they are.
[someone told OP that personnal relationships are the same as online relationships] ... Why is it sad?
In the context of the thread, the "sadness" is loss of physical presence, disappearance of couples, and presumably a demography crisis in perspective.
I have several relationships that take place at least partially online (friends moved away). And it isn't nearly as fulfilling as when we were local. Sure its fun to joke around in our group chat and play some games together and keep in touch, but it just isn't the same as getting together and doing a thing.
Getting out of the house is step one for a happier life. Finding other people to do that with is the second half of the equation. I like my online friends and like I said its good to keep in touch, but I don't want to be sitting on my couch on a Friday night playing video games with them. I would rather go out and do something with my real friends.
There is nothing that an online relationship can offer me that can't be fulfilled by a real life friend. When I look back on my friendships I don't think of the times we entertained each other while playing video games....I think of the time we went hiking in -20F, when we went skiing after a big snow storm, when we all went to a new city together, when we all got together and played softball or volleyball, etc.
You can chat online and entertain each other online, but you can't experience life together online.
It's possible to have meaningful online relationships, but to say they are the same as in person I don't think is true.
People online create an avatar of themselves. People do this intentionally and unintentionally. What is displayed online is never the 100% reflection of the person in real life. I can already tell you that redditors are furiously typing replies "no I'm 100% the same in person as I am online" but that's just not the case for you, me, or anyone reading this.
There's so much communication lost through video/chat. Nonverbal communication, body language, touch, any chance of intimacy if it's a romantic relationship etc.
Online communication allows quick "outs" of communication that is uncomfortable or challenging. These types of interactions are important to be able to process for growth of relationships.
The real world is unpredictable, online is can be very predictable limiting experiences. If a group of friends goes to their local pub, they may see new things, meet new people, etc. whereas if you are video chatting you're essentially in a virtual sterile environment.
Finally I want you to think about the implications of your comment. If you're correct we've reached a point in technology where physical interaction is no longer beneficial in humans to live and thrive.
The body language online part can be resolved thought VR and the metaverse. You can also have your avatar look like you if your wanted and your eyes and expressions will be displayed with future hardware.
That's really sad because online relationships are fake as fuck.
The problem is people donât build social skills online since body language is a huge part of interaction. But that will change with VR and the metaverse.
I have to agree with this person - online friendships can be just as deep as physical friendships. Will someone drive across half the country to help you move your stuff to a new place? Probably not. But on the upside you are likely to spend way more time with "online friends" than with "I(n)P(erson) Friends" - and you are much more likely to share personal information to them, the discussions run deeper and so on.
So are they the same? No. But to say that online friends are worse is like saying "Apples are better than Oranges" - where each has qualitys the other has not.
Ew. No dude, theres no comparison. You should get out in the real world more often.
Well, I have real world friends and online friends. You seem to be missing one of the two.
Let me make an example of my statement and your answer:
I ate apples and oranges. I tell you both taste good but they are different.
You only ate appels. You tell me that there is no way oranges are tasting good and that I should try apples.
Do you see the issue here? You are lacking perspective, and from your standpoint, with only knowing apples you like to enforce your views, because trying oranges would be something new that could prove you to be wrong - and nobody likes beeing wrong.
My friends online are the people I see and interact with in the real world as well. So I guess I have friends online. Outside of playing video games with people I dont get it
But on the upside you are likely to spend way more time with "online friends" than with "I(n)P(erson) Friends" - and you are much more likely to share personal information to them, the discussions run deeper and so on.
I mean doesn't this sorta prove my point?
If you're having trouble feeling comfortable enough to share personal information with in person friends then that's a problem.
I agree with you , it really depends on the relationship though. I have people I consider âfriendsâ in my real life that Iâve asked to help with small things and have weaseled out of it, but I have real close online friends that Iâve talked to for a good decade now that would drop everything to come help me, and vice versa. Theyâre actually the only people I invited that showed up to my graduation
âOnline friends are real friendsâ and all that shit.
Fucking nerds.
r/196 microcelebrities are examples of parasocial relationships, change my mind
The more I learn about that sub, the more I hate it
[deleted]
My online friend group has been considerably more a group of real friends than most people Iâve met in person my whole life. I may have my issues with the modern world, but this? This is just boomer levels of not understanding.
It is completely possible to form DEEP friendships over the internet. But this isnt the case for most online relationships.
Yup. I feel like the younger the person, the more blurred the line is between real life and online.
Sadly..
You mustn't have met anyone who has different opinions about anything you actually care about.
Fuck my street. Fuck everyone there lmao. I would never be friends with those assholes even if the internet didn't exist. Thank god the internet lets me socialize with people outside of where i live
"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
-Raylan Givens
I can assure you that having the whole street filled with assholes is more common than you think
They stole from me and harassed me and my family for weeks after I tried chasing after them
Bruh itâs a street, not everyone he meets. Just like how you can find yourself in a toxic workplace where your little office is filled with arseholes.
Even if it's everyone he meets, it's not a valid criteria.
TBF everyone is an asshole, just some are more of an asshole than others. No one is perfect, everyone fucks up and they fuck up daily in ways they don't even realize because humans aren't very detail oriented or mindful in general. You just have to find your level of assholery and find others who are in the same range you are or people who are less of an asshole than you that inspire you to be a better asshole, but also tolerate you.
Yep. If I still lived in the town I grew up in, Iâd be miserable without internet. Nothing but meth headed rednecks.
Back in the day, your friends were people on your street or small group you could find at school or eventually a couple people at work. If they saw the world in a different way, then...oh well. Either be alone or learn to interact in other ways to form a bond over something.
Of course, on the flip side we aren't ok with things like the KKK anymore... So there are good things that have come out of people being more selective on accepting certain disgusting world views.
In all honesty, while I hate facebook/social media, I think it's more economic related than anything else. Why pursue a relation that can't go anywhere?
It's not like kids today won't be friends with each other because of their world views and opinions... And it's also not like people choose to be lonely...
The issue is more that noone feels good enough for the world anymore. We're all blasted with people who are smarter, more talented and more successful than us all the time, and it's depressing.
Yeah thatâs nice and all but people tend to gloss over the whole âovercoming different world viewsâ aspect.
20 years ago people were clutching their pearls about the President getting a blow job from his mistress. These days we are seeing a violent resurgence in fascism and an increasingly radicalized population. Itâs a little bit harder to âlet bygones be bygonesâ nowadays when the people across the aisle legitimately want you fucking dead.
I honestly disagree with most of the stuff said here. The problem isn't that we are more selective or can't get along with different people.
The problem is that we simply meet people online by happenstance, or convenience (e.g. online dating) but when we actually meet them, they just turn out to be different as expected.
People don't know how to interact in person anymore
Jokes on you, I never knew how to interact with people
I'm from that unfortunate era where I got to experience true friendships, basically before the internet got normalized, and afterwards, where now I have literally zero friends, only acquaintances.
It's sad and it hurts.
The supply of possible "friends" in this internet age is immense,
I feel like if you say the same thing about online dating Obama AC130 your house.
I've sat here trying to formulate a response to this for a while, but it's a great observation that's a lot deeper than it initially appears.
Not gonna lie, at the start I'd just (unconciously) mentally tossed it into the "darn kids and their cellphones!" Old-man-shouting-at-clouds bin.
But I think you're absolutely right. The irony is that with this massive supply of "friends" we end up with none, because these online relationships tend to be ephemeral at best, and are typically friendships with the person we imagine another to be, not with who they actually are.
Back in the day, your friends were people on your street or small group you could find at school or eventually a couple people at work. If they saw the world in a different way, then...oh well. Either be alone or learn to interact in other ways to form a bond over something.
This is very accurate. You'd make friends from the (very limited) pool of people who were available, and often those friendships where bound initially by the luck of the draw; or just being the last few people left after it. But when that's all you have, you're forced to really get to know those people. And it's a lot easier to forge a strong friendship out of necessity when you're forced to really get to know each other vs the one-sided "friendships" typically made online.
I don't really know how to feel about this. I mean, on one hand, it's much better than remaining friends with someone who's objectively an asshole (and thus tacticly approving of his behavior), but on the other we're simply not really making real friendships at all anymore, and for the most part aren't even aware that it's happening.
Good lord.
I mean, I'm in my mid/late 40's, and have been deeply involved in tech my whole life. But I'm old enough to be solidly pre-social media (even pre-WWW). I still clearly remember The Old Way of friend making, as well as the current state. I'd always just wrote off a lack of real "modern" friends as being old and less outgoing, but you're really right. I'm very willing to write people off if they're "not my type of people".
Well. This is a lot to think about.
2.people donât know how to interact? Are you sure? What is your source? Last time I saw people manage to go to work and interact, go to college, school, markets etc. and they mostly interact just fine.
Itâs not that the amount of possible friends is immense but rather the amount of impossible friends is immense. Even without internet people would t interact or be friends with everyone. Selection and social abandonment was high, today at least people who were abandoned or pushed away by social groups they live around can find people to connect with.
Ah yes the back in the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth, art was good, politicians werenât so corrupt, wars didnât happen. No back in the day people were forced to hide who they were. You were gay? Well welcome to life of bidding in fear that all your âfriendsâ will abandon you. You like anime and comics? Better never share that with anyone or you will be made fun by your âfriendsâ. Iâm not saying that there werenât good people becuse there were. What I am saying is that in groups individuals with unique interested or differences needed to hide due to fear of being abandoned, pushed away, their careers destroyed or just socially castrated.
Quit your bullshit man, if you think that the supply of friends is the issue then you are the issue you canât make fiends.
With number 2, I think they mean interpersonal skills are changing and in some ways failing.
This is of course all anecdotal, but on the discord server my group of friends hangs out on, there is a person who cannot have regular conversations. She speaks in social media posts. She makes a statement and you can agree or disagree. If you do not agree, itâs taken as disagreement and attacked and argued. She doesnât know how to exchange thoughts with someone. Only how to identify if people agree with her or not. Sheâs mid 20s, so not a kid but not old.
Yeah but this kind of people exist everywhere, my grandma is the same way instead of social media itâs politics and tv. You either agree with what she say or you are attacking her views. And sheâs older so she knows better!
Right. And social media only nurtures that. Iâm not saying itâs new, Iâm saying itâs a failing of interpersonal skills that most people grow past but it gets reinforced when ALL of your social interactions are on social media.
Iâm a late 40s gay guy who attended a small liberal arts college. There were like 5 out gay guys on campus. I dated 3 of them and am now married to one of them for years. This was pre internet. The people you knew you dated. It worked out for us and many of our peers. I know gay guys in their 20s and 30s who are in a constant dating cycle. They are never quite satisfied and always looking for an exact fit. I feel like an oldster saying back in my day we just dated who you knew.
I don't think that's true. Traditionnal friend groups still exist all over and while internet echo chambers are definitely a thing, they're a marginal part of most people's lives.
I think this is misguided, work culture, no vacation and ruthless capitalism are driving loneliness much harder than the internet is.
People's views weren't as extreme back then either. We're more divided than ever bought before.
Holy shit literally a boomer response.
"Kids these days don't know how to do X."
I donât agree with your first sentence. The rest I think is valid. But your first sentence I donât because there are people outside, all the time, all interacting and having a good time.
I think there are two things at play here: 1) millennials are reaching middle age where the number of close friends decreases, often because work and starting families. And 2) the amount of entertainment at our disposal has never been greater. You can read just about any book ever written, watch any show or movie ever made, listen to any song ever composed. And the vastness of the internet has allowed so many niche communities to pop up that allow a person to be deeply drawn into their interests. This only exacerbates my first point.
I think human interaction is innate in all of us, we just have other stuff to distract us.
All the things you speak of being the old way are still very true. People are just lazy nowadays and don't care to know their neighbors. You'd be amazed at how many friend you'd make if ya actually said hi đ
I think the art of storytelling, is now incredibly rare. To hear a person give their absolute attention, and put all of their efforts to tell you of something they experienced or happened to them to connect fully is a really rich interaction that doesn't happen often. It's a frequent occurrence that when one of my friends is telling a story, and consults their text messages; whether it's for accuracy or inability to recall I don't know.
Nope. You are overthinking this.
People donât have money. Thatâs it and thatâs all.
You need money to do ANYTHING these days, even make and maintaining friends.
Young ppl donât have any money, therefore less money to fraternize etc.
Thatâs it.
The average female tinder user has over 600 matches. The average male tinder user has 6 lmao. I guess we're not supposed to talk about because something something incel, can't please a woman, small penis, etc.
The entire dating and relationship market is like real estate now, people are getting priced out. How many of our goober dads would have ever sniffed a woman if they had to compete with hundreds of other dudes available 24/7 on a device in every woman's pocket?
Men say yes to women more frequently than women say yes to men.
Women bear the brunt of the consequences of sex - not even going to get into the whole risk of violence aspect - which is pregnancy. Pregnancy - even if you choose adoption - puts both your health and career (maternity leave) at risk and makes permanent changes to your body. With getting access contraception, abortions and even sterilization becoming harder and harder, the risks of getting and associated with being pregnant go up which means the pool of people women are willing to have sex with (and risk pregnancy with) shrinks. Add that to the fact that women are constantly told to 'keep their legs closed' when they have an unwanted pregnancy, the affects of those risks and that statement are going to show up somewhere.
This doesn't account for all of it but it def is a factor.
I agree with almost everything here except
With getting access contraception, abortions and even sterilization becoming harder and harder,
Is not universally true. It's the opposite in a lot of places.
In the states, contraception got a lot easier, but contraception fails. That's where abortions come in and access is currently in a state of flux in the states. Even in states where you can get one unencumbered by the law, cost is a barrier and there's no guarantee the person who impregnated you is going to help with that cost (avg cost being $500 in a time where most people can't withstand a $400 emergency) and that's not even taking into account the protesters who stand outside of clinics and throw doll parts at people seeking abortions.(Some places can be pretty terrible, in Brazil a 10 year old was granted permission for an abortion and people came out to protest yhe decision and harass her) these things get factored in the decision to have sex because they are possible consequences.
Sterilization is still an issue as well as it's most often denied to women under 30 and even denied to married women over 30 with children - I wish there was a study on it so we could see exactly how often women are actually denied the procedure.
This would be true except for the fact that women still have sex, a lot more sex than men do. And they usually end up having sex with the bad boys that put them most at risk.
Studies show that men have more sex and more sexual partners than women.
I see this statement a lot but quantitatively, what is a bad boy? What parameters define 'bad boy'? n number of partners? Std's contracted? Frequency of use of contraception? Forms of contraception used? Partner satisfaction? Ratio of orgasms achieved compared to their partner? Types of sex they participate in - oral, anal, vaginal? Does their sexuality come into play, does a bisexual male have a higher badboy coefficient than say a gay or straight male? Without a definition the thought that women only sleep with bad boys remains an unverified opinion based on an undefined variable that relies on anecdotal evidence to exist.
Edit: grammar
"Studies show that men have more sex and more sexual partners than women." I can't help but feel as though this is likely only true for a very small and select population of men.
Studies are only as good as their sample size and the data collection. The frequency of sexual encounters and number of sexual partners relies heavily on self reporting. If men exaggerate their numbers, even in an anonymous setting, then they're kind of shooting their half of the species in the foot especially since men put a great emphasis on sexual prowess as a component of masculinity.
Makes me wonder how many men would choose to not even participate in such a study. "Sure! I'd LOVE to answer some questions about my complete and utter lack of masculinity/desirability!" Seems like that bit should've read, "THESE men have more sex and more partners than women." I don't think that using sex and frequency is a very insightful metric to begin with. Doesn't exactly explain anything that most people don't already understand.
THESE men have more sex and more partners than THESE women. Social stigma does go both ways, you may have women underreporting or doing the same thing you mentioned and choosing not participate as well but due to both feeling as if they've had to many or to few partners. A woman having to few partners would also impact their view of their femininity and desirability like you mentioned for men but women face stigma for having to many partners, something men a lauded for. The data may also be skewed higher for women if same sex encounters are counted the same as opposite sex encounters as same sex encounters are seen as more acceptable for women than men, again because of the threat to masculinity aspect.
Well said. Those are great reasons why I take "studies" like that with a grain of salt.
It's not that complicated. Bad boy has nothing to do with the quality of the sex. A bad boy is someone that's generally not a good upstanding person that still manages to get more dates and women than the avg guy ever will
Again what defines a good upstanding person? Fidelity? Amount donated to charity? Hours spent volunteering? I'm not saying it doesn't happen but without a proper quantitative definition, there's no way to prove your statement true. It's actually quite vague and difficult to apply to anyone as the qualitative descriptor 'good upstanding person' has been applied to a number of terrible people.
I'm my definition basically don't be abusive or manipulative. Lots of relationships are inherently coercive because of money. When women date up to guys that can practically save them from a life of menial labor it leads to a ton of abuse. Women finally have their own jobs and stuff but the economy sucks and most women when they marry still typically marry up. It seems men who have the most leverage with women are more successful but also more prone to abuse because they can get away with it.
Assertive, risk-taking, confident, and spontaneous for starters I'd think.
At least internet makes my social life much easier
If you find a group online there that. Didn't find one yet :(
Supply chain issues now affecting dating?
That might be true for friends and partners⊠I chatted to hundreds of people online, but have met mostly only those I already knew, knew through friends or met via Facebook, meaning we had at least some mutual friends or possible real life connections! Lmao
What is your definition of supply and demand in this context?
The straight dating context (i don't know if it apply to other mix).
Demand: guys willing to meet women
Supply: woman willing to meet guys
Woman know there is a lot of guys (demand) so they can "shop" them; if anything bother them just go for another one.
[deleted]
I'm like your fiancee, struggling.
I'm not in USA nor in huge city (suburban that is still decent in size) and i didn't yet find somewhere to list possible nice place to meet peoples (by events or hobbies).
Your usual "meetup.com" would always show me to go to the nearest big city. And there doesn't seems to be huge even then (pre-covid)
I think the internet makes it easier to get sex. Have you heard of an app called Tinder?
Depends on where you are in the bell curve of attractiveness.
In many ways tinder and the like made it MUCH easier for those who are traditionally attractive to be "picky" to put a lousy word on it. For women especially it's overwhelming how easy it is to get a match (mind you not accounting for quality here).
I'm sure there's some offset though in just people who never would've had the courage to make a move matching up and getting laid, but i'd be curious to see if there's any correlated stats related to mobile dating apps taking off.
I recall articles mentioning that the popularity of tinder has led to huge increases in STD transmission in areas. Again, it could be a few super-spreaders doing all of the work.
Yeah and it suck.
You must catch their eye with your profile (usually the picture). A nice picture of you is unlikely to work. (Note: I'm also a guy so i may not have great taste with pictures to begin with)
I have to try to do a show on match to entertain them otherwise you are blocked right away.
Don't even dare trying to have a conversation you are almost granted to blocked as well.
Also you have 24h, 48h if you play with fire to invite her otherwise you are blocked as well.
So, it is easy?
Yes, gives you the ability to meet many more people than you would have otherwise.
Or... The gay agenda is finally working!
Ugh I wish *am a late gay and dating is even worse
Worse? I think you mean impossible
Im trying to be hopeful, okay? Cries
Hey, wanna cry together? đđ
Youâre a late gay? Get a gay alarm clock?
Exactly, why conflate homosexuality and late virginity in the same graph? This graph is useless and encourages people to draw incorrect conclusions
"this graph is useless"
If you're trying to conflate it with things that make no sense, I guess
As we knew it would (because it's made by lesbians).
Can you clarify?
The graph is only recording opposite sex sexual partners. If 27% of men were happily having no sex with women but lots of sex with men, they still show up as 0 on the graph.
[removed]
[removed]
Is way more than 3%. One thing is what people tell the world, other is what they do.
Itâs typically assumed to be as much as 8-12% of the population identify as queer and some studies show that the numbers continue to rise
[deleted]
The same stats are present in non-human animals and queerness has little to do with hook-up apps in this case because I said âidentify asâ as in they identify with the queer community which is not the same thing as having queer relations (romantic or sexual) like in the case of hookup apps.
I must say though I do find it a problem that you want to discredit me based on my age when you cannot correctly make a case for your claim. Instead of making baseless statements that criticize the use of technology in regards to relationships and social interaction (and emphasizing its relationship with a growing queer population) maybe educate yourself on why the fuck it matters to you how many people are queer or why the numbers of queer people might appear to rise. Why should it matter?
All you need to know is that queer people exist and that is valid and you should leave them to their lives. Thatâs it.
[deleted]
An adult-child continues on their desperate campaign of transparent stupidity using belittlement as a means of projecting their intellectual insecurities.
Because thatâs not how gayness works lmfao
Thatâs just gay, not lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, or asexual people factored in
It's actually lower if you're just talking about gay men (around 1.5%). The total percentage of LGBT is like 5-6 percent. Most of that larger percentage are bisexual though, so it wouldn't exclude them from this graphic.
Itâs 5-6% that have come out, not necessarily the amount that are actually LGBTQ.
Well no shit... 5-6% self report being LGBT. Most of those are bisexual. What number of people do you think are lying on an anonymous survey?
Because that's irrelevant and unrealistic. When we already know that 10% of men get all 90% of likes it's clear most men are going to be left out
Some dum dums think gay people are trying to turn more and more kids gay.
I see thank you for explaining. I suspect that more dear, brave people embrace their authentic selves when society mutes homophobic assholes.
[deleted]
The problem is markedly worse than I thought it was. I mean, I knew it was getting worse, but this strikes me as crisis-level at this point. I feel for my younger male brethren.
Nobody cares now or ever. When theres only 2 sexes, 1 has to eat shit. Hence why men do the dirtiest, most harmful, least respected work and choose effective suicide methods
Why does one HAVE TO eat shit? Why canât the shit be doled our equally?
The wrong take. You have exactly one (1) thing right in your entire statement. The rest is foolish nonsense. I hope things brighten up for you though buddy.
Take it as inspiration for why men start falling into the... more supportive crowds and mindset. I'm trying not to incriminate the user you responded to here.
I have no hard evidence, but I suspect part of the rise of right wing men centric groups is because of this growing loneliness epidemic.
No I count two things. Eating shit is the outlier. Yep 1...2
I do not understand why you are down-votes. All those things are well documented and statistically captured.
Women are loved unconditionally, they always find help.
Men are only loved if they match the conditions society wants.
You know.. I see now why you're alone.
I set up tinder (I am a woman) and was inundated with right swipes, I literally didn't have the time to go through them all. I wanted to give as many people as possible a chance but unfortunately ended up accidentally ghosting a couple of people which I felt awful for.
A lot of the ones that I did choose to speak to had really bad social skills and would usually say something creepy or off-putting pretty soon into the conversation. The ones who I agreed to see on first dates would not do a video or phone call before hand so I could make sure I wasn't being catfished. It really sucked. Just to compare, most of my male friends are getting around 10 matches, even the ones who are good looking and have their shit together, mine was in the 1000s. My experience is pretty typical of the average woman on tinder btw, I'm not 10/10 material or anything.
So my genuine question (because this situation doesn't benefit anyone really) is how do we help men? Do we need lessons in social interaction? Are dating apps just too overwhelmed now?
Most of the men I know don't seem to have trouble making and keeping friends, it's definitely a romantic issue. I agree with you 100%, I really do think social media and dating apps are really harmful, especially to men. Why would anyone bother going out and meeting someone organically when you can swipe through a menu of what's in your city.
You shouldn't expect good social skills on tinder.. its tinder
Girl, let men fix themselves. Weâve done so much work for feminism, all the while being historically put down by men, and here they are complaining that they donât get enough dates? They never wanted to listen to us when women talk about mental health, emotional vulnerability, gender equalityâŠ. Thatâs on them. Many men suck right now and have no intention of doing the work to be better people. Iâve sucked in the past, I got help. Men donât get help because men make fun of eachother for needing help. Men do it to themselves. We tried to help. Feminism is for EVERYONE, but men donât actively participate in it. Donât feel responsible for their issues. Weâve tried.
EDIT: Itâs so telling that I have a silver award and still getting downvoted.
I agree with others here that you're generalizing too much. Being hostile and unhelpful towards sexist jerks is perfectly fine. But men aren't all sexist jerks, far from it. Sexism breeds more sexism and if both genders are jerks to each other it will just continue as an endless cycle. We should be nice to each other regardless of gender and regardless of that this discrimination exists. I know that racism is not the same thing but still a good example: just because people of color were oppressed in the past doesn't mean they should be jerks to white people now, it's not everyone's fault, not every white person is a racist jerk.
[deleted]
I'm not going to comment on the thing about white people being biased against black people because I've not seen any studies or anything of the sort that proves it and a quick Google search returned little. My primary point here is that responding with hostility to an entire demographic because some part of them are bad people just means even more suffering and less justice for all of us.
To be honest I think it is reductive to say white people are biased against black people. Youâll find a large bias against black people in Asian, European, and Latin cultures as well. This is because of world-wide white supremacy but yeah thereâs a lot of college level CRT involved in understanding that.
Many thorough google searches should show you what I mean but thereâs a lot of material Iâm not going to reference thru my phone.
I think once you do like a month of even just watching videos if you donât feel like reading text, will make you understand the level of hostility people have towards white supremacist patriarchal structures. It might make you understand how every single man participated and perpetuates and benefits, and ultimately doesnât benefit, from that structure. Then, you can tell us women how it feels to be on that side, as a man realizing what men have done, and we can together figure out how you wouldâve best received the message from women, so that YOU and US can go spread that message to other men in a faster and more effective way. Yeah?
Your mind is filled with fucking garbage, including your CRT nonsense. You took some bullshit courses in college and now you think you have it all figured out.
You are being too cynical in my opinion. There are men, who consider themselves feminists and gladly talk about women's issues. Those men can also seek help and have male friends who encourage them to work on themselves to become better versions of themselves. Yet same men could also have selfconfidence (or some other) problems which prevents them from approaching women romantically and they end up being single.
Obviously, not every single man on earth is what I described. There are men who exist who call themselves feminist or are feminist.
However, did you notice what you did there? âThere are men, who consider themselves feminist and gladly talk about WOMENS issuesâ What about menâs issues? Class issues? Race issues???? Political issues? Feminism is intersectional, itâs not just about womenâs issues. I just think even the men I know who identify as staunch feminists havenât gone deep enough into feminist and gender-based rhetoric to realize how and why they perpetuate the problems they talk about.
Talking about women's issues is obviously connected to other issues, i take that as a given. Basically no societal issue exists in vacuum. I said specifically women's issues, because some people (not only men) talk about all the other issues, but avoid anything related to women's equality, repression, institutionalized disadvantages etc. and believe there are no differences between men and women (or that they are natural). Just like some people i know talk about class issues, but don't think race issues are exaggerated.
Obviously, not every single man on earth is what I described. There are men who exist who call themselves feminist or are feminist.
I got the feeling from your previous post that you implied majority of men are like you described. Maybe they are and I'm in a lucky social circle.
Ahhh I see what you mean. My original comment was a generalization. Personally, I know a lot of âgoodâ men who are feminists, but every single man Iâve known, whether they call themselves a feminist or not, still use the âangry feministâ tone as an excuse to not listen to women who arenât monotone about the topic. If they sense any kind of attack, they pull this. They may not even say it out loud, but you can see it in their eyes the way they reduce you to an angry feminist and shrug you off. Thatâs tone-policing women in order to dismiss or discredit what has been said. What many people like to argue is that feminists should repackage their message better so it doesnât sound attacky or angry. I say fuck that, I am angry, and I know who started the patriarchy, and Iâm not going to let men tell me how I should act or feel or speak when theyâve been telling us that for centuries and THAT never got women anywhere. So fuck that
Dismissing people due to their tone is not limited to dismissing women. I dismiss people all the time once their tone gets aggressive, and I expect to be dismissed if I do the same.
Well thatâs a narrow-minded way of taking in information. How are you going to reconcile any harm youâve done to anyone if you dismiss them when theyâre aggressive? Are you just going to expect hurt people to act calmly when they confront their aggressors? Come on
I think you're taking my statement as a 100% hard line, and that's not the case.
Generally speaking, if someone gets irate with me, through no fault of my own, I will dismiss them. E.g. A customer, a stranger, etc.
If the person is close to me and I upset them, I would still listen to them and take in their opinion and react. Only, I would work incredibly hard to not get upset in retaliation if I felt that I was not in the wrong.
We can discuss edge cases all day, but I'm sure you realize you're picking outliers and using them to disprove the general statement. I applaud your approach, but you're missing the forest for the trees.
Listening attentively while some loses their mind at you for a trivial inconvenience does nothing for your self esteem, it will make you feel demeaned and disrespected. If I find myself in a lot of situations where I wronged someone, or caused harm, then that's something that I need to take care of in my own life and with my own actions. To assume that is the majority of interactions, or even a plurality of interactions I have is asinine.
Also, I don't like your tone. I feel you are condescending towards me for no good reason. Instead of trying to have a conversation about this, you immediately jump on the offensive, making me feel defensive in return.
I would expect hurt people to understand that the tone of their response will directly impact the direction of the conversation. You cannot come at me in an accusing tone and expect me to not get defensive, even if I was in the wrong. Regardless of what you feel is right/wrong/moral/etc. you have to understand that your reaction will cause the other person to react as well. Sometimes your aggression might cow them and get the response you want, often it will not.
I agree with you a lot actually, but let me be clear what the good reason is that I have a condescending tone in my last comment. Itâs because Iâm reacting to your dismissal of my last last comment. The best way I can describe it is, you responded by saying something akin to all lives matter. As if all people are equally dismissed, and women being dismissed can be ignored because other people are dismissed too. OR, as youâre saying now, that you only mean you dismiss irrationally angry people or people you donât cause harm to. So what are you arguing when you said âdismissing people due to their tone is not limited to dismissing womenâ? Are you saying Iâm wrong in my comment about men rolling their eyes when women are upset about intersectional womenâs issues? Or that Iâm wrong about men dismissing what we say because we sound like angry feminists, and how that is called tone policing? Or are you saying you only dismiss the irrationally angry women, meaning that at some point being angry about womens issues is irrational? Iâm not being unreasonably condescending, Iâm reacting to your really unnecessary, all lives matter vibey comment.
This is the point where I dismiss you. I feel that you are carrying emotional baggage from other conversations into this one. That is your prerogative, and I cannot tell you what to do or what not to do. I can only control my interactions and my space. That is my responsibility, and I'm going to stop it here.
I get why you would be angry. I get angry about issues that doesn't even affect me and have rants about them. Talk about caring about environment or about (trying to) becoming a vegan or any topic that is marginalized there's a high chance someone will give you the look and roll their eyes. Even I did that to others.
> What many people like to argue is that feminists should repackage their message better so it doesnât sound attacky or angry.
As I said you being angry I can totally understand, but I feel like sometimes it is necessary to tone down to get to people or at least make them hear a different opinion without getting their guards up. It makes the whole thing even harder for women (or for any other marginalized segment in society) because they have to keep their calm and try to get their message across (though rebelling is necessary as well).
Strong r/femaledatingstrategy vibes here.
The over-generalisations and distinct lack of empathy.
Yeah lol that subreddit should just be renamed to /r/ihatemen
If that subreddit had the genders reversed, it would have been banned by the reddit admins already.
I got curious and checked it out, I immediately regret that decision. HOLY ****, the amount of toxicity in that subreddit is....words fail to even describe it. I was shocked people think like this. The inherent contempt for the opposite gender was so stark.
Honestly it was overwhelming.
I could be wrong but, that sounds pretty damn sexist in my opinion. You've written out an "us vs them" scenario. Instead of thinking about the health of society as a whole, you've divided us up and claimed one side doesn't deserve equal treatment.
Thatâs not what I said at all, honey.
Edit: way to edit your comment, Lucas. You originally wrote âclaimed men donât deserve help.â
You said let men deal with their own issues instead of society helping them. Am I wrong?
Yeah youâre wrong. I said women have been trying to help men for a long time and have been getting shit on by men all the while. I said women should let men fix themselves. Obviously women will continue to fight for feminism, but itâs not our fault or our job to fix that men canât get laid. Also, men still control like what, every industry in America? Men can put out ads or propaganda on tv that tells men itâs okay to be whatever they are, or whatever they want to be. Men have been doing that, actually, because men have controlled radio waves and news and TV since their conception. See how men created all of this for themselves? Men have been putting out everything youâve seen on TV before shonda rhimes. Wanna know why weâve seen such a quick change in the content being put out on streaming apps? Why thereâs more black, immigrant, and female written shows and movies? Because Hollywood is the ONE industry where weâve been able to definitively prove that the men who are in charge making every decision have their biases trickle down to the lowest assistant level, to the rating level, even though there is a gender-equal pool of candidates and viewers to choose for jobs and rate content. Itâs insane. We canât prove that in the other fields because companies lean on âoh but there arenât enough women and black engineers/doctors/whatevers graduating to fill the diversity gap!â
The point being, even when there is an equal amount of candidates to choose from, being an âequal opportunity employerâ is a farce because men have biases and men have control and power. Men literally have the control and power to change everything, right now, but they donât. And people really want to believe itâs because women are divisive???? Because women donât want to help men anymore?? God I hate it here.
You can learn more about what Iâm talking about in less than 2 hrs, just watch âthis changes everythingâ on Netflix.
I understand the challenges you are stating, but they are very different topics. Mens issues are not universal, just as women's issues are not. We are talking about the rate of isolation going up in both men and women in today's society. Men suffer more from it due to many reasons. But women also suffer. You can't tell men to fix it for themselves. Its society's problem. If we don't help each other, we are all negatively affected.
Okay how about this.
Men, women are tired. Itâs your turn to step up. Listen to us, we gave you feedback, take notes and take action, fight for all people, and you have our support. Men, do you hear us??
Be careful what you wish for. If you want to tell men to fix the problem without women's participation, you probably aren't going to like what they come up with.
I really would like to find a way to help you understand that what you're expressing is childish and unhelpful...
Claiming that one group of people (in this case men) are universally being harmful to another group(women) and that the second group (women) are somehow just better at something (being emotionally supportive) is just dumb. And propagating that "truth" is extremely harmful to all people. It solves nothing and only serves to bolster you own ego because guess what, you happen to be in the better group.
All men are not responsible for you(not all women) being tired. You're just being intellectually lazy.
Hmmm condescending as well, guess that shouldn't have been a surprise.
Sorry, I just saw that you edited your comment. You'll notice that reddit puts an asterix by the time that a post was made when a post has been edited. You'll also notice that there is no asterix by my post. Because I didn't make any edits.
Death, taxes, and men being blamed for their mental health issues and/or being told they don't deserve help.
Ugh please stop gaslighting women. Women have been telling men to get help for ages. From âhoney why donât you stop and ask for directionsâ to Greta fucking Thunberg pleading with world leaders (men) to realize the impact of climate change. Please tell me an instance where I said a man does not deserve to get help. Because I specifically said that women should let men fix themselves. That implies men fixing eachother. Why does the labor of fixing menâs issues have to fall on women, again? Womenâs issues were pushed for and faught for by mostly women. Like 95% women. And guess what men were telling women, on an individual and systemic level, the whole time? That we didnât deserve shit. Yet we managed to get where we are, in part because some men in power helped.
But men are, guess what? Still in power lmao. MEN STILL HOLD THE MAJORITY OF POWER IN OUR GOVERNMENT, AND MOST INDUSTRIES. So the only people men really need help from is, suuurpriiiiise, themselves.
Why donât we have UHC? Old white men. Why donât we have free mental health resources? Old white men. Why donât we have a liveable wage? Old white men. Why donât we have sufficient paid paternity leave? Old white men. Most issues lead back to old rich white men. Prove me wrong.
Men aren't in power. Oligarchs are. Rich white men. The only men you care about. You don't give a fuck about the undesirables in society.
HAH classic. Just because theyâre the only men YOU care about, doesnât mean theyâre the only ones I care for. Theyâre the men youâve been taught to aspire to be, not me. It was easy for me to give men up, and that capitalist girl boss shit men have us wanting. Has it been easy for you to let go of your male gaze? Your entitlement? Your aspirations to be and/or jealousy of rich men in society?
I don't aspire to me that. In fact I've never even tried to be like that even when I say that all the guys in gangs in my high school were having sex. I hate those type of men more than anyone.
Ultimately you say you hate them, yet I bet you wouldn't date a guy that doesn't have his own place or has some sort of socioeconomic advantages. I know so many "liberal" women who still end up with conservative men. I've never aspired to be rich I know that's unrealistic I'm just a labor mule like most lower class minority men are.
Honey baby, I wouldnât date a guy period. And Iâm attracted to them.
Well that's your choice. And that's ultimately the difference between women and men. Most women have choices. The avg man doesn't.
There's plenty of decent men they are just either not attractive or don't have enough money to be a viable life partner
Youâre showing your incel a bit. Thatâs probably why youâre having a hard time understanding why women donât choose you. Iâll let you in on the best advice youâll ever get. Stop listening to other men. If you want to learn about women.
I'm 29. I've known and been friends with women. Sure I'm sexless but that doesn't mean anything anymore when 30% of men are in my same boat. The reality is it doesn't matter if men listen to women, most women will never swipe on an avg guy no matter what their personality is
I never said to only listen to women who swipe right on you. Please understand all women have voices and you can listen to any one of them, not just the fuckable ones. What I did say was to not listen to men if you want to learn about women.
Well I know about women. My extended family is mostly women. But none of it matters really. Women could be your best friend and give you advice etc, but that doesn't mean women will be open to dating you regardless of how much you know.
, and here they are complaining that they donât get enough dates
This is a woman saying that men cannot get dates, not men complaining they cannot get more dates.....
You've got your lines crossed mate.
I feel you but I'm talking about the men we raise from now on. I am 100% done explaining to men my age what's up but things won't change if we aren't changing something about the environment our kids are raised in.
We need to raise women who feel empowered to speak but this will only work if we are raising men who know how to listen and respect. The reason we have incels is because there are a group of men who are so bad at interacting with women and socialising in general they think they are OWED partners rather than putting in the work. There must be a root cause, I am not willing to give up on future generations of men, it's too dangerous.
The reason men don't participate in feminism is because there aren't enough male role models, I'm sorry but feminism only works if men are into it, we can't have equality when half the population disagree with it. Women have been telling men they are dogs for centuries, you are right, it doesn't work. Then those men have influence over younger men and the cycle continues.
And I really do think dating apps are bad for everyone, they give physically attractive people an overinflated sense of entitlement and are really damaging for the self esteem of others.
[deleted]
I definitely see where you're coming from and I agree with pretty much everything you're saying. I don't agree with the message that women's voices are only powerful if men hear them and that's definitely not what I mean. I feel like we are asking, for example, not to be raped and men are not listening to that, this is what is dangerous and why we need them to hear, they make up a vast majority of the attackers.
I think in general the bar is set too low, a guy says he's feminist because he doesn't harass women, great, bare minimum. So off that, male role models are not powerful enough right now.
And yeah, there's no push, until men can see how they directly benefit from participating in feminism (and I have seen them do it in hopes of getting laid more, yuck) we aren't going to get much of a buy in. It does turn into a vicious cycle tho, if we don't have men who are behind feminism, they tend to go the other way and that's where the raping and murdering happens.
It is slightly better, men my age or younger seem to be less sexist than men my parents age but there's some deep rooted shit, it's exhausting and messy.
FWIW I'm not downvoting you, thanks for this perspective
Jesus this sounds like an answer for a cult or something. Keep going.
I'm sure your social skills are amazing. Not like you need any when you say how easy the dating environment is for you.
You don't need social skills to gain interest on a dating app. Not sure what your point is.
Dating wasn't easy, I had a lot of interest but in terms of actual potential in a person was pretty hard to come by when a majority of profiles was just their Snapchat.
You don't need social skills to gain interest on a dating app. Not sure what your point is.
You just posted earlier that they do and that men need to improve them. And why should they? Most women are ignoring most guys so the top guys getting swiped on don't need to put up with appealing to your standards of social etiquette.
Dating wasn't easy
Compared to how it is for men, it's tutorial mode for women.
My point is if you can't hold a conversation on a dating app without being a creep then maybe it isn't women's fault that you aren't getting dates. If you are being creepy on an app then you're likely not that great in real life. I've met a lot of men who really don't seem to know how to speak to women like they're people, it's so sad and I actually think it needs to be addressed, I'm trying to have a compassionate approach in talking about issues men are up against here and we don't seem to be doing a good job of raising well rounded men right now.
And yes, the top percent of men are holding the attention, which is why dating apps are bad for everyone. Women are more demanding of their partners because they are put on a pedestal in a dating app and then men fuck up monumentally because they have no social skills. I do think social skills also contributes to how well you can put together a dating profile in this day and age.
I don't think I honestly would have swiped right on any of my past partners on a dating app, meeting people is so different, we aren't really very good at that any more (or we don't want to put in the efforts, I'm not sure) and Covid has made it worse.
The avg guy doesn't even get a chance to speak to women on dating apps cause they don't get right swipes in the first place. Shows how out of touch you are
I have literally said that dating apps are bad for men because of this.
But you also said it's men's fault for not getting dates because it's creepy. I've never catcalled or said anything weird to a woman even once.
Great. Bare minimum. Being 'nice' is literally what you should be to all people.
Because what is creepy?
I'm not saying being nice is this great thing.i literally just said it doesn't matter. The most successful men with dating certainly don't tend to be nice
Lol you think you're compassionate, but you're calling the guys you say have bad social skills creeps. Get over yourself.
Being creepy is a bad social skill, about 90% of guys I spoke to would say something that made my skin crawl, it's creepy, sorry if that upsets you to hear.
And why should they? Most women are ignoring most guys so the top guys getting swiped on don't need to put up with appealing to your standards of social etiquette.
Oh fuck off. Most of the "top guys" can be relied on to wash their asses and actually groom themselves on a daily basis, and to not be outright creeps.
Compared to how it is for men, it's tutorial mode for women.
Not when they have to filter out creeps, stalkers, and bitter incels like you. It certainly doesn't help when there's an entire seoarate layer of dudes willing to mask as functional on a first date, but the moment they think they have the foot in the door the facade drops.
And having had the... privilege of looking at female friends' tinder routine over their shoulders, the eternal irony is how there's so many dudes who get swiped left on that I can guarantee someone insecure and bitter like you think are "chads". Turns out just having a six-pack and chiseled chin doesn't automatically make women fawn over you when you give off all the danger signals as the stereotypical neckbeards: unhygienic, self-absorbed(many having exercise be their sole personality trait), malfunctioning social skills, presumptuous behavior and much more.
Dudes on tinder just endlessly swipe right most of the time, which means women get hundreds of matches that they then have to sort through to find thode who might be safe. Tutorial mode? Please, most dudes are barely even looking at the box art by comparison where dating is concerned.
And you know what's even funnier? So many of these dudes who get matched never reply or respond anyways.
hurr durr the guy that triggered me is an ebil inkwell!
Stop being so upset by the truth
It's hilarious for bitter permavirgins like you to pretend to know women.
It's toxic masculinity, all of it. All these men determine their self worth through "how many women they get" and how attractive those are.
They don't go out looking for a meaningful relationship, they look for a trophy to add to their collection.
And women still date these men when they know how many women they have.
Because they're also taught that it's somehow desirable
This resonates. It's incredibly different for men, especially single men.
What? Why?
You just need to behave well around women, take shower sometimes, be respectfull and authentic...
Its not rocket science
Im noticing that boys nowadays rather than make some effort makes a lot of excuses
You might as well say âbe a nice guyâ for all the pithy uselessness of your assertion.
Iâm pretty sure the graph trend isnât indicative of a general decrease in showering.
This is sarcasm, right?
No? Why i should be sarcastic about being nice around women? wtf?? Im talking about being decent and behave well and people thinks im sarcastic and im getting downvotes. What the fuck is wrong with people nowadays???
You said "You just need to [...]". You're naively assuming that unattractive men are idiots who aren't already following those suggestions. It's not even close to enough to meet women's standards. Not even in the ballpark.
For instance, if you aren't physically attractive, it doesn't matter how much you shower or respect women.
Thats major bullshit.
For instance, if you aren't physically attractive, it doesn't matter how much you shower or respect women.
This is so untrue and yet so much people believe it.
look dude... im fat, i wear high dioptric glasses, i hate getting haircuts, im even neglecting hygiene rules... but i never had problem getting date or get laid.
What the hell you even talking about? All i hear is whining, excuses and pointless overthinking simple problem. Grow some balls, stop overthinking this shit and get into game! You either have excuses or results.
You know what? I already figured it out, now its your turn.
smh this crap.
I'm guessing you lost your virginity and got into relationships awhile ago? How old are you?
If you were successful when you were sufficiently young enough then it would explain. Women like social proof.
Lost virginity in 16 or 17 (dunno), get into relationship at 28 (i think). Im 33
I failed miserably A LOT. Like... it was super awkward. I failed more than i succeded. But with every failure and win i got more and more confident.
Women love confident men with straight attitude. And if you are hot and fit and stuff like this - its nice bonus. But its only bonus. It shoudlnt be your main concern while dating
Also i wasnt very succesfull while being young and fit. I got much more succes after i got older and fat. I dont want to slip into clishe but its a lot about experience in dating. So just start dating, dont be affraid from failure and you will succed eventually
You're hamstringing yourself here. I know a guy who had a major leg injury with the rods in his bones and the associated metal parts on the outside.
He was by no means good looking, he was a 2/10 at most. However he had a personality and could make anyone laugh, I was amazed at how people were drawn to him.
You are writing yourself off and sounds like not even trying, perhaps learn a few good jokes and learn to read the room for when to tell them and show interest in the person you are trying to court.
If one way is not succeeding, perhaps think how can I do things differently. Attraction is a strange thing but your negative attitude would actually be picked up by anyone you are trying to attract.
Love yourself first otherwise you won't be able to truly love someone else.
You're moving goalposts. First it was "just take a shower and respect women" now it's "have a positive attitude (even after years of failure), read a room, learn jokes, be charismatic".
Itâs amazing how many men want to downvote good advice. Itâs almost like yâall donât want women to like you.
They don't want YOU to like them sweet cheeks. Correlation here doesn't imply causation. It's not that hard, love.
I would never criticize good advice.
One liner cliches about basic necessities like "get a haircut", "take a shower", "respect women" is not good advice.
Yep, and their negativity would be picked up by anyone in a social setting.
Who would want to be with a negative person? If I picked up on it I would leave as well.
To be fair, that's not the same person responding.
If someone with Autism and ADHD can do it so can you.
I dont understand social queues, I don't understand small talk, I don't understand body language. There is a lot of things I don't understand because of my autism, I had to learn how to do a lot of things and had many years of rejection.
All I had to learn was a few key things with many years of failure before I became good enough to be able to be in a social setting. Was there a lot of moments where I failed? ABSOLUTELY. I can promise you one thing though your negativity would be picked up by whoever you are trying with. It's not something I like being around and I'm sure you don't either.
Be nice to women to get laid LMAO. Dude women find that behavior disgusting.
i was more talking about be straight to them, dont bullshit them and dont be creepy... but whatever
Wrong. It's a change in the marketplace. A vast majority of sex and relationships come from online dating. Supply and demand has changed. You're no longer limited to just the people you know or work with. You can shop across thousands/millions of people.
So what happens? Well girls who want to fuck, even the ones that make zero effort and are unattractive will find someone in literal seconds willing to fuck them. As for men, you have to be the cream of the crop to compete. OKcupids study proved that women see 80% of men as below average. 80%. So the fact is that the amount of sex that women have hasn't changed much alltogether while the most attractive men pretty much have harems with how much sex they have.
I'm not being an incel here. I'm not saying anything is wrong with this situation or that it needs to be forcibly changed. I'm not bitter. It's just life. Sometimes things get weird in the sexual marketplace. Just look at post WW2 Russia. Beautiful young women marrying nasty old men because pretty much every eligible man fucking died.
I dated girls when online dating wasnt thing, later i dated girls online and i even found my girfriend online. And im pretty confident that i could get back into game with no effort. And as i said: im just regular guy... fat, with glasses, nothing special about me...
So we can disagree, its ok. My experiences are different from yours but thats ok and it doesnt mean that one of us is wrong
I just didnt spot any difference between dating online and offline... its always the same, same rules, same old shit...
It reminds me this old saying: "Stop saying that something is impossible because there is always some idiot who didnt knew that and he will just make it happens"
Your anecdotal evidence is cool and all, but the statistical evidence disagrees.
Yeah Iâve seen your stats and youâre right. I think most men could probably get a match or two to talk to them on tinder, I had a date on Friday from that. But the problem is that it takes us months of swiping and talking to find someone whoâs willing to go out with us whereas almost all women will get hundreds of matches by default.
At least for me this has kinda tanked my confidence and made me put in a lot less effort in dating in general.
None of the stats floating around this thread contradict anything he said.
The okcupid study directly refutes that. It's a tried and true tune. "I dated 15 years ago and did fine. I'm sure you're just being lazy/not confident enough."
But this study, the OKcupid study, hell even post ww2 Russia have all proven that it's simply not true. Sexual marketplaces exist and outside forces such as online dating and poverty absolutely affect it.
The OK Cupid thing was a survey, not a âstudy.â And even if itâs implications are correct, it doesnât contradict what the guy youâre responding to is saying.
And what that guy is saying isnât really that controversial. Just âyeah the dating marketâs tough online and off, but itâs entirely possible to meet someone.â
it was a survey, not a study
My man how do you think studies work? They don't follow you home and document everything. They ask lots of people questions and collect data. Surveys are the cornerstone of social science
did you know that statistics are often biased by amount of people who are living by it?
Im just saying: forget about statistics, relax, hop on the ride and enjoy yourself :) and it will improve in time :)))
did you know that statistics are often biased by amount of people who are living by it?
There have been documented studies by a bunch of the big online dating sites. The results were that it's really fucking grim for guys.
âDocumented studies by dating sitesâ
Listen to yourself, man.
Listen to yourself, man.
Feel free to Google for them, you don't need me to hold your hand. They exist. Just because you don't sound like you want to hear what they have to say doesn't mean you can pretend they don't exist.
Iâm sure they exist. Iâm also sure they are bullshit. Kind of like the graph at the top of the thread.
Hey, do you talk about the âsexual marketplaceâ on dates? Just FYI, redpill talk is a huge red flag that most âhigh valueâ women recognize and dislike. Theyâll be able to spot your wannabe pua vibes right away, and trust me itâs unattractive.
I don't go on dates period it's literally a waste of time for people our age. Money and time that could be spent doing something fulfilling than trying to entertain someone who's likely not that interesting and has a proverbial yellowpages of other folk that are waiting to do the same with them. Chances are nothing special will come out of it. Maybe someone cranks your hog a little at the end of the day. I can do that myself lmao.
I'm not blaming any success or lack thereof on the sexual marketplace, but it's absolutely a thing. Incel chuds might have stolen it for their rhetoric, but it is a measurable thing.
That's some r/niceguys territory here...
Itâs the exact opposite of that.
You're correct. I think men just tend to be less social than women innately and thus the struggles of modern loneliness hit men harder, but you don't hear about it much.
I don't think it's innate. I think it can be blamed on society. I remember when I was younger, being really afraid that if I do or say the wrong thing, girls would think I'm a creeper or something. I know my fear was exaggerated, but it was there because men are the less trusted sex.
Yep and I think it compounds - single men (particularly young single men) are more likely to be ostracised for a perceived creepiness. Since being married its way easier to make friends.
Yeah all the sudden you're trusted because a woman is willing to live with you.
Maybe only true for creeps though.
How come it's prevalent in all societies then? Some of it has to come from Inside on group level even if everyone is different individually
Because men are told to hide those stuff
"told" is a little weak though. We get indoctrinated from very little on to hide anything that isn't aggression. Aggression is the only emotion considered manly for a huge part of the population. Crying and sadness is only acceptable when your sport team loses.
Not gonna lie. In my experience it's the woman who punish men for showing emotions, not the rest of society.
Gonna have to disagree there tbh
Never said that women aren't complicit in patriarchy and gender expectations, but in my experience (not just personal, I also worked with kids and teens for quite a long time) it's never as brutal as when growing up and among their peers.
And just from some personal experience: I have two little sisters (6 and 8 years younger than me) who I had to watch quite often. And if course I also played with them. And of course also stuff that little girls like to play. You won't believe the amount of bullying i received from male friends and classmates when I told that I do stuff like playing Barbie with my little sisters. Female classmates were more like "I wish my brother would have".
Meanwhile the majority of bullies in my wife's classes are girls. And they almost always get away with it because it must be the boys fault that the girl is bullying him. And yes, she keeps stats. The boys get punished quite severely for acting out while the girls barely ever get punished by admins.
This is not about who bullies more. This is about who is enforcing gender expatiations. Which is at it worst while growing up and through peers. Which for boys are other boys and girls are other girls.
That begs the question of why the decrepancy has leaped dramatically in recent years, whereas it was much closer previously.
The big surge is after me too. Some men just don't know how to show interest. Too afraid to make a mistake, just let it be.
This is happening outside the US, even outside the west to some extend as well.
Well women told us they didn't want to be catcalled or bothered by random men on the street, at work, or the gym so the majority of us listened and left women alone out of respect and fear. What happened? We get punished for it with less sexual and romantic opportunities based on the studies it seems. I feel like the solution should be for women to just approach instead or give stronger signals to the guys you want to approach you.
I'd rather men be lonely than abusers tho
This type of thinking is exactly why this problem is going to continue to get worse. You are claiming, maybe without realizing, that all men who are currently lonely would be abusers if they were in a relationship. Unfortunately, I think this belief is more common among the general public than you'd expect, perhaps subconsciously so. Basically the longer a man has not been in a relationship, the more of a "weirdo" they are considered to be. "Weirdo" being one of the nicest ways of putting it. An adult man who's never been in a relationship? Forget about it.
This compounds so hard. The man feels like a weirdo because they have no relationship experience, and society wonders what's wrong with them because they somehow made it to their 30's without ever once having a partner, even a one night stand.
And it all comes crashing down hard when their inexperience shows when they do have a chance. Cringe worthy flirting attempts might as well be proof of their creepiness.
This isn't my take. Are men REALLY afraid to date because of MeToo? If so, why?
I'd bet most men aren't and the ones that are might need to take a look at their dating behaviour.
My comment was written as a "hot take" that I agree is kinda ridiculous.
I dunno how to explain it really. I get that some men don't know how to show interest and are afraid of mistakes, but mistakes aren't gonna get you 'cancelled' or MeToo'd. That takes much more than mistakes and slight mishaps.
Are men are truly living in fear because women finally stood up against being abused?
If so, this fear is fabricated and they need to dismantle it within themselves, not weirdly blame the MeToo movement.
Is Reddit messing up and showing me that youâre replying to a different comment? Because if Iâm looking at this right the person you replied to never mentioned metoo or being cancelled at all.
The comment I replied to (and got downvoted hard for) was
The big surge is after me too. Some men just don't know how to show interest. Too afraid to make a mistake, just let it be.
This whole exchange is about men being afraid of being called out.
I emphatize with men being afraid to make mistakes or not knowing how to show interest. I'm the same. I find dating and social relationships very hard and I'm very awkward.
But shifting the blame to MeToo is ridiculous imo
Ah I see, it was showing for me that you replied to a completely different comment
This is honestly a terrible take. We weren't meant to solve unhealthy gender relations with no relations at all, and a hypothethical decrease in abuse against women isn't some kind of silver bullet for more and more men suffering every year.
I dunno. I think it still is easy to show interest and I see people being together all the time.
I really don't think men are suffering because they're afraid of being called out. It's ridiculously easy to avoid being #MeToo'd
Lonely men tend to become abusers. You can't just cut out a critical component of what makes human beings tick, social interaction and the feeling of being loved by someone, and expect people to be ok.
I'm not advocating for men to cut out social relations at all.
I just think it's ok to be accountable and to watch your actions a lil' bit. MeToo is a good thing for men. For 99.9% of men. There are myriads of ways to interact with women without being called out.
If being creepy was your only way to interact then yeah. I'd rather this particular man be lonely.
Simply not true. The avg woman wants nothing to do with the avg man, the avg man gets completely ignored by women. Doesn't matter how nice or not creepy you may be.
This isn't my experience at all. Maybe I haven't realized and I'm surrounded by drop dead gorgeous people in all of my circles, but I really doubt it.
Actually take a look at couples around you. Around me I'd call everyone pretty normal/average looking and most of my acquaintances are either in or have been in relationships. The women aren't better than the men. Most of 'em I'd call a great fit.
Dating is hard but dating and especially dating sites are far from telling the whole picture.
Those couples you see are outliers. They also probably dated since before online dating completely took of. Only guys I know of my socioeconomic background that have partners are the ones that are still with their high school sweethearts.
about 39 percent of heterosexual couples reported meeting their partner online, compared to 22 percent in 2009
This was 2017. 39% is a lot, but it's still a minority. I know Covid's been hard on social life, but it's not like in person interactions are a thing of the past. People go out, meet up and hook up all the time and bars and other traditional dating places are coming back in full force where I'm from.
People date coworkers, acquaintances, friends-of-friends, etc.
Sure. And guess who has more acquaintances and friends of friends? People with status and money. With rising inequality these things have become even harder to achieve for the avg guy. Guys working backbreaking labor jobs that's 90% men don't have the chance to date co workers. That's for white collars.
Also this statistic of people meeting online probably undercounts. It probably doesn't even consider Instagram which is bigger than actual dating apps for dating.
Obviously, rich and attractive people have it easier and I totally 1000% agree that rising inequalities are the root cause of this loneliness epidemic. I still think the reality isn't as dreadful as the portrait you paint, but maybe I'm more privileged than I realize and my work/life environment isn't representative of most people's.
Yeah. It can also highly depend on the city and location to. Some places are a lot more competitive than others. If you find it not so difficult to form friendships and relationships you have some sort of privilege or are in an environment the avg guy just isn't in. If you're not bald and white that's a big advantage in itself.
I'm a fat dude (always have been) and the two hottest women in my engineering program both flirted with me back in college. Why? Because they were part of my social circle, knew me, and probably wanted to test the waters. Nothing happened between any of us, but I know that both got great jobs after college and both have gotten patents already which is awesome.
I think quite a bit of that figure is also likely to be a cultural shift in sexual behaviour. Dating apps have made lots of sex available for a minority of really attractive/charismatic people, but there's only so much sex to go around. That means that while they're probably having lots more sex, others who are more average are going to miss out or find it harder to find a sexual partner, particularly up until the age of 30, when people today aren't getting married, but are mostly experimenting with partners and single life.
I think it's too short-sighted to just put it on attractiveness as in physical appearance. I think it's more about what people expect, how they present themselves and how they act.
I hate the 1-10 system but let's just use it to make it easier to explain. When you are a 5 and won't accept anything lower than a 9 as a potential partner you are going to have a hard time. If yoz don't have much money but you only go for women where the luxuries are pouring out of their pictures you are going to have a hard time. When you act like a dickhead you are going to have a hard time, unless you are gorgeous enough for them to fall for you anyway. When you put the same types of pictures on your profile like everyone else, but everyone else looks better in them, then you are going to have a hard time.
Not saying that being very attractive as well as having a lot of money isn't making that bullshit a lot easier. But putting some effort and thought into your profile and whom you want to date can still go a long way.
I mean, this is probably true, too, to an extent. A lot of it is about the photos. But it's just another layer of expectation on top of the 'be attractive' thing. It means be attractive and have well-selected photos, or if you can't be attractive, have amazing photos haha The problem on apps is you don't really see someone's mannerisms or how they act. You don't get much of an idea of their personality from a few messages, either. How good looking someone is and how well-selected their photos are, are basically all people have to go on. So that's what they go on. And when you literally have an endless source to be selective from, then you go with what the 'best of the bunch' is. Especially if you're 20 - 30 years old and want to experiment sexually, you're probably going to go for the most attractive. Why wouldn't you?
There's an NYT article on it here about an experiment that showed on average women swiped on 14% of men on Tinder. That 14% might vary a lot from woman to woman, spreading it out over the 'types' of attractive/well-presented men or average/really-well-presented men getting matched with, but it means there's a lot of average/averagely-presented men out there not getting matches. Most of them fit in this category, in fact. Most men I know, attractive or not, swipe on every other photo, and most of them will tell you they hardly ever get matches. I've had periods in my life where I've been average looking and other periods where I've been attractive and periods in my life where I had average photos and good photos on Tinder. The difference is crazy. It feels like the difference between 1 in 1000 matches and 1 in 200, but while I was average-looking it didn't much matter how clever my profile was, or how nice my pics were, to be honest. I just wasn't going to get many matches. Don't get me wrong, I had some amazing matches during these periods that turned into wonderful relationships; just not many of them. And that made them all the more quality, because we both saw something interesting beyond the photos that we wanted to explore further :)
It's just how dating apps go, for the most part. If you're an attractive/well-presented or average/really-well-presented male today, you are absolutely having way more sex than you were in 1950. Particularly because people are way more accepting of open/non-committal relationships today. And there's nothing wrong with that. It just means there's absolutely other average-looking men having less sex than they were in 1950. There's only so much sex to be had haha It's just not really surprising that there's a rise in men who haven't had a sexual partner by the age of 30. The surprising thing, for me, is the rise in women who haven't.
Itâs also shown that itâs NOT smart for guys to swipe on every single person. That makes their profile less likely to be shown. So maybe guys should actually read profiles and only swipe if theyâre compatible.
Also it is truly hard to tell anything without being in person, so if guys pick bad pictures (which is so so so common) it can be hard to swipe right. Especially knowing all these other guys prob swiped right on you too so you can just find a guy who has a good profile. And I know plenty of guys who look better in person, but if I genuinely canât see what his face looks like or canât figure out which one he is or donât know if he has teeth or eyesâŠ. Iâm swiping left
Well sadly it doesn't matter if you swipe selectively. I've paid for premium services which allow me to see ANYONE that swipes on me regardless of if I swipe on them... Never gotten a right swipe.
Dating apps are certainly not for everyone but also sometimes helps guys to get their profile reviewed. Also Iâm sure thereâs all sorts of algorithms like if you never swipe they wonât show you either.
But unfortunately some guys do have a hard time on them anywayâŠ. I dated a really nice cool smart guy, with great features, he was just a little overweight and I know he got very few matches so he gave up on them.
I'm 29. I've had a bunch of different pictures and reviews over the years. The truth is no woman wants to date a lower class non white bald guy.
Itâs also shown that itâs NOT smart for guys to swipe on every single person. That makes their profile less likely to be shown. So maybe guys should actually read profiles and only swipe if theyâre compatible.
This is the thing, though, you're asking average looking/averagely presented men to be more selective when they're getting one match in 700 swipes. They're swiping on average looking/averagely presented women who are passing them over for good looking and average looking really well presented men haha the apps distort the availability of potential partners. That's what the 14 percent shows. It should be much closer to 50 per cent if average looking/presented women are actually swiping on average men.
I dunno, from my perspective back then I swiped on a lot of women because I found a lot of them potentially attractive based on their profiles. But how do you know from a few photos and a few words whether you're going to click with someone's energy? You just kind of swipe hoping for a match you find attractive so you can have a chance to chat with them and see a bit more about them and have them see more about you. Which is its own battle for attention. It's a different user experience with average women, who are assessing profiles and swiping selectively, because if this profile doesn't stand out and grab the attention, the next one will.
I think the reason the algorithm corrects for this now is because many attractive and well presented men swipe on everything and then choose after, ghosting a lot of women, which leads to a bad user experience for them. It's to encourage those men to be selective and mix up who gets shown to women so they have more chance of swiping on average men haha
I honestly think apps are setting lots of people up to be lonely. Average men without matches and average women with opportunities for sex with men more attractive than them, but few long term prospects, and a set of higher standards about what's attractive and available. Maybe that's what the rise in women in the graph shows, too, that they're not finding partners they think they deserve.
Yeah I mean the apps definitely suck and definitely make things harder at the same time making it easy or appear to be. And of course they donât actually want you to stop using them. And yeah itâs so hard to really tell from texting and some pics without being in person. It does really suck for almost everyone involved, in different ways!
One thing though is maybe if itâs shown the guy is actually thinking about it and not just swipe after swipe on the first pic⊠like I specifically have no smoking and donât have kids in my profile but I get guys with a kid or who even put 420 in their profile. And Iâm like well youâre clearly dumb.
One thing that talking to my female friends about their app use showed me was just how different the sets of problems men and women have on the dating apps, but that everyone most certainly has problems! haha To be honest, after looking at the inboxes of some of them, I think being an average-looking male is probably not the worse of those two deals.
If you look at the graph the rise for women is barely anything. But also the inverse is Tru. Back in the day, ugly women could get dates and marriage, now not so much.
On dating apps if you aren't tall and white you're practically worthless.
This doesn't hold up. The avg man gets ZERO likes on dating apps. This includes unattractive women. Even the most unattractive women get more likes than avg guys.
Then they are often at least in media it seems the root of all problems, and have no problems.
When men are constantly told they are disposable, that they don't matter.
That they are evil, rapists, toxic etc what do expect
Then to your point Schools are setup more to help women especially high-school and post secondary.
Boys are often put into more competitive scenarios where girls are often more into social collaborative scenarios
Which ever from an evolutionary stand point makes sense women generally were the gatherer/caregiver and were a community. Where the men would be hunting and and protecting.
And canât discuss it openly with out being called out as a nice guy apparently
There are only two types of gender issues in American society these days:
I'm not being hyperbolic. Many, many people view this as a complete list.
The problem is that, the moment you try to talk about this, you get jumped from all sides.
I think just cus its not surprising... Loneliness and suicide rates have always been higher for men... Most women would be able to have sex if they wanted to, that's not how it works for men
This is exactly what I noticed.
It's like we are all reluctant to admit men have unique struggles and needs
Thereâs also a massive education disparity developing, which is also not being addressed.
It is feeding into and compounding the issue, while being its own separate issue as well.
Fewer men are going to college.
Women are about 60% of most school populations now.
Women are more interested in college educated men, and also thatâs where theyâre likely to meet.
So these men who arenât going to college are finding themselves lonely and undereducated, with significantly limited economic opportunity.
Iâm not saying itâs anyoneâs problem but theirs to fix, but it is going to be driving some major societal issues soon.
Iâm not saying itâs anyoneâs problem but theirs to fix, but it is going to be driving some major societal issues soon.
funny how when a social issue negatively impacts men its their own fault, but when a negative social issue impacts women the patriarchy is to blame...
If youâre commenting on your perception of a general societal position, fine.
If youâre referencing me specifically, understand this distinction comes from the fact that you are comparing my position to the position of people who are not me.
I tend to be a big advocate of personal responsibility and I donât favor identify politics much.
So, for example, rather than write a policy that encourages women to attend college, I would be in favor of promoting enrollment for any group who is underrepresented at time point X.
Rather than address racial disparities in education based on self-reported skin color, write policies than benefit incoming students whose parents did not attend college and/or who come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.
To the extent that these issues co-occur with race, those races most impact will disproportionately benefit until the disparity is resolved.
I would think that some of that variance is explained by the trades which are good paying jobs that don't require college and are heavily dominated by men as they often require physical strength.
But it shows the problem being much worse for men.
I noticed this as well. And which political persuasion has exploited the young-man-who-can't-get laid demographic with great aplomb?
But remember that a sexual relationship takes two. Assuming heterosexual relationships, there are the same number of men and women getting laid, so there's only a couple possible sources for the gap. Either:
1: the missing men relationships are being filled by older guys not in the surveys age range
2: a few men are having lots of relationships, and that keeps other men from having any
3: there's far more women in homosexual relationships than men.
I don't know what the answer is, but anecdotally I don't know of any evidence for 2 or 3. So I think that it's less that "men have it worse", and more that young men have it worse, because older guys are a lot tougher competition for us than older women are for girls.
The answer is a combination of 1 and 2, but far, far more 2. Your speculation about older men is frankly a bit ridiculous, if you are in this age demographic, I'm not sure you could ever believe a 27% to 17% gap would be explained by under 30 women going for over 30 men.
The age gap in relationships and hookups is small.
The reason I think it's 1 more than 2 is because 2 doesn't just mean that a few guys get lots of girls, but also that the same isn't as prominent among women. The data also flips for older age groups, older men are more likely to be in a relationship than older women, which lends to the idea that there's at least something age related going on
There's definitely guys that date far more than the average, but there's also women who date a lot too. Are alpha guys really that much more common than alpha girls? I just don't know that there's a massive enough difference to explain the gap.
Whereas with 1, we all know that older guys dating girls is much more common than older girls dating younger guys, it's more asymmetrical between the sexes. And the age gap doesn't need to be huge, a 29 yr old woman dating a 31 yr old guy would still skew the data.
No. 2 shouldn't be dismissed so quickly. It's thrown around in certain circles that I want nothing to do with, but it is quite true that the top 10% of men are drawing the majority of women on dating apps.
I think with dating apps itâs easier than even for women to get sexual relationships (so many horny men) and they having more choice makes certain men that are deemed unattractive even less likely to get laid (since it is harder for their personality to shine through dating apps vs conventional dating)
I really hate that we have to tiptoe around this fact now, or risk being labeled the i-word. There are huge disparities, much larger than most people would assume.
It's tricky. We need to denounce them. But we also need to be careful not to alienate them further. Try to catch them before they get too deep down that hole. Deprogram the ones who aren't too far gone. Give them a sense of belonging somehow, etc.
We need to be better about gender relations. We need to accept that toxic masculinity is real and that's not an attack on masculinity or men as a whole. And we need to support eachother in creating a new model for what positive masculinity looks like.
MGTOW started as a good idea, but it drew too many red-pill types. I'll take this chance to plug r/menslib because it's the only sub I consider a positive space for men to discuss these issues free of blame and hate that gets us nowhere, or even sets us back.
It's an important topic, and there are many conversations to be had, but it's bedtime, so I'll leave it at that for now.
I was subscribed to menslib for a time and am a big supporter of their mission statement, but far too frequently you have people that don't identify as cishet men in there trying to tell cishet men how to change/grow/evolve. Frequently felt finger-waggy
That sub is massively problematic because discussion can't happen without tiptoeing around how both genders cause issues for men.
I think this problem is endemic to the overwhelming majority of 'activist' subreddits. You're entering the virtual territory of a politically tribal group that is suspicious if anyone lodging criticism (even valid criticism) against them. So when someone says 'well both sides have their problems', it causes the group to look inward at their own issues and that is not easy for people to do.
I heard that sub mentioned before. In avtuality it always felt like it was dominated by discussions for gay men, so it didnt resonate with me much. I wasnt in the sub long, so if you think my perception is skewed lmk.
That sub refuses to have any balls (ironic) when it comes to issues caused by women.
Menslib is a sub full of women trying to âfixâ men (because there is obviously something wrong with being a man according to them) and telling men how to live their lives. There are sometimes good points brought up by the few people there that actually care about male issues, but these are often downvoted or removed by mods. The mods there are pretty terrible.
We need to accept that toxic masculinity is real and that's not an attack on masculinity or men as a whole.
For this to happen, we need feminists to call out other feminists who use the term to attack men, rather than criticize masculinity as a concept. The negative association didn't just materialize from thin air.
The negative association didn't just materialize from thin air.
It seems to have mostly come from people not knowing how an adjective works; combined with the fragility of the white male ego (let no single white male feel called out, if you do, the point kinda proves itself, no?) Third wave Feminists aren't anti-men; that's just radfems, and angry, toxic women. They're outliers whose opinion is magnified via social media algorithms. It's not really women's duty to advocate for us, it's ours. That's how I see it anyway.
It's not really women's duty to advocate for us, it's ours. That's how I see it anyway.
So you don't think feminism is about gender equality? I'm confused. If feminism is about gender equality, it is a feminist's duty, whether female or male, to advocate for men's issues.
Fortunately this power dynamic flips after 30. Men suddenly have a much larger pool of women to date with ages from 20 to 40.
From 18-30 most men are only dating women their own age or a couple of years younger. Mayyyybe a couple of years older, but thatâs not the norm. Very small pool of potential dates.
Meanwhile women are dating anyone their age all the way up to 40. Huge pool for young women.
There will still be conventionally attractive men with $$$ that attract a lot of women, but it definitely gets easier.
I think that study was on Tinder which is especially superficial and picture based. I don't think it translates so extremely to everyday life
i think it can affect confidence which is important in dating.
As an average looking guy I definitely wouldn't turn to tinder for confidence
You do realize most dating is done through apps right? Instagram is literally bigger than the dating apps for meeting people.
You do realise that it is way easier to project a personality and depth on Instagram than it is on Tinder?
Sure. But "personality" on Instagram just means showing off how wealthy you are. If you don't have a bunch of travel pics and clearly successful socioeconomically, women aren't going to reply to your dm.
Less women sure. But you can create other selling points on Instagram that are impossible / very difficult to do on Tinder. I'm not saying it's easy but I found tinder near impossible to get attention. I could on other sites like okcupid, facebook, tumble, insta because I could present the sides of myself that not every woman are looking for but some are. At the end of the day you don't need all women. You just need one that likes you for being you. I'd hate to be with a woman who was with me for my socioeconomic status
No.2 seems most likely.
The statistics from OKC (before they took it down and hid it) were that 4:1 ratio of men looking for women (including male age ranges of 40s, 30s, 20s, looking for young 20 year old females).
Meaning that women are either not looking for romantic anything (which would be unheard of; surely they are), or more likely all the women are competing over the top tier (taller) men on those dating apps who have large number of choices (e.g. having 500+ matches in the city but only dating 1-3 girls).
Height of men in the US for women looking for 6'2"+ is 91st percentile. When searching for a 6'0" boyfriend, 86th percentile.
Meaning that most (not all) women (based on profile desires) are looking for top 13% of men.
I donât understand how heightism is not a real thing in society, there are a vast amount of research showing height correlating to income and how taller men are paid more. With women there are positive body image movement but no such thing with height, even tho weight can be managed whereas height cannot be changed (barring extreme measures)
[removed]
I think youâre giving women wayyyy too much power here.
Look at presidential candidates. Theyâre never bald. Theyâre never short.
Is it shallow & ridiculous? Absolutely! Do those factors have any bearing whatsoever on his ability to do the job? Not at all!
Did women make those appointments? No. Theyâre not often in charge of hiring or raises either. And yet weâve seen multiple studies about conventionally attractive people earning more.
Iâd wager men are equally as shallow & thereâs some alpha male bullshit happening here vs your take that âmen donât matter.â
[deleted]
Another reason is that men tend to subscribe to very "hierarchal" views. The most patriarchal societies are also the least egalitarian and most hierarchal. In the west you have a large sub culture of men and boys calling themselves "alphas" "sigmas" "betas" etc. Men like the thought of a few males (usually themselves lmao) being at the top because of "inherently" being superior, and others at the bottom, for "inherently" being inferior.
I have always found males to be naturally self destructive.
same can be said about women âqueen beeâ
No it cannot. Women are not out referring to themselves or other women as "queen bee's" in regards on who gets with more guys lmfao.
Definition of Queen Bee: a woman who has a dominant or controlling position in a particular group or sphere. "Sarah was the queen bee of the Society circuit"
Usually only refered to describe women/girls in television media, not real life, and has nothing to do with "who sleeps with more guys".
It's interesting when you speak to women about why they want to date a guy so much taller, the usual answer is they want to feel smaller and protected and they usually feel too "big" with a shorter guy.
This is literally the patriarchy, women should be small and not take up space, so women can make themselves feel smaller by dating people a lot bigger than them. The men should be the big strong ones so they have to be bigger
My dad is shorter than my mum and they have a wonderful relationship, having that as I was growing up did mean that when I did start dating, height was literally never an issue. I am short so I did generally date men taller than me as there are not a lot of men shorter than 5'3" but I never specifically went for a certain height and eventually stopped dating men over 6ft because it was physically really awkward.
Representation is really important and I hope kids are being presented with more diverse couples in TV shows and such. Literally the Addams family was the only show where the man was shorter than the women (they are total couples goals tho).
So why partially blame feminism, if they're the ones actually fighting back at this historical value men are given? I am a guy in my late 20ies and genuinely empathize with what society has done historically to us, but we have to have our own feminist-esque awakening and stop being supporters of such a deeply patriarchal system.
The way I see in the West we've raised a couple of generations of lost men- who still are forced to act by socirty in the pre-modern-feminist era paradigm - who are asocial, emotion-repressing and other deeply toxically masculine traits which no one really wants but everyone collectively raises into men purely due to tradition.
Fist fights for example - I've been in one fight my entire life, but fighting has always been advertised to me as normal for men - why? Why should it be considered normal if we hate it, women hate it, the laws punish it? But still - you're supposed to raise your fists when insulted.
Feminism isnât fighting back against the societal expectations/roles men are given, thatâs where youâre mistaken. And you seem to think that the gender role men historically had is useless and nobody wants it anymore, thatâs also ridiculous. Our society was, and still is to a large part, literally built on the sacrifices of men for their family/community/country. You think feminism is trying to get rid of that, no way. They mostly want to get rid of the symptoms of it that are harmful to women.
We are all biologically and socially programmed to care very little about men. Feminists are no different.
Not to say that feminism is necessarily bad, it has achieved many good things in the past. But to say that the movement is about gender equality or that it also is about male issues is just plain untrue.
Simple - because itâs a female sexual preference, and those are deemed good by society at large.
In their respective extremes, weight can be managed with bariatric surgeries and height can be managed with bone lengthening surgeries... Both extreme approached and both not a particular healthy solution if selected merely fit esthetic reasons.
i mean looking at none extremes, is easier to lse weight than to grow taller.
I remember them once concluding that every extra inch of height is equivalent to an extra $30,000 income, in terms of advantage in attracting women
Should ask the women. Ive heard complaints about younger guys that kinda shocked me. And it wasnt just money.
One friend ranted to me about guys her age living in a mess. Not washing their junk well enough before getting to business and just basic cleanliness?? Surprised me given how gorgeous she is.
Not hard to be tougher 'competition' against that. Yikes.
Most men aren't like that. They just get rejected long before women find out.
I'd know. Im a guy myself and i know to shower daily and keep my room neat. Same with most of my friends...least the ones ive actually visited.
She does have fwb she keeps around though so its obvious its not all younger guys in either case. But the fact that she finds that it bears complaining about says something.
Edit: dont shoot me im just the messenger
You do realize that's because she was going for the Bad Boys type, Right?
Quite simply the most stable, reliable and organized men are probably not going to be the most immediately sexually available for women, especially if they're rarely out on Saturday nights drinking.
Found one.
You don't have to be a "bad boy" to be out on a Saturday night. Male hygiene issues are super common though and more indicative of laziness and/or ignorance than being "bad".
I'll admit that while I always tried to keep tip top hygiene, there were things that I didn't do frequent enough, properly or at all because I didn't know it mattered.
You don't have to be but it definitely helps. It's not a coincidence that the most successful guys with women tend to have "dark triad" traits.
Probably 1 the most 2 a lot and 3 barely even matters.
This survey was specifically covering opposite sex relations.
Same sex relationships still impact the available dating pool for the heterosexual people involved in the survey. I still don't think it's a significant factor in the data, but I wanted to be thorough with the options
Number 2 is obviously the big reason
I would say #2 is more likely than #1, and it is down to technological and cultural changes - dating apps - that give attractive men great advantages. The fact that there are more almost 3x as many men as women on these apps gives women a lot more leverage.
Yes, part of it is older men exploiting younger women. Particularly wealthy privileged white men. It's not uncommon to see "progressive" women still end up dating conservative men with money. Rich guys today practically have concubines anywhere they go thanks to their status and Instagram.
Its all 3. From what iâve seen, between lesbians, gold diggers, and top-chasers, thats a massive chunk of the dating pool of women. Thereâs just a shrinking remainder.
I'm with you buddy.
I might be delving into the incel rhetoric, but this is partially because women have a plethora of male partners to choose from. Their social medias are flooded with requests from men. To the contrary men have to actively look out for a compatible female partner and pose the best traits/features since they are in competition with several men. The gender ratio may be 50/50 but women tend choose a select few males as potential partners. The relationship isnât quite 1 to 1.
Women go for quality over quantity. Men go for quantity over quality. Always been that way so the stats aren't surprising.
It will never be addressed. No one will ever care about the problems of men. Sorry.
A large amount of socially unattached, lonely men generally leads to violence and war. Thereâs a reason China has become so much more belligerent over the past few years.
china's marriage rate is the same as the usa
Yeah but they have twice as many men as America has total people. There are 30 million more single men than women in China. That's 10% of America's entire population.
I think by focusing on this singular metric it obscures that the problem is probably the same for both.
A woman who is feeling lonely can get desperate and go have an (ultimately depressing and unsatisfactory) sexual encounter without much effort. It doesn't help anything, and she's in the same state as before, but now she's on the other side of this graph.
If you're male you just don't matter to society at large and don't you dare think about being white or straight because then you might as well not even exist.
I guess that explains why you hardly ever see straight white men in positions of political or corporate power.
You're completely missing the point of what they said. The point is that the average straight white male is just a lonely guy without any power, who constantly has to hear about how evil straight white men are - just because the people in power are overwhelmingly straight white men, which benefits the rest of us straight white men in 0 way whatsoever.
This has become the mentality post-wokeness. What you describe was pre-wokeness and there being white men in positions of power does absolutely nothing to disprove my point.
Society, focus on helping men? Pretty sure even the suggestion gets you permabanned from the internet.
Based? Based.
If you're male you just don't matter to society at large and don't you dare think about being white and/or straight because then you might as well not even exist.
Itâs a very very serious problem and if we do t as a society find a way to include men (and stop calling them toxic) we are going to be very frightened with the results.
Thanks for (someone, finally!) addressing the elephant in the room.
Graph seems to say men are more giving than women? Think for men, might/can be more of a necessity, so this is potentially a rough point.
It's been (guardedly/) openly stated in some circles for some time - women need to use men's sexual appetite to control them. I believe there is actually some (tacit) approval/acceptance of this in society. Yeah, so they will "tolerate" the elephant in the room for now (but for how long will the elephant tolerate them?)
But it shows the problem being much worse for men.
Easy answer: bc online dating is womens playground. If you are a 3/10 girl. You will still get action. If you are 6+/10 you will be flooded by opportunities. Men on the other hand... If you arent in the top 5-10%, you might as well uninstal that dating app.
How do you propose we should address that problem? Iâm asking because I genuinely have no idea and the only solutions I heard are incel aggression (âwe should force women to be with usâ).
Its 'worse' for men if you think its actually a problem. Except men have far more escapes than in the past, like access to tonnes of pron and video games. And even fleshlights.
So the question is, are men actually 'worse off' or are women just not able to compete as effectively?
From what others are saying, a possibility for the large gap is a low sample size. Or I could be completely wrong and when the sample size is increased, the gap would increase
You can't be seen focusing on mens issues, that would be mesogonistic
If you've ever heard of Dunbar's number, I think it's probably relevant. Early humans evolved in a situation where most were in stagnant groups. Acquaintances didn't come and go as much as they do today. The people you knew growing up were the people you lived with your whole life, for the most part.
Today, that's hardly the case. I've had and lost too many friends to count. It makes it hard to really feel connected to anyone, when you don't have lasting relationships. But between going to different schools, moving, changing jobs, etc., it's just hard to do.
I don't think Dunbar's Number has anything to do with the modern loneliness epidemic. Dunbar's Number is a cognitive limitation setting the upper bound on how many people you can keep track of socially, sure. But human brains haven't radically changed in the last 20 years to suddenly make people less cognitively able.
Additionally, while estimates vary, a commonly cited figure for Dunbar's Number is around 150. That's easily enough for a dozen close friends and family, and many more casual acquaintances and coworkers and the like. When people say that they have fewer close friends, what they're saying is that they have more cognitive capacity than they can fill. "I have space in my life for more friends, and yet I have none."
Loneliness is a real problem, but the root of the problem has to be something that changed in the last few decades to explain why people today are more lonely than they were previously.
Pure speculation, but internet/digital media. Online âfriendsâ seem closer than in reality they are. You can race home after your shift and connect with a broad range of people all over the world. But those people canât hold your hand, give you a back rub or snuggle up next to you at bedtime.
Internet friends give emotional connection, but leave out something far too over looked; actual human touch.
Couple that with the current culture of not shaking hands, or invading âpersonal spaceââŠ.. Iâd say itâs a pretty good base for the loneliness epidemic.
it's definitely a part of it, as well as the fact that so many people/companies curate their accounts and only post their best moments or entirely fabricated moments, making people question why they can't achieve the same.
I think work culture is the largest problem by far, though. Working within the same community for your whole life used to be realistic. Now you're lucky to last 5 years unless you're willing to take a pay cut just to continue working at the same company that won't promote you. Jobs are also becoming increasingly isolated into a few metros, so often you have to choose between staying with your community or moving to get ahead in your career.
Itâs a sad current social state unfortunately.
Iâd suggest joining a club of some kind. Attending an art class or joining a hikers/runners/bicycling/bowling/swimming/baseballâŠ.. âwhateverâ league.
Get out there. Anyway you can.
Iâm sure there are people out there that can back up this claim with quantifiable evidence. I feel this all the time.
exactly. I need to be touched rather badly. not like...sexually although that would be nice but I just need a hug man
The women that would be hugging you are getting flewed out to miami to hang with chad.
I got plenty of friends in real life and Im still lacking in human touch. Do people (guys) hug their bros regularly? I literally cant remember the last time Ive touched a person besides my mom and dad for a hug or something.
I think this is more to do with the personality of the individual rather than a hard/fast rule.
I have a few that like to hug (especially after a few brews) and others that would never.
Just my experience anyway
I'd argue something even more extreme happens. As internet is a breeding ground for parasocial relationships beyond anything before, many people fall into "relationships" that are completely one-sided. A streamer they religiously watch, personas they closely follow on Twitter, etc. They're no longer just media, but people we create emotional connections with. Ones that fill cognitive limits, but ultimately are completely empty as your parasocial friends don't even know you exist.
This isn't 100% new occurrence - we had people falling for fake characters ever since mass media happened (although the fact that unhealthy relations would happen most often with daily stimulation, like soap operas, already showed the set of circumstances that facilitate parasocial interaction).
But like with many things, internet created the best version of this brain worm and then accelerated it dozens of times over.
For data triangulation, Lukianoff & Haidtâs Coddling of the American Mind explores research about how all these mental health issues - anxiety, depression, suicide ideation, etc - dramatically increased the year that social media hit smart phones.
Was also looking at some longitudinal data on health behaviors of students at uni, and a bit over 50% reported zero sexual partners in the last 12 mos. Even though it included COVID times, it was matching data from the same survey given in previous years.
I wonder if some of that cognitive capacity is filled by celebrity culture & social media, so we donât make as much effort to flesh out close friendships in real life.
I have no idea WHY I know which Kardashian is pregnant, but I bet that pop culture leakage has scratched a bit of my evolutionary itch for neighborhood gossip.
People work way more , no time to form or build legitimate friendships. Add social media to the mix and the outlook doesnât get any better .
But human brains haven't radically changed in the last 20 years to suddenly make people less cognitively able.
I don't know man, social media has definitely made humans collectively less cognitively abled.
The last part sounds like me too. Most of my high school friends went military. I went to college, everyone left hometown. My college friends went to different parts of the country. Re-connected with some in my current area but I settled down and had kids, they are still partying a bit. It doesnât help that we all landed in different suburbs so like 30 minutes drive to each other.
Me too. I think I kept in contact with 1 high school person during college, until that fizzled out. I kept in contact with my college friends through the internet for a few years, but that got harder to do after I found local friends and wasn't online as much. Then I moved away and didn't have those local friends, and didn't really get close to anyone. Then I moved away again, to a country on the other side of the world, and now I only really know a handful of people. I'm an introvert by nature, so it's hard to meet new people. If I move away again, it'll be rough for awhile until I get to know people. Covid definitely didn't help, especially when it became impossible to just leave work behind at the office. Even before then, there's definitely time periods where my job just too up so much time and energy that I just didn't have it in me to meet people. Modern life is definitely frustrating that way.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Not the exact same situation here but I can relate. What a weird world.
Having little kids makes it so hard to socialize right now. We're in survival mode. I'm sure it gets easier as the kids get older, make friends, and we'll possibly make friends with some of the parents.
I feel like the fact it says opposite-sex sexual partners might also be part (not all) of the increase those who have same-sex sexual partners, while not the only reason for this increase would also be a factor as people are more comfortable existing as members of the LGBTQ community due to wider acceptance than in the past.
Holy shit, this comment thread is depressing the hell out of me. I saw the data and was like yeah go queers! And then everyone in here is just presuming that it means that everyone is lost and lonely. Hetero centric thinking still feels so personal and hurtful.
The number for men went from 8% to 27%. Gay men make up about 2% of the population, and shades of bisexual about 5%. Even if you assume a really high rate of closeted LGBTQ people, there has to be something going on in the straight population to make this big of a jump.
The statistics that say queer people are less than ten percent of the population is markedly biased as a means of invalidating our population. It has been shown that a solid third of Generation Z identifies as something beyond 100% heterosexual.
I think Dunbar's number is taken a little too seriously. It's based on brain volume comparisons, and most of the evidence I've seen for it existing have put the cart before the horse.
OP, in which country was the survey done? Is it murica?
Losing friends (when the move away) is hard. It took me several years after college to really make some good friendships and one of them recently moved 2000 miles away to a city where she knows no one and I was just so surprised she wanted to voluntarily do that and start all over.
Oh man I never thought about that but it's totally true. None of my close friends live close anymore. I suppose my neighbors are sort of friends, but I feel like there's a barrier because we know we'll likely move in a few years, and I know that's their plan too. So not a lot of effort is put into actually building that relationship.
Weâre more âconnectedâ than ever with all our technology but those connections are not physical. They arenât with people in our physical communities. They give us a false sense of community that doesnât have the real benefits. Reminds me of how itâs like people say sugar is empty calories, itâs like that.
It's all bullshit. We're not connected to each other, we're connected to algorithms. They fucked everything up.
Iâd think the numbers only keep going up during the past 2 years and the pandemic. This chart seems to stop at 2018.
I thought this reflected people being more comfortable with their sexualities. This graph only says opposite sex. Doesn't say anything about the same sex though.
I thought it was showing less people closeted after turning 18
One thing I realize was how tinder totally hurt my "game." I am 5'9 black Japanese dude and my skill is chatting and being funny, not being insanely good looking. Before tinder, I could go to a bar or club, strike up a conversation and generally get a date. Tinder has changed that dynamic so much. Why go out alone when you can just swipe someone to go with? Why go on a date with someone you met when you can just swipe? Why go on a date with someone who is 5'9 when I just matched with 6'1? Trying to have a conversation with a girl, gotta wait for her to reply to whomever else she is taking too.
Tinder must be amazing for that top 5% of dudes, but for us who rely on actually talking and making a connection it's fucking awful.
That was my first thought, too, until I noticed that this specifies "opposite sex sexual partners" so the sexless and the homosexual populations are being represented in this data. That makes it seem more like a worthless novelty graph to me.
OR weâre getting gayer đ
weâre mid-outbreak of an incel and a fuckboy epidemic. Itâs the same thing really if you account for the disparity in growth of sexual partners between genders. Sexual dynamics are in shambles due to cultural shifts (technology, death of values, and societal pressures)
the men with partners are having significantly more, at the expense of the partnerless
In literature terms: Charlotte Lucas doesnât have to settle for Mr Collins anymore.
About that, why does it list specifically opposite sex sexual partners? That basically means you can't draw the loneliness conclusion a lot of people here are drawing at all. Glad OPs comment had some more info on that.
Yeah, at a glance I assumed all these folks were in purely same sex relationships until I remembered that 0 relationships of any kind was also an option.
There's also a political divide in the US where men and women divide by more than 10% from women politically.
At one time this didn't matter much. However, over the past few years, the polarisation has become quite bitter.
It is really easy for a woman to find a partner on dating sites, so politics can have a big impact on likely success rates.
At this point it gets easy for men who miss out to go down the red pill/incel rabbithole. Going down that rabbit hole provides a great rationale for why incels are victims. Of course, it only makes it harder to connect with women, the further down the rabbit hole they go.
So what is the nature of the political divide, exactly? What politics are men more likely to have that repulses women, and what political leaning of men are more acceptable to them in the US?
The nature of the divide doesn't matter, does it?
My point is that if politics is polarised, that means people see it as a more critical issue in their lives. If it's a more critical issue, you only need to think about it for a moment that there's going to be more arguments about it whatever the specific issue. If there's more likely conflict over something with guy A, and less conflict over something with guy B, which guy is the woman going to choose? Does it matter what the specific issue is?
No, I was just curious.
I'm thinking of the case where a few years ago if a woman thoight a guy was good looking etc, but had different politics, she'd roll her eyes a bit at the politics but still go out with him.
Nowadays, political differences will have them spitting at each other.
Yeah but how do men differ politically from women?
In the US it's about 55-45 women vs men voted Biden.
But that's all over the place when you try to break it down. An individual in one town might have a completely different demographic to an individual in another. Same for educational or racial background.
So, you'd want to break it down by city or town level where you live, at least, to be useful.
Right wing spaces tend to be male dominated, don't they?
Which presents an interesting hypothesis for short-term evolution. Will the next few generations see a noticeable increase of the sexiness of the average male while the sub-par dudes fail to procreate?
You're putting a LOT of weight on genetics, for something that is very heavily based on economics right now. Looking good is mainly about eating right and exercise. Eating right and exercise is a lot harder if you're paycheck to paycheck, can't afford to eat calories to burn calories to build muscle, can't afford 4 hours a week doing cardio too stay trim, etc etc. Being marketable on social media is a lot about status, not anything genetic.
You're also trying to draw a conclusion about reproductive fitness based on the preference of teenagers.
All true analysis. Itâs a silly hypothesis but fun to briefly think about. Sales of Axe body spray skyrocketing and Python for Dummies plummeting.
Looking good is entirely about genetics. Coupled with not Being fat
Yeah, that's basically what I said, but with a breakdown of what it takes to get good nutrition/exercise. McDonalds is cheap and fast for someone who has to spend 90 minutes commuting to a low wage job every day, and can't afford to buy veggies they then throw away.
Eh I don't know if I would completely agree with that. Being in-shape, dressing well, earning more money, having good hygiene, having a decent personality, are all things that make you dramatically more attractive, and they are mostly within our control.
Eh, that doesn't seem right. I read an article that states that young people as a whole are having less sex; I've heard nothing about a subclass that are having way more. Besides, what "death of values" are you referring to? That sounds quite vague.
Hey, man...
Have you thought about implications of gendered language in the contexts of the incel-hacker epidemic?
As annoying as Dan Bilzerian is, a larger problem is actually witches and wizards lurking in and near wormholes in and near Chelsea and New Jersey, all while stalking their victim through his/her hacked phone.
You call it The PATH... I call it a wormhole... It's whatever.
It's skewed data though. You can't compare it to normal trends of people having sex because being openly gay is much more accepted now and people come out much much earlier.
Therefore if you are gay early on you would skew this data
Seriously a meaningful part of this I would guess. It literally rises right when gay marriage was legalized federally
Link please
Meh people are just more honest
Sexual relations for women didnt change much. Theyre all banging the same dude
Why would you want to map a back stranger by your side?
Is cuz the floride is turning the frogs gay /s But seriously I think more people are willing to accept themselves as gay without âtrying it out first (getting with someone of the opposite sex)â as homosexuality has become more accepted over the past few decades. The wording is important.
I mean, it says opposite sex partners, it could also be that people are able to come to terms with their sexuality earlier on as society progresses
Or it's just homosexuality
How does that theory explain the diverging gender difference though?
Or people are more comfortable saying they are gay
Smartphones > Relationships?
Hard to say, could just reflect more same sex partners
Donât forget the rise of the incels. It turns out bitterly hating on women is bad for losing your virginity.
Nah everyone becoming gay
People are significantly more shallow too. Lotta rude ass entitled women on my end at least. Fuck em.
Or that lots of people are gay. No idea why they only did opposite sex partners.
Maybe young people picked up on the scam that was having a load of friends just to say you have friends, but deep down you don't really like them. Plus the internet, irl I have two people I interact with frequently as friends, but on the internet there are a lot of people I interact with that in a survey situation I wouldn't refer to as friends becuase I don't really know what they look like and in a lot of cases I don't know their names.
Other numbers reflected in this graph: people under 30 who have had sexual partners since turning 18, just not ones of the opposite sex.
Relationship requires effort in which should be taught in school as to how to cultivate and maintain one.
Here I was feeling impressed by all the gold star lesbians and dedicated gay men. It seriously didnât occur to me that some of these folks werenât having sex at all. đ€Šââïž
But that doesn't explain why the share of men under 30 with no opposite sex partners is going up faster than the share of women under 30 with no opposite sex partners.
I think it reflects the sexual revolution where all women now only for the top 1% of men.
Single family homes and the dismantling of the nuclear family is the worst thing to happen to the USA.
Or maybe itâs just that queer ppl exist?
I don't know. That would be the case if the data excluded homosexuals.
The gap between men and women saying that is concerning either way. Either more homosexual women had straight sex, probably out of insecurities, or that gap does represent the loneliness pandemic with the extra attention that women get factored in
Better get back to church, people!
Okay so bear with me - it's been a while - but this is not how I remember church services going at all.
It represents a community where youâre welcome to be part just because you exist - that your participation is wanted without having to be earned. Thatâs my theory why religious people in general are happier than non-religious people.
(I am not a religious man btw., just to have that said.)
If religious people under 30 tend to have more sex than their nonreligious peers then outreach and attendance should pretty much take care of themselves.
Perhaps I begin to see what these pseudo-Baptist megachurches are tapping into.
Thereâs a market, and itâs growing.
I'd also be interested to see what percentage are not interested in sex with the opposite gender (gay, lesbian, asexual, etc) because heterosexual sex isn't the only type of sex. I doubt it's 27% but I wouldn't be surprised if that grew from 2% to 7% over the last 30 years.
I think this just reflect the rising quality and accessability of porn and additional alternatives.
I assumed the same but itâs weird that they add the âopposite sexâ part. It seems like itâs testing for 2 things simultaneously. Homosexuality and virginity.
Or infantilization
See I took this to mean that it has become easier for younger males to come out as gay, rather than having sex with a woman through pressure.
Sorry it's my fault, I singlehandedly bring the entire world stats down. I mean I don't wan't to be a burden to you guys so feel free to remove my name from the group project it's ok.
i just realised this wasn't a statistic about same sex partners...
Technology isolates people, simple as that.
Link? Tried searching for that friends chart, but couldnât find it
There are a million reasons why this is. A few of them are: no community, internet, social media, anything that can keep you inside for long periods of time.
I'm gonna go there and suggest at least SOME of this though is more modern attention towards respecting women and consent of all parties involved, which means less young boys are successfully (or even trying to) pressuring girls into things they don't want to do.
Thanks, capitalism
Throw toxic masculinity in the mixture and cancel + cringe culture. Now its seen as creepy for speaking to a stranger.
Or, and hear me out here, lotta people be gay.
doesn't this stat also reflect more people being open about being gay?
There's definitely a loneliness epidemic, but with the way the chart is worded, I thought of LBGTQ+ first.
And now with everyone working from home, itâs almost guaranteed that you will barley ever make human contact
Internet made it so you stay home infront of a screen all day, before you literally had to go out to do shit.
Also there are billions of dollars invested into getting your brain addicted to the dopamine release and patterns, companies like Riot openly said they researched a ton in psychology and things like "flowstate", how to hypnotize people to stop thinking about time and stuff outside the game so you are just stuck playing all day.
It makes sense from a business stand point, you want as much activity as possible, but the back end is that you basically manipulate or dupe your audience via addictive reinforcements and such.
Pretty wild
Another part can also be that more people are in a space comfortable about coming out as gay/lesbian/asexual/whatever, and you don't have as many people who feel forced into marrying into a heterosexual relationship than in 1980
Hijacking to ask a question, is this graph not a measure of virgins AND gays?
or is it because of all the butt stuff
I was coming into the comments to bring up something similar, but this particular chart has one glaring flaw which makes it pretty much useless for supporting this conclusion. (I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this graph may not support it, at least by itself.) What it doesn't account for is those 18-30 who HAVE had sex before but ONLY with members of the same sex. Since younger generations are increasingly comfortable being true to their sexual preferences rather than getting a partner of the opposite sex to uphold social and cultural appearances, this graph might support a growing number of 18-30 year olds who identify as gay in recent decades as much as it does people having less sex in general. So good analysis, but needs more contextual data to support one conclusion or another
Because people have to work forever to starve
I'm in this reply and I don't like it.
Just to put it out there, but it specifically mentions opposite sex. I dont know why this data was gathered but it could also be saying something about same sex intercourse
Could this not also mean that there is more same sex intercourse
I blame the breakdown of family values and smaller families. I was only able to find a wife because my aunt (one of many) was able to find one girl for me at church. I could never get a co-worker or "friend" to do that for me. It is absolutely nuts how important a tribe and extended family is for a person.
It could just show that people are waiting a bit longer to have sex for the first time. I'd be interested to see the number of people 25-30 with zero partners since 18. I'm thinking you'd see a much lower number. Including a bunch of 18-20 year olds in the survey skews the numbers if that particular age group have significantly more virgins now than in years past.
It shows there is a small population of men bedding all the women while others arent getting any snoo snoo.
Nah, Tinder has given woman an overinflated since of self worth. I'd love to see a line on that graph when it was introduced
or, hear me out, some people are gay
You didn't take into consideration that homosexuals exist... Or bisexuals... Or whatever sexuality which doesn't exclusively mean "sleeping with the opposite sex".
A lot of these people probably enjoyed sex - just not with the opposite sex ;)
I think this just reflects the fact that there are small sample sizes in the GSS for cuts this small (young men between 18-30).
I agree thatâs why we see that huge spike up basically right around when the pandemic hit but I also think a big chunk of this is sexually active people who are not heterosexual - something I think a lot of people in this thread are forgetting.
If you think about the AIDS epidemic in the 90s which occurred roughly 20-30 years ago youâll be able to see a lot of people who were growing up/ coming of age during that time who may have been gay but saw the huge stigmatization and âdangers of being gayâ.
Since then LGBTQ plus community has had much more social acceptance not only in the US but all over the world. Weâve seen things such as legalized gay marriage, first XYZ elected officials, you name it. The world has become much more progressive and accepting, therefore we see people who are recently turning 30 and are comfortable who they are - they donât feel pressured into having relationships with someone of the opposite gender even passed 30 (many gays all over the world still have to fake relationships and even marriages for the sake cultural or familial stigmas but for older generations it was a much much more common occurrence)
Also a possible contributing factor might be the specific terminology of âopposite sexâ- really this chart seems to be aimed more at the implication of potential birth rate drops more than it is loneliness or virginity per se.
Also like gay people exist
We could also just be more openly gay or asexual; this does seem to only cover heterosexual sexual partners and not romantic partners in general
Weâre the most connected but the most lonely
We have been lead to believe that virtual connection can replace IRL connection.
It does not and cannot.
But it is a good substitute. The internet saved my life, if i didnt have it I would never have had any friends growing up
I'm not sure substitution is the right way to describe it, instead I think a closer descriptor might be another social net, or dynamic to add to your social life. I don't think you can substitute one for another (ie family, friends, coworkers, online friends etc) they all are different types of social nets.
It's kind of like CGI in movies. They work best when they augment what's already in the shot, not completely fabricate it out of nothing.
The analogy has a few holes, but it's something I guess.
Yup, but idgaf, I've seen so many people in this comment section go on about how the internet is terrible and it honestly is starting to sounds like Millenials are going to ban the internet or place heavy restrictions on it in the future, as if it'll fix anyones problems.
Sounds kind of like the golden age of the internet is ending
It ended
Not really
Yup at the end of the day it's hard to be loved by characters on a screen. It's a totally different medium
The internet saved my life
Right there with you. I got through a lot of rough times in my life because of the diversity of friends I had online who could support me.
Growing up in the Deep South, any deviation from the Standard Football-Loving Flag-Waving Christian was scorned. Having a global group of friends of all ages of all genders was clutch in helping me feel more normal.
I absolutely agree. I grew up in a tiny, rural, 100% WASP, conservative Republican area in the US, which is great, if you are 100% WASP and a conservative Republican. Everyone else is literally in mortal peril on a daily basis. I wish I'd had the internet growing up.
The issue is how often It becomes a replacement rather than a backup social connector.
Itâs a piss-poor substitute, but better than nothing.
It is to a social life as a lifejacket is to a ship or a parachute to an aeroplane.
>The internet saves lives
>The internet is borderline useless
Bruh just shut up
No theyâre right. Itâs good to have, it saves lives. But people should still strive for a real connection. The internet is not a replacement for a social life, just a lifeline for lonely people.
i think it does more farm than good to point out though. it is what it is
I mean, you say that but if you didnât have it, you may have been more driven to go out and socialize in the real word.
The Internet allows us to be introverted in a way that has never really been possible before⊠we donât have to leave our houses for anything anymore.
I mean, you say that but if you didnât have it, you may have been more driven to go out and socialize in the real word.
No. No. Absolutely fucking not
If we didnât have access to the internet, our lives would be completely different.
Seems very shallow minded to insist otherwise.
Go back a century and you would have been born in a town that had a real, local community to be a part of. It was only in the 21st century that we lost that sense of local community and had to start seeking it on the Internet.
Man you are ignorant as fuck how do you think you know what it was like a century back, did you fucking live then?
Ignorant? Youâre the ignorant one that seems to forget that historical records exist.
Family stories. History books. Etc.
But with the way youâre acting, maybe youâre right about yourself. Your attitude sucks.
Not a substitute. More like a bandaid solution.
holy shit, shut up
What is your problem dude? I wasnât even disagreeing with you, I was merely offering my own opinion. No wonder you didnât have any friends growing up, holy fuck.
I think it certainly can but often does not
You're wrong I've made friends online that have been better than most friends I make irl, friendship is more than seeing each other in person, many people have friends that have moved away, and are still in contact. I can't say the same about intimate relationships though.
You're wrong...
I did not say better, I said replace.
I can't say the same about intimate relationships though.
As I said Virtual Intimacy cannot replace Physical Intimacy.
Zuckerberg enters the chat...
There is a difference for what kind of connection you seek. Keeping in Contact with friends online works great. Finding new friends, or finding a partner solely online doesnât work as good/for me personally not at all
Not for you
Nor for you.
Thatâs not how that works, you can only speak for yourself
Virtual >> IRL for me
We have been lead to believe that virtual connection can replace IRL connection.
Why? Socially those people can be more satisfied than before. This chart only shows sexual activity, got nothing to do with social connections.
The heck? I've never once heard someone say that.
Depends on what they mean.
I regularly hang out in voice chat with friends and play online. I'll go months with never seeing a single one in person.
I don't consider that "virtual" interaction and don't feel any deficit from not doing the same thing but sitting next to them instead of on the other side of a screen.
Or maybe it will and will be inferior (but will anyway).
Iâm starting to think smartphones are actually making us less connected.
It can. And it does.
[removed]
Corollary: Many jobs that can easily be worked from home are still done in an office. Most would work best with a mix of home and office work. 3 (or 4) days at home and 2 (or 1) in office would be a great compromise.
[removed]
Disagree. Most office environments (open plan) are terrible for concentration and productivity.
Unless you are in direct contact with customers on a daily basis pretty much all other office rolls that are knowledge work can be more effectively done in a hybrid mode.
Middle managers are the ones against it as it calls into question the need for their role to exist.
Why does more people having zero opposite sex partners have to inherently be related to loneliness? I'm almost 30 and fit into the graph but am not lonely. I can't be the only one.
Related because men spending less time around women means less opportunity for sex
This isn't about loneliness, it's about sex.
Not having sex doesn't mean being lonely
Maybe people are finding more comfort in platonic relationships and not feeling as pressured to have sexual partners? You are probably right but Itâs a nice hypothetical to think about at least.
No, while we're more connected, those connections are also more superficial. Makes it easier to cancel on plans or even just cut people out of your life.
Or, hell, want to talk to a buddy? Gonna go meet them face-to-face and have a conversation? No. Usually, a few texts or messages on whatever social media you two use. People don't even want to talk on the phone anymore...
We're very connected, but also very distant.
Connection through screens are still a bit off with real life connections. There are some elements missing or reduced like feelings/empathy etc.
Connected in only a superficial, meaningless way.
Delete Facebook and other social. Seriously! I did it and a few true friends still made the effort to reach out and include me at some events like Halloween parties, Yankee swaps, and their weddings. I learned that a larger portion of people I considered "friends" was only just really paper friends via Facebook and the only time I'd see or be included was because Facebook suggested invites to them.
I cherish the few friends I have now, as far as the relationship thing. It's a shit show, but a cat (or dog) helps curb the loneliness. Join a climbing gym (Bouldering focused) if there is one near you. The concept behind this gym is problem solving and almost no one wears headphones, and everyone chats about the problems. It's been the main increase to my friends group post college. This is less so in a top rope focused gym because people come in pairs and the problems are 40-80ft tall so there is less grouping/talking about small sections of difficulty, but there is still more socialization than in a traditional gym where everyone pops in headphones and ignores each other.
that's a line from a TV show
It's amazing how accurate Palmer's beliefs were in the movie contact. The whole concept of how society is further disconnected due to technology.
Can someone add a mark on the graph that shows when the first iPhone came out?
Delete your Facebook.
I wonder what the cyclicality is for men.
Release of Halo games
This ain't no joke
When halo 3 released I was a hermit
Halo 3 and then Modern Warfare 2 a couple of years later.....I give credit to any relationships that made it through those times because mine didn't. đ
This is true. I've been a hermit since Halo 3. Still going strong :')
Lol they just released the beta of Halo Infinite free for everyone early and I've definitely been playing that everyday
I wonder if this is an indication that the sample size isn't large enough.
Yup. This looks super noisy
The sample size is around 120 per wave if I remember correctly. Way too small for this type of inference.
That's what I was thinking.
Yeah, thereâre no sampling errors on this but once you chop your nationally representative sample down to those adults who are under thirty and use those who havenât been in opposite sex relationships as your numerator, Iâd expect pretty late RSEs.
I wish there were more x-axis labels, but I would suspect that many of the lows correlate with recessions.
2008 is labeled and it being a key inflection point tells me that pre-Great-Recession expectations are sticky in a post-Great-Recession world. There's a narrative that Millennials had their early careers derailed, doing tremendous long-term harm and creating a mismatch between expectations and reality regarding both individuals and their romantic prospects. That's probably true, but you could probably say the same about Boomers and their retirement plans. Them staying in the workforce longer then created a dissatisfaction feedback loop impacting Gen X and Millennials.
Large swaths of the country (that are often invisible to the other swaths) have had their local economies structurally and irrevocably upended, so some of these shifts are likely local and extreme.
This is likely amplified by issues like a hyper efficient dating market that only succeeds for those that are competitive, online pornography that serves as a pressure release valve (and that for some, creates unrealistic expectations of prospective partners) and other issues like the opioid crisis and the obesity crisis. The decline in religiosity has also removed people from the community that can be provided from a church setting without it being replaced by any similar institution.
Dont forget gaming/internet. Trend starts ticking up in 2010, 30 years before that is basically start of internet. Even in the 90s, you had MMORPGs where you get sucked in and dont start your awkward phase of interacting with the other sex
That's been gradually rising for a long time, as you point out. Something that a lot of folks fail to acknowledge is that it's been rising among both men and women as well as intergenerationally. There's more to it than just the stereotype.
I'm incline to acknowledge that and at the same time to wonder whether gaming-inclined people wouldn't have found time-sucks regardless. In part, that's because I've also known quite conventional and extroverted gamers that make new friends, develop romantic relationships, and even that move across the country because of their experiences playing games. Anything that brings people together is probably conducive to relationship-building. That'd even include things like Q Anon.
The thing about online gaming is that you make those connections with people far away, so they don't lead to relationships nearly as often as nearby events, if at all. Plus the game matters... the dudes I play FIFA or Madden with aren't meeting ladies this way.
I play Warzone with a bunch of lads that I know personally, so I suppose Iâm lucky. Itâs friends of friends originally with some of them, or childhood friends, but we have formed a proper squad.
I honestly I think with the decline of religion, the increase in female education and general culture changes slightly edging towards not needing to get married and/or have kids, I feel like there is a certain section of the population who are considered âlessâ attractive even get the opportunity to have sex. I feel like if people arenât facing the pressure they once did to settle down and start a family with anyone they can like they used to, then that leaves a lot of people shopping around for partners and a lot of people from both sexes that get ignored.
I don't think that there's ever been a time when mating wasn't highly selective (even when selection was done by a third party, like a girl's father). But sex? Let's not put our ancestors on a pedestal as though they weren't total horn dogs. I don't feel that that's fundamentally changed.
Moreover, I could quite easily think of all the pair bonded people with kids that I know and conclude that being fat, homely, and poor must be the ticket to having frequent sex. That's who seems to have it the most, followed by wealthy and conventionally attractive people.
I think that sex is a tiered market with a very depressing middle.
I'm a gamer and pretty much every other gamer that I meet over the age of 25 has a significant other. People like to blame video games for a lot, but I just don't see it.
Guess when smartphones got big
Good point. Speaking of unrealistic expectations, yeah the rise and pervasiveness of social media has not helped.
That explains the uptick, but the ups and downs in the 90s, Itâs likely just variance in the samples
Could be. I wish there were more x-axis labels.
Poor sampling methodology.
What is the 95% confidence interval?
It seems like itâs also for women after 2008. It seems roughly correlated to the ratio of women to menâs full time earnings in the age group under 30. Does that make sense though? LINK from BLS
Almost certainly a coincidence, is what it is.
I don't think it is much different for women
Iâm actually curious to know if changing demographics play a role. Iâm curious if this is more âwhat %age of the 18-30 cohort is 18-23 and what %age is 24-30.â I would expect as the range skews younger youâd see the number of virgins get higher.
The Economy (probably). Note that that the big upward trend starts in 2008, right around the time of the global financial crisis, which had a huge impact on the housing and job markets. Hard to get laid with no job/money/staying at your parentsâ house.
they all became femboys
Are we more lonely? Or more gay?
lmao. sorry just the way this was phrased... we gay or sad?
Iâm lonely, Gayâąïž, and sad! đȘ
We are the gayest of all the virgins
[removed]
There is always a about 50%:50% women to male ratio in every society (beside china), and there is always around 3-4% of people only attracted to the same sex, the emphasis is on only. There always was a higher percentage of bisexual people with most of them living a pure heterosexual life, far more men then woman in that category.
Much more generally accepted to have same-sex intercourse though.
Sure, more accepted. But it's surely not easier now to have the the usual sexual development expected of late teens/early adults. Many of us who are also or only same sex attracted stay virgins well into their 20s and quite a chunk stay that forever. In the world of same sex attraction after 22, Dating works by finding casual sex and then maybe if it was good a relationship. That is not my world and I refuse to take part in this.
But then thereâs the question of why is it only 3-4% (assuming that is the correct statistic)?Cause that statistic only accounts for those who are out of the closet. There could very well still be way more people who are closeted and wonât admit or realize they may be gay due to pressure/backlash/comphet. So I believe the statistic would be higher, but idk how much higher it would be.
Fellas, is it gay to be sad?
Not lonely, but I wish I had a man to cuddle
Also what's the age distribution look like over this time? Presumably more 18 year olds are virgins than 30 year olds. So if there are more 18 year olds today you'd expect to see more virgins in the 18-30 bucket. On the other hand if there are more 30 year olds this trend is even worse than it appears here.
Itâs not strictly virgins, just the percentage of people who havenât had a sexual partner (of the opposite sex) since they were 18
Which makes these statistics super weird. If someone turned 18 yesterday, theyâll probably answer ânoâ even if theyâre still sexually active. It would be nice to see this data sorted by a more narrow age range rather than just ages 18-29.
Specifying opposite sex just makes it weirder, to the point where the data is meaningless.
You are right that the data is meaningless.
OP links to some tweets that provide additional details and charts that makes me think that the survey isnât just looking to know about same-sex relationships, but the question is poorly written and the data is poorly assembled that the result is meaningless.
The comments are correct that the data does not account for the âloneliness epidemic.â I am interested in seeing the âloneliness epidemicâ graphs for men and women. Survey people 22-35 and see what percentage report zero sexual partners and break it down by age
Yeah at first I read this as a trend of people engaging in same sex relationships on the rise
data collection and presentation protocols are flawed as fuck
Ikr. A gay couple counts as not having sex in these stats, so part of the rise could also be attributed to growing acceptance of LGBT+.
This caught my eye too. Just this alone could skew the data across time as more gay folks feel more comfortable answering accurately over time.
How so? Gay and bi people exist, you know.
That's exactly my point
It's not meaningless. It just doesn't track what a lot of people in this thread want to believe it's tracking.
If you are looking to predict future trends in population growth, then these data are absolutely useful. You could also compare them to other data sets to figure out all kinds of meaningful things about age, and sex and sexuality.
The fact that no one seems to want to do that has more to do with people being mostly self interested. And many redditors are lonely and sexually frustrated so they want to make thread about that instead.
[deleted]
From the above, it doesn't seem that women are significantly 'less' likely to have any a sexual partner from 18-30
The graph quite explicitly shows that there is a 70% increase in the number of these women who do not have an opposite sex sexual partner compared to 30 years ago. I don't know what to tell you man, you should literally be able to see it with your eyes by looking at graph. It started at 10% and now its 17%. That means that it is absolutely less likely for this demographic of women to get pregnant than 30 years ago unless we are missing a large number of miraculous virgin births.
How so?
I'm assuming that you're referring to the specific statement that the data would be useful to predict population trends, which is not actually the point of my post, but a single example of how the data could be used. I haven't gone in depth in my research of this but here are some possible trends I can come up with immediately off the top of my head: Women under the age of 18 might be less likely to intentionally attempt pregnancy, or more likely to get abortions. Women older than 30 are more likely to have miscarriages or problems with their pregnancy resulting in infants who die early. Gay/lesbian male couples may be more likely to adopt, especially since IVF is quite expensive. And then there's the fact that as I stated there is a 70% increase in the number of women who are not having sex in this age grouping compared to 30 years ago.
I feel like you're implying that there should be one graph that somehow manages to encapsulate everything, and that if these data can't perfectly explain an entire trend then they are worthless. But things are more complicated than that. And if they were that simple, we literally wouldn't need data scientists.
All this chart does is let likely young, less social men on reddit circlejerk that they aren't getting laid.
As many many people have noted, the chart does not track whether anyone is "getting laid" or not; and it absolutely does not track whether anyone has a sexual partner or not. Gay and lesbian couples can have sex and can be between the ages of 18-30. They would be included on this chart as the "share of individuals under age 30 who report zero opposite sexual partners since they turned 18." Presumably they are not lonely.
If what you meant to say is that "all that redditors are using this chart for is circlejerking that they aren't getting laid." Then I agree with you and said so in my OP. But that is not what this data says.
[deleted]
So you didn't read my post and then tacitly admitted you didn't. Glad we cleared that up, but try gain.
And just in case you actually did read my post but failed to understand, I am very very sorry but your English comp teacher failed in their job to help you learn basic reading comprehension. I will attempt to assist you in your basic English skills.
Firstly I stated "I haven't gone in depth in my research" which is literally not the same as 'I didnt research' but hey you're clearly retarded so who's keeping score anyways. Secondly I made two statements within the same paragraph. The first statement was "here are some possible trends." Someone who is literate in English would understand that the use of that phrase within the same sentence of that paragraph would indicate that the part that was "unresearched" would also follow within the same paragraph. Which is literally what I did, because I understand English. And In case you do not understand English at an educated level(which seems to be the problem) the listed examples that are not researched in depth but never-the-less researched, are contained within the same paragraph. This is a basic rule of English and you can refer to my original post to determine what is contained in a paragraph. And because you seem extra-retarded, a paragraph is defined as "a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering."
Your statement:
And no, years of around 10% of women saying they have not had a sexual partner then one year of 17% does not make a trend. You know that, but are trying to be dishonest.
You are correct in that one year change does not make a trend. However this is literally not the case in my post as the graph starts in 1989(refer to graph using eyes and then compare to current year which is 32 years later.) Adults who have educations in statistics have a method for calculating rate change using r=X1-Y1/X2-Y2. which would yield a rate change of 70% as stated in my post. Refer to math that 12 year old would know for reference.
There simply isn't enough data to make any meaningful conclusion
Except 32 years of data, which supports many meaningful conclusions except for the one you're falsely claiming these data support.
What about the people who became parents before 18, but then no opposite-sex partner after (for a whole variety of reasons)?
Or the increase of IVF, in lesbian couples?
Or possible increase in people becoming parents after 30?
Yes, those would be useful as well.
As would economic data and predictions. Data on rates of miscarriage, age related problems with fetus', levels of the population's religiosity, mental health problems, data on location, rural/suburban/urban, etc.
I get the feeling that you're trying to argue against me, and maybe I'm wrong on that, as tone can be hard to pick up over the internet; but literally nothing you just said is disagreeing with me. In order to predict large trends, you need to get a ton of data to assemble. Each individual piece is useful as part of a greater puzzle.
I think it has to do maybe with data continuity? Questions that seem odd today may have been more culturally typical in the past but you have to ask the same, now odd, questions otherwise the data canât be compared expecting parity.
Why does that make it meaningless? It is a chart meant to graph heterosexual relationship statistics. It's not like they're counting gay dudes as not having any sex since it's with men. It's only straight people. If they included gay folk, the stats would be skewed because gay dudes fuck
What makes you think they excluded gay people from this sample? It's certainly not specified anywhere on the graph itself.
the stats would be skewed because gay dudes fuck
Quickies Georg, who lives on cock & sucks over 10,000 each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.
Does it though? I think to point is to predict, simply, breeding potential.
I was thinking this as well. Maybe theyâre showing something like population growth or something? You canât have children if they arenât opposite sex I guess??? (As a gay man myself I am both not a virgin, and on this chart, which seems weird) I have no idea what theyâre trying to show
If you assume that the characteristics/propensities of people are consistent between the ages of 18-30 then you could ask: "have you had a sexual encounter in the last year?" and this would begin to probe the hypothesis of a loneliness epidemic. Depending on your sample size you could then stratify by age.
Though I think the data are historic so it doesn't really help with old data.
The other thing would be to model the age demographic (distribution of ages) at each year (either as uniform or go crazy and whip out some census data) and calculate the "per year" isolation to give a better result.
I was thinking the same thing and questioning the value of this data.
This is a weird statistic. It includes straight and gay virigins as well as super promiscuous gay guys.
I really don't get why they specified "of the opposite sex". It could be interpreted as a higher percentage of younger people not having sex OR a higher percentage of younger people identifying as non-straight -- both options cut into each other so to me, it doesn't make any sense to have two factors at play in the same graphic.
The survey actually asked about male and female partners separately. OP might have picked opposite sex partners instead of all partners because they didn't want to combine the data from both questions (even if that would have been better for analyzing this from a "loneliness epidemic" perspective).
You can read the questions in this PDF.
My assumption here is that the question is trying to predict changes to changes in population growth rates. For women, your 20s are your prime reproductive years where the odds of a healthy and successful pregnancy are the highest.
But youâre also right - if this is being used to identify âloneliness,â then it has some obvious problems.
Also though, survey questions arenât always about answering the question. Theyâre sometimes about generating other questions, and this certainly does that.
I was wondering the same thing. I feel like without a breakdown of the ages of those surveyed, where they were surveyed from etc. this data is somewhat useless.
I for one have lots of sex all the time and women like it
This trend also excludes anyone who has same-sex partners
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
Takes a quick google search to see that there are more 30 yr olds rhan 18 yr olds.
[deleted]
Huh, itâs almost like the people that are 40 now were 30 10 year ago and we could extrapolate that based on the graph I linkedâŠ
Yeah so if a male has sex for the first time at age 22 they are pulling the average up-- that's 33% of the time between 18 and 30 that they had zero sexual partners
All survey participants were 18-19 years old
It's not like there's 10 percentage points more men born suddenly in the US though.
Yeah, this data is worthless if we don't get at least an average/median and percentiles of the sample. Like, 99% of the population won't have had sex since their 18th birthday if they are 18 years and a day old, that's not exactly relevant.
This might explain some of the slight uptick in both genders, but wouldn't the large gap between them remain the same regardless of the age distribution?
This graph can't be right. The 12 year old boy on COD just told me how he "fucked bitches all day including my mom". I thought everyone out there was getting some aside from me.
He hasn't turned 18 yet, so not included here.
They stop playing COD before 18 so none of them fucking anyone's mom are in this statistic
Actually the 78% of sexually active men in this statistic fucked your mom
And, by weight, sheâs also 83% of women
holy shit
Don't talk bad about his mom. Cows are holy in India.
As one of the 27% I was reading down this post feeling depressed, and then I read this. Thanks for the laugh
As you can see from the statistic, women haven't had such a stark increase, meaning that kid just fucks so many moms under 30, leaving naught for the rest.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that Obama is somehow the reason dudes aren't getting laid.
The dude was so smooth that he stole all their bitches
It's smartphones.
iPhone 1 is released in June 2007. Tinder develops the swipe and takes off in May 2013. By 2020, the majority of young people consider it "creepy" to hit on someone in a public place; dating has moved entirely into the world of apps. The harsh arithmetic of apps takes over: the average female user has to swipe yes five times to get one match; the number for the average male is fifty.
This is the correct answer. I've never hit on a woman in public. It seems like every other day there is some big post in the popular side of reddit full of women saying how they hate being hit on and that men who hit on them in public are all creeps. There isn't really any alternative. Online dating is a joke for men unless you are the top 1%. Guess i'll stay lonely.
Hitting on women in public is considered creepy? Iâm 26 and married. I hate the idea of Tinder and online dating and thought that wasnât the norm. Iâd be so lost if I had to start dating again lmao
Or LGBT acceptance made less people need to date for a beard, so they didn't have to stay closeted for as long, which Obama did help with by telling the DOJ not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.
Actually if you're referring to the 2008 recession that was triggered by the financial collapse in 2007 under President Bush so in reality it's Bush who is the cause of men not getting bush.
He was referring to Obama, who was president under Obama. Good job having that loaded up though
Wait, Obama was president under Obama. How does that work physically? It would rupture the space time continuum.
Not if you reroute the flux capacitor to bypass the mainframe dynamically. r/TimeTravelTips
Obama was a disaster and most people don't know it or ate to scared to criticise him because.. well.
Have you ever gone to one leftist subreddit? Plenty of reasonable critiques of obama's administration.
[removed]
Not in my experience, as long as it's relevant to the conversation, and based in reality (one can't just jump into a conversation about climate change and accuse Obama of being an authoritarian communist, for example).
Evidence that you can go pretty far in Leftist subreddits criticizing Obama, and have been able to do so for years.
From almost a decade ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/ywu8b/what_do_real_socialists_think_of_obama/
From this year: https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/nr76qe/obama_was_always_in_wall_streets_corner_barack/
[removed]
What qualifies as a Leftist for you, then?
Then what are they mate?
WTH why the down votes? That man was a disaster at least for my country with all the stupid air strikes he used to do.
Because was a black democrat redditors dont give a shit how terrible he was.
Well I learned today that critising Obama is an unpopular opinion in USA.
Not really; the person youâre replying to is getting downvoted for acting as if Obama isnât criticized because heâs black. Even among people who supported Obamaâs other policies, you will find a lot of people criticizing the air strikes.
Also for saying that in an absurdly unprompted way.
Cause heâs fucking all the chicks?
This is going to end badly.
No industrialized country has a stable population. They're all declining. South Korea has a fertility rate of 0.93 . In order to have a stable population, fertility rate has to be around 2.2 .
the latest stat for 2020 says SK fertility is now down to 0.84 .. that number is ridiculously alarming, it literally means every generation, if that rate doesn't go up, future population is being cut down by almost 60%
Just wait until the side-effects of this pandemic really start to show.
Whats the problem?
The share of the population who are retired increases while the share that produce for society decreases
Now, it doesn't mean that "collapse is inevitable" we have (and will have) more than enough resources to feed, cloth, house and educate everyone in the world because productivity increases more and more, while the people that need to be sustained will start to decline. But the harshest effects will be felt early on, pretty much while baby boomers are still alive
Either way, because of rising inequality we'll all be fucked because of capitalism's need to accumulate even more wealth
Just encourage and facilitate young people from poorer, overpopulated countries to immigrate to wealthier countries with stagnant decreasing populations. Everyone wins.
Eventually, the living standards of those poor countries rise and they wonât want to move to rich countries.
Yes that's the goal.
Yes, that would be great, what's your point? That poorer countries shouldn't have good living conditions?
Iâm more of a bystander to history than applying moralistic judgment to the situation. Capitalism and womenâs rights have raised the living standards around the world and will continue for longer than I am alive. Eventually, the depopulation will reach an point where immigration stops because wealth is more equalized and the economy canât handle like 100 retirees to one worker. Life will go on differently.
It changes the dominant culture too. The natives won't just agree with their culture being changed to a muslim one, and probably rightfully so
Ok starting from the fact that "Muslim culture" is just not a thing. Like, what is christian culture? Are now a great part of japanese/latinamerican/german/.... cultures the same now? Lol
And cultures aren't "replaced", without things like genocide, extreme segregation and such, people living peacefully in the same space while belonging to the sectors of society wile naturally combine culturally wise. This "replacement" is literally white supremacist rethoric.
For example, the KKK made "wanted" posters of health workers in abortion clinics because they were worried that white people aborting combined with the demographic diversification of the population would "kill the white race". Although that only happened because they argued that someone who is descendent from a white and black parents should be considered "black" rather than "white", thus, although genetically there would be the same amount of "whiteness", they defined it in such the way that racial and cultural diversification would be considered "replacement" and "genocide"
I live in a Muslim country. Muslim culture is a thing and you don't want it. Believe me. Christians had reformation so it's not as relevant for Christians.
Muslim culture is when women has less rights than a cow and so do other minorities. Islam was never reformed and nowadays we can clearly see the results of it.
Yeah, just look at Taxas or Polan.. oh wait.
And now compare Texas or Poland with Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar. You think there's no difference?
HAHAHA. They are going through the same process! Were the fuck are you going to get 50 million workers when the baby boomer generation decides to fuck off and retire? Are you willing to accept 50 million more Mexicans like myself? Note: There are not enough Mexicans to replace your old farts. I thought of going back to my country to take care of my own elderly folk and sell everything.
Mexicans Africans south Americans, south asians. Where ever they have too many young people.
Detroit already has a large arab population and has empty space for 1.5 million people. We missed a huge economic opportunity by not accepting more Syrian refugees a few years back
That is not the point. These countries are undergoing the same process of dramatic fertility decline. Iran went from having 8+ kids per woman to barely 1.6 in just 10 years. Bringing in immigrants is nothing but a band-aid on the problem. The other problem is integration since it creates a lot of instability.
But then is it still the same country ?
Who...cares?
The natives.
Say the population of SK is cut by 60% every generation. You decide to take advantage of migration fluxes for a mutual benefit, as you need them to work to support your population.
Further down the timeline, as populations of poorer origins continue to have many children, the scales would be tipped off even more, to the point of a cultural loss and a national identity crisis.
Immigration is necessary, all things considered, but thereâs a real issue in the unbalance of fertility rates, that cannot simply be resolved with more and more immigrants.
The issue is a lot of people from poor developing areas arent prepared or equipped to maintain a developed country. It would take decades to properly train and educate them. That's not even considering the fact that right off the boat theres going to be a huge disconnect between the migrants and the locals.
And who are gonna be exploited by developed countries then? The same refugees but in other nations? It would be foolish to think that we could just move everyone somewhere where they're not gonna be welcomed. And it would also be foolished to assume that they would invest resources to ensure their well-being
Just look at the kind of discourse that goes on here in Europe. In the UK the immigrant workers from exploited countries moved out, and suddenly several sectors from the economy collapsed, and what was their solution? Ensuring better labor rights? Giving them more permanent residency that isn't tied to an exploitative work? No, just approving more exploitive forms of residency while giving a shit about their rights for them to work more and discard them later.
A lot of countries in Europe could solve the hunger caused from immediate emergencies for several years with less than 10% of what they invest in their military in one year. But do they? No, actually they're thinking about increasing the military budget 'cause.... Uh... Less US military dependency?
TL;DR: They won't give a shit, and whenever helping more people indiscriminately enters the discussion, the rich are more than happy to create think-tanks like PragerU (the koch brothers) or buying newspapers to convert them into journalistic cock-sucking machines for the rich (The Washington Post), just to ensure that the people who they want to exploit stay where they're while the exploited citizens who could have an impact are more concerned with fighting each other over shit that don't matter or doesn't exist
Meh you have this about half right. The extra burden from the retired population will have detrimental affects, and we do have to get more productive as individuals in order to maintain the same production that we had at lower population levels. SK will need to be 60% more productive to make up for the lost population, unless they can find immigrants or have more babies.
What you said about inequality is wrong though. While inequality is generally unhelpful, its not really as relevant of a statistic for the issues facing the worlds poorest. If in one year one persons wealth increases by $1 trillion, and the rest of the populations wealth increases by $1000, its not as if life has gotten any worse for the entire population, its actually gotten a lot better.
Currently weâre on track to end global extreme poverty by 2030-2035. Just in the last 10 years, weâve gone from 3 billion people living with less than $1.90 a day to only about 600 million, thatâs rapid progress. Iâd say a lot of that is because of âglobal capitalismâ, and the opportunities that global export orientation has given to late-comer economies.
"Inequality isn't that relevant"
I think you don't get the point, we DO have more than enough for everyone, but a few people are just literally hoarding most of it while most people live in poverty or vulnerable conditions.
I'm not saying that we should just ditch the current system for another just because. But, what are the ones who are hoarding all this wealth actually contributing to society? If it's the qualifications and specific capabilities, then we can also have that without insane amounts of wealth. Furthermore, there's a case to be made that there's actually a lot of "Einsteins" out there who can't do shit because they're too busy trying to survive rather than inventing shit, so if you care about innovation then equality and diversity is the way
I donât disagree with much of what youâre saying. Global poverty is not solveable tomorrow if we end the billionaire class, or even the millionaire class. I think the consequences of doing so are also pretty extreme, and do have systemic effects that we need to pay attention to.
I do agree with increasing taxes in order to make life in wealthy countries better, but the case is very different for poor countries. Poor countries need foreign investment, a lot of this comes from business ventures. Billionaires are essentially a decentralized group of capital investors, looking for the cheapest way to produce a product. That means theyâre seeking out the cheapest labor, which means theyâre seeking out workers in places with the lowest cost of living, or the poorest places. Thatâs fundamentally a good thing, and the trends in poverty around the world reflect the basic principle of this system.
I think thereâs a lot of promise in the systems used by countries like Botswana, Norway, and China, which share a lot of similarities in development pattern. All 3 primarily use/ used the most lucrative resources available to make themselves wealthy. Norway exported oil, Botswana diamonds, and china uses their sheer amount of human capital to support high amounts of industrialization. All of these countries nationalize/ partially nationalize their most important industries, like oil stock, the diamond mining company, and utilities.
I think its important to realize that capitalism is a component of healthy development and economic progress. Im not some libertarian free market shill, but the difference between Botswana and its marxist african contemporaries is stark, as well as the difference between pre and post liberal (economically) china, spain, and the east asian countries.
Thatâs âaâ problem, but not âtheâ problem. The problem is that societies tend to either start large wars or to violently rip themselves apart internally when large numbers of young men donât have a kids and wife and the attendant burdens.
Then those men are the issue, no?
Why is this burden put on everyone else if they're holding us all hostage?
A society that fails to integrate and provide a place for huge numbers of its individuals loses the privilege of considering the individual the problem.
If those individuals are violent they don't deserve a platform nor integration. It's that simple.
Those individuals are the problem if they turn violent. It seems these young men are suffering from main character syndrome and demand their specific desires to be satisfied. The answer isn't to bow down and satisfy to the detriment of others - the answer is for them to get some therapy like the rest of us and stop blaming others for their dissatisfaction. They must learn to channel emotions in healthy non destructive ways like every other adult has to.
That is what criticism of toxic masculinity attempts to address, but these same young men perceive it as an attack. They don't want to change, and for that they are exactly the problem. They become even more misogynistic which drives women away from them.
Nobody is required to please bitter manchildren. Nobody is entitled to the love or attention of anyone else. For some reason, most sane people seem to get the memo but not those specific violent men. There can and should be a platform for nonviolent men, if those nonviolent men drive the violent men away. There are starting to be places for nonviolent men but they're not doing a good job of weeding out the violent men. That's the problem. It's their responsibility to defend their platform against the violent men, unless they want it taken away from them.
There are many, many ways to channel negative emotion into positive or productivity that are not violent. Anyone violent is the issue.
Totally backasswards stupidly wrong: THE fundamental duty and function of society is to integrate its members in way that those members thrive. No society is perfect and some will always slip through the cracks.
But when society fails to integrate a huge cross-section then the right thing for that cross-section to do is to form its own society. And itâs totally just that it should do so at the cost of the society that rejected it.
The only reason people should tolerate societyâs norms, rules, requirements, and limitations is that society provides opportunities for to thrive. Just as itâs right for slaves to throw down their masters, so is it right for others to ignore what society wants when society tells them they have no place or route to get what they need.
Society is an instrument, people are the purpose.
Sorry, but violent people don't deserve to live in a group setting.
Go be a hermit so you can't hurt anybody. You're not a person if you willingly attack others because of your own problems.
You're defending violent misogynists right now. No, they should not have their own society. They should be behind bars. Letting them form their own society would harm other people and it's disgusting you'd allow that.
This is why I keep saying climate change doesn't matter. It literally will not affect us. No catastrophe will be enough to bring America down, period. The west could be hit by mega droughts every 2 years and we would be fine, even with a declining working population
Uhm....yeah it will (and currently does) matter. It will certainly matter a lot to every poor and vulnerable nations with an agronomical economy
And yes, it will affect the US too 'cause, who do you think that makes the clothes, a great part of the agricultural produce, manufacturing and extraction of resources? The poorer countries, the ones who are being exploited and kept that way because of the great powers
We have all the resources we need in America. We don't need to rely on them to keep our quality of life the same
Strong disagree. if (read: when) climate change starts to really have adverse effects, there will be enough people displaced around the world that the US will have no choice but to react. Youâre not going to be able to keep all of the people seeking refuge out of the county without some incredible violence. It can, and will get messy, especially as resources run out.
We may not personally be affected immediately by these catastrophes, but the secondary fallout will absolutely affect us.
This is why we need stronger border security. Which we will get when we elect a republican house, senate, and president in the near distant future. Our borders will be far more secure and refugees will not be able to pass into our country no matter how badly they want to
Thatâs a wildly unrealistic strategy that would basically turn the US into the equivalent of North Korea, locking everyone out and being controlled entirely by one party. Think of your loss of âfreedumsâ in that scenario.
Calm down Thanos
People not being born is way different than halving the living population
Weâve set up human society as a pyramid scheme where you need constant growth or else the economy collapses
I wouldn't say that's a bad thing. We are too many already.
I wouldn't say that's a bad thing. We are too many already.
It's too fast. Structures like families, schools, economy, retirement plans, etc. can't handle that rapid decline. A slow decline is manageable, but this is to rapid.
Yes but it's a problem when you have a lot of old people, who can't work, and few young people, who have to support them
[deleted]
No, this is where automation comes into play
[deleted]
I agree that automation can't replace anywhere close to all jobs.
However I think it can replace a huge amount of jobs, I think a huge amount of our jobs are not necessary, and immigration only kicks the can down the road. At some point developing countries will hopefully have the same problem and what do we do then? Import workers from Mars? I'm not fully against immigration but it is at best a temporary bandaid.
This is why countries should start seriously investing into anti-aging research.
Yes that won't affect the economy on a level that would push the young generation to go after the best universities on a level to cause huge public health issues and mass suicide right after the university results are published. I'm just a edgy numbnut that doesn't understand how anything works. Hurr durr
It's way too fast but also, where's the evidence this trend can be reversed once it's started? At some point we will want to be back at 2.2 but this will be impossible to achieve.
Exactly my point. I think our only hope is to grow babies in labs. I hope the Chinese start doing that within the next century.
I donât see the problem, we already have too many people for our seas to support. We have too many people for our planet to sustainably support. We have so many people, that no matter what your job is, you are easily replaceable, and thus have no bargaining power. The population needs to drop, for the sake of our planetâs health, and the quality of our lives.
I strongly disagree, those issues are caused by the actual economic and social system, not the overpopulation, if everything is managed with the right method, we can all live well
âIf everyone gives up their current lifestyle to live in 3x3m boxes and eat nutrient paste, we can all liveâ. Sorry, I donât want to be managed. I value my lifeâs quality and liberty and my family and friendâs life quality over all the millions who exist due to uncontrolled breeding and old and disabled people whoâre on life support.
I value our lives more than the millions of rapists and murderers being fed day in and day out in the worlds prisons.
No I don't mean that kind of lifestyle, there are not only extremes (you live in the abundance or in total poverty), I meant that having a responsible management of resources and producing with fossil fuels alternatives then we can live well, that's what I was saying
I donât believe that claim. It sounds to me like youâre selling hope, or that youâve been sold hope.
No? It's true and I'm not selling anything, this is how the world works, that statement you made was created to accuse the most populated areas in the planet for racist purposes, look, thousands of people that want electricity can have it without damaging the planet (by renewables) or destroying it (by fossil fuels, you see? The number of people remained the same, while in one scenario the planet goes dead while not in the other one. It's how we make things, not to how many
âFor racist reasonsâ
Yes, uncontrolled birth happens for racist, anti-poor reasons. Tell that to all the rich mormons and muslims who have 10 children.
You still havenât addressed the fact that the seas canât support us. I would rather give up a few billion people (distributed throughout the globe) than give up seafood. Even better is if we can reduce the population by allowing people to manage themselves, and it seems to be working in the most developed countries in the world.
Do you see that you misinterpret what I say? I said that making the statement "climate change is caused by overpopulation" was created because of racist justifications for the big numbers in poor countries, not that they make children because they are racist, what the hell are you understanding? Overpopulation is an issue, yes, but not the first reason on climate change, Earth has enough resources for everyone if well produced, being well distribuited on the globe is a good solution. That's all.
It's the same thing about blaming only costumers because they choose to live well, instead of blaming companies that produce things in an immoral way AND customers
Climate change is not the only issue. Most of the extinctions we caused were due to habitat loss. There is absolutely no way to prevent that when you have 8 billion humans. Every human takes up space. Their house, some percentage of the building they work in, some percentage of the power plant they rely on, some percentage of the mining space and agricultural space they rely on for sustenance and materials for clothes and buildings and toolsâŠ
With 8 billion, we simply take up too much space for other species to remain around. We are outcompeting them. When a new human is born, all that matter inside them has to come from somewhere, and if enough humans are born, it can have a long distance vampiric effect on some species. We sucked the wooly mammoths dry thousands of years ago. Now, we are sucking other megafauna dry. Our amphibian populations are plummeting. Our bird populations are plummeting. Our insect populations are plummeting.
Hereâs a litte citation for you, in case you donât believe me about the habitat destruction:
Pimm & Raven, 2000, pp. 843-845
I was talking about climate change tho, I've never said that it's not a problem... I said that it's not the first reason and that there are more harmful sources, bad resources distribution is the first.
Also, those extinction issues are where there are the most high population densities, this brings us back to the badly distribuited population thing that we talked earlier
You would rather billions of your fellow human beings die, instead of giving up seafood. Your ability to eat lobster means more to you than the lives of people living on the other side of the world.
If we were in person, it would take all of my self control not to knock every single one of your fucking teeth down your throat. You are human garbage.
8 billion is simply too many for this planet. The seas are a placeholder example.
Despite the fact that I eat meat, I value human lives the same as animals. Do you know why so many animals have gone extinct? Habitat destruction. Do you know how we fix that? Thereâs only one way man. Itâs their earth too.
The fact you value 10s of thousands of different species (who are necessary to support us in the longterm) less than the extra few billion humans we have shows how short sighted you are. If we maintain this population, not only will they meet extinction, but we will too.
Moreover, I havenât suggested killing anyone, or hurting anyone. If you read my other replies in this thread, you would see that I am simply stating how good it is that developed countries are now naturally decreasing their populations, and how I hope this trend continues.
"Fuck you, I got mine". The attitude at the heart of so many of the world's ills. Only care about yourself and your family and friends. Everyone else? Get lost, not my problem.
Your mindset is why the world is so fucked. You're not part of the problem. You are the problem.
I would trade your life to bring back any species that have gone extinct due to human destruction in a heartbeat. Humans are not special, and you are not special. We donât own this earth, but your kind act like we do, then you cut down a forest for houses and fire and wonder where all the animals have gone.
You are the problem.
It's hard for me to put into words just how idiotic and callous your line of thinking is. Not that you should care, I'm an internet stranger. But Jesus fucking Christ.
If you had an argument, Iâm sure you would have said it. You donât, which is why you are name calling and insulting me instead. Youâre literally acting like a playground bully right now.
Human lives are more valuable than animal lives, and it is self evident. That is the argument. You're acting like a fucking dumbass.
âSelf evidentâ can you please elaborate on this?
Yeah. If you could choose to save a dog, or cat, or whatever the fuck animal, or a human, any sane person is choosing the human. Animals are less advanced versions of us. They don't think, feel, or behave on our level, because they can't. They can't write poems or make music or develop technology or have a conversation about the nature of reality. They will never have the depth of experience human beings do. They cannot do what we can do. They are objectively less valueable. If that makes me "speciesist", well, then, I don't give a shit.
How much technology have you developed? How many poems have you written? How many concertos have you conducted?
The fact you belong to the same species as Motzart, Goethe, and Tesla doesnât mean that you are anything like them. Most people are incapable of all of these things. Your own argument already doesnât make sense, nevermind the fact that you think that it is still a huge jump to say that these things make the SURPLUS humans more valuable than all of the 10s of thousands of species we have extinct along the way to reaching this gargantuan population.
We can have art and technology without having 8 billion people. Not every single life is worth the same, but one life vs an entire species? The answer is easy for me.
Technology? None. Concertos? Also none. Poems? Quite a few, actually. Not that they're particularly good, but I have that ability.
I really can't have civil discussion with someone who uses the term "surplus humans" with zero shame. I'm sure you're not one of those surplus humans, right? It's other people, I'm sure. You are garbage and this conversation is over.
That's always been a bullshit and often kinda racist viewpoint.
The world can handle us fine, the issue is management of resources is piss poor in many places. Korea, Japan, and Russia heavily regulate their catches in the seas only to have North Korean and Chinese fleets roll in with their apocalyptic fishing fleets to devastate ecosystems. Even in terms of agriculture short sighted slash and burn techniques are preferred over more expensive sustainable projects all over the world.
Massive population decrease is a major issue and shouldn't be considered a viable tactic. Especially when that population decrease isnt controlled.
Fr. This is the real point to be brought up.
Lower population isnt a bad thing. I hate that capitalism has to constantly be growing to not collapse
The only thing that has collapsed is Socialism so far.
Good. There's way too many people on this shit planet.
Im not alarmed. Some of the worst problems we face are either caused by or exacerbated by overpopulation. Having less kids is good.
This is bad for economy but is it an existential threat? When we get low enough on population we'll start fucking
When we get low enough on population we'll start fucking
Any evidence to suggest that this would happen?
I reckon we would start growing humans in a lab before because we would actually start to grow the population the old fashion way
I think Sexy Pizza's point is that society doesn't equal population. The human race will survive but society as we know it won't. Perpetual growth is impossible (sales, housing, production, materials, helium, oil, rain forest, Coral reef, farmable soil). There are limits, even if we don't or won't see them. We just need to understand our lifestyle (both cultural beliefs, especially denying climate change, etc. and global consumerism), on a global scale, is unsustainable. A smaller global population shouldn't be a scary thing either.
It's just common sense. Going extinct because we ain't fucking is so ridiculous it'd just never happen. I can see growing children in a lab tho, that'd be cool. Government incentives for having children seem more likely tho
Going extinct because we ain't fucking is so ridiculous it'd just never happen.
How would we do it? You think the public will just start taking women away from workplace? Things might improve if more people started working from home and by some government tax incentive companies would offer more work-from-home positions to mother's. But even then people wouldn't have enough kids.
If its an existential threat, yes, I wouldn't be surprised if the public did exactly that
People have a hard time fully grasping threats they can't visualize. There won't be an obviously visible link between supply chain issues/understaffed services and a lack of individual people having children.
Imagine the reaction the government would get to them telling women (and men) to quit their jobs so they can raise more kids.
y'all need to look up Day of Conception in Russia...
People die, and the value of people increase, and standards of living too. Then people start fucking
I'll get started on this right now twins coming right up
That's a completely different thing tho. People aren't having kids because, for most people, having a kid is a big economical sacrifice and requires basically all the free time they have left.
Working less and earning more would make people have more kids, because trust me most people want to have kids â because it's a biological need we have.
Some of us prefer dogs to kids. I had a dad at a cafe look at my dogs the other day and say "swap you" to which I said no way!
That dad was joking.
Of course he was, but behind every joke like that is a hint of truth.
Yup, but the hint of truth is probably "I want to take a vacation from parenting" rather than "I wish my children were dogs instead".
I hope so!
for most people, having a kid is a big economical sacrifice and requires basically all the free time they have left.
Always has been. This has never changed.
Working less and earning more would make people have more kids
Not true if you look at which demographics of US has the most kids per family.
Always has been. This has never changed.
No. For most of history, most people lived in rural areas and lived primarily off their crops. In those traditional worlds, children were an asset - they provided extra labour around the house & farm and could be counted on to take care of you as you aged.
But when society transitioned from rural/agricultural to urban/industrial, children stopped being an asset and started being a burden.
children were an asset
If they grew old, and if they didn't kill the mother at birth. The cost has just shifted to money. It's not like children weren't costly back then.
Not true if you look at which demographics of US has the most kids per family.
That's... not how it works. Poor and wealthy people have more kids. The so-called low middle class are the ones that don't.
Thatâs not right. Income and amount of children you have are inversely proportional
They havenât looked. I get downvoted about this all the time. The more money you make the less kids you have
why have kids and slave away even harder
This is part of the problem, as well as it being harder to find a stable enough relationship to have kids in, it's taking longer to do and generally you need to have both parents working in order to bring in enough money. In particular for women, where now there is the bulk of the household chores, childrearing and potentially a full time job to go with it, it feels like too much work.
For the record I am not suggesting we bring back 1950s housewives, I'd rather we changed the demand of work in our everyday lives.
We do need to bring back single-earner households, imo, just take the gender out of it. In the ideal world, it'll be equally common for the man to be a househusband as it is for the woman to be a housewife. One partner works, the other partner looks after kids and does housework.
No industrialized country has a stable population.
There is actually one exception. Israel. They have a fertility rate of 3.01. Pushed upwards by high levels of religiosity and nationalism.
Just checked. Didn't know. BASED Israel.
Edit : Also Jew have 2.6 while Muslims have a 3.8 fertility rate. So I guess no that BASED
I mean... Would it be bad if we just all died of old age and the human population is no more?
It's more about the economic impact and how it would affect those living in it negatively
Better and economic crisis than a climate crisis...
Seek help my friend. You sound nihilistic and lack hope
That just is hope!! The earth will finally free of poison. And the last people on earth would be finally happy.
Why not 2.0?
From my limited knowledge, fertility rate should be between 2.1 and 2.3 to maintain the population. I said 2.2 to be in the middle. It mostly depends on when people have kids and average life expectancy. Those equations are beyond me
The difference is with the expection of the US/UK, every other country makes up/cushions for it with good childcare and easy skilled immigration.
Two things that that the US/UK refuse to do under any condition
US takes more immigrants than most all EU. 15% of US population is foreign born. That's 48 million. UK has more immigrants percentage wise than Germany and France. Stop listening to CNN or other bullshit media
Objectively untrue tho, immigration is down pretty hard in the US with Obama+Trump and more importantly. You don't have high skill immigration, you limit those while allowing low skill workers in for cheap labour.
And for the record countries like Germany France and Canada ellipse immigration number multiple times over when compared to the US. Hence why large manufacturers move there and I'll likely be forced to as well somewhere down the line.
Those are 2019 statistics my friend. Just check G. Pison population and societies 2019
You don't have high skill immigration
US is the best country for doctorate scholarship. Stop it already.
I'll check newer stats then, but I don't think covid stats are fair because of border shutdowns.
Also I'm sure, I did my mastsrs in the US and it was pretty cheap thanks to how easy it is to pay off. But I also am literally being forced to not buy or set up roots here because of how luck based US immigration is. My company is kind enough to sponsor me going to another country if this doesn't work out but it shouldnt be luck or if I have a company willingly to cover that cost.
I have nothing against Canada as an alternative but it sucks that someone who's literally bringing in manufacturing to your country is being asked to reconsider when every other first world nation literally gives me express entry for residence if I asked for it through their immigration programs.
It's times like this where I regret taking up a more affordable master's degree in the US when there's a chance that my projects and friends are going to be inaccessible to me in the near future due to dumb policy.
Unpopular opinion - this is a good thing. Overpopulation sucks.
How is that unpopular? Bangladesh is overpopulated. Nevada isn't. But only one is depopulating as we speak.
True, africa and south asia are going to be responsible for almost all the population growth in the next century.
We have 2 kids. Many of our friends only have 1.
No one can afford children either so, y'know.
Population growth will plateau for a while in Western countries. Probably good for the environment, definitely awful for the economy.
If our entire economy is based on the population continuing to expand, and we refuse to find ways to stop, we're hella dead
Oh agreed. I'm just saying, as someone who lives in such an economy, it's not going to be pleasant.
Heck yeah
Even since caveman times, your tribe being bigger has made you stronger. Imagine trying to get all the countries to agree to slow down
Heck, imagine telling western parents that they're only allowed 2 children, because if they all have 3 they wouldn't be able to feed them
That's basically already happening except instead of it being law it's just too damn expensive. I'm in the age group where people start families and most people in my friend group either don't want kids, don't have the time/energy, or only want one.
Immigration enmass
Well climate change will force people North...
So the solution to this entire problem is for Russia to become a democracy and then open their borders. đ€
Not necessarily awful for the economy. Ironically it could be quite good for it in the long run. In the past when the value of labor went up (like after the black death) it helped more evenly redistribute wealth back to the lower classes and raised standards of living.
Elderly social care wasn't a concern during the black death.
An aging population without enough young people to support them is a nightmare economically.
I'm not having children because why???
They cost too much, make your life shit for a while, cause stress. For what? If youh can't find happiness without making a new human against their will you're the problem.
Having children is useless and unethical, always.
I mean, different people value different things in life.
You choice to not have children is perfectly respectable, though.
Honestly, that is such laughable bullshit. The poorest of our poor are vastly wealthier than the majority of people for as far back as we have archeological records.
The poorest of our poor are richer than the middle in a majority of nations. Nations who are birthing and raising kids just fine.
If you donât want kids, thatâs fine. But donât lie to yourself that you canât afford them. Maybe you and others canât afford to raise them the way youâd like. If thatâs the case, thatâs virtue on your part to forebear. But itâs a different argument.
Judging by the number of frustrated vicious despondent men I see commenting online, it's already going pretty badly. It feels like we're on the precipice of a mass-anti-social ideology (red or black pill adjacent) that is incredibly easy for niche media outlets and political operatives to manipulate en masse.
And it's a feedback loop for some of them. Their extra issues, or just normal healthy reasons, cause rejection, if they get more problematic as a reaction that further increases their likelihood of rejection and so on.
I have no idea on the numbers though, I'm sure plenty were like me, a proto-incel, who eventually emotionally matured and regret their previous entitled attitude.
This is how radicalization and civil unrest starts
I think there have always been men that hate women, but now they have a platform to yell about how they are owed sex (I am not commenting on the loneliness people deal with; just on the people who turn their negative emotions into toxic sexist BS as MGTOWs, redpillers, involuntary celibates, etc)
And thereâs more of them than ever.
Men who think they are owed sex? Yeah, maybe, but I like to think that most of them who havenât had sex since 18 (edit: or prior to 18; the data is just about post-18) are just harmless and lonely and arenât misogynists.
I think the internet has made it so much worse. There's now a pipeline from a man down on his luck with girls, to these alpha-male dating tips that say they help but paint what women want as homogenous. They are very misogynistic, treating women like a game where you tick all the boxes and you'll get a reward and in turn objectifying her and her body as the reward and not an actual person with agency and her own wants from a partner.
When the man isn't 'what women want' (according to the 'alpha-male') or tries to become 'what women want' and still fails, that hatred and frustration can lead them to incel culture, where strangers encourage each other to hurt themselves and bring others down with them. This is new (as in within the last decade). I don't know if they have yet, but they were considering classfying incels as terrorists in the UK.
I agree that most men don't subscribe to these beliefs, but it's scary to see how much misogyny underlies dating culture. (There is also women who do a similar thing e.g. calling men 'wallets', but it appears to be a more prevalent and volatile problem in men).
I agree with you. There have always been misogynists, but now they have a community where they can be loud and recruit even more misogynists. I donât know if Iâd say that there are more misogynists today than in the past, but there are definitely more âwomen are dumb but hereâs how to get sexâ communities nowadays among them. Previously, you didnât need to find a community because most men/people were already sexist lol.
But women tend to assume that all male virgins (of a certain age) are misogynists.
"If a man is alone, it must be his fault!"
Ironically, this unempathetic view causes many of these men to reach out to communities of people they can relate to since women don't care, and boom, now they actually are misogynists.
If women treat certain men like trash their whole life, why is society acting surprised that incel-type groups exist? I'm not saying their hatred for women is justified, but it didn't appear from nothing.
Youâre presenting it like thereâs a chicken and an egg, but for sure it was the chicken, & a bit like itâs womenâs fault misogynists exist (even though you say itâs not justified). You can be lonely and not be an asshole, and if youâre not an asshole, you donât want to surround yourself with assholes.
I donât think itâs womenâs fault that some men who are lonely become misogynists. Thereâs a whole lot more going on in that manâs life that makes misogyny seem like a good time than a hypothetical woman assuming a male who has not had sex is a misogynist (why would she know if he has had sex or not anyway?).
It's not any woman's fault. It's more of a positive feedback loop that women are often a part of.
A man dislikes women (for any reason). So women dislike him. So he dislikes them more. So they dislike him more. So he hates them. And so the women hate him too.
Well, yeah, women arenât going to warm up to people who hate them or treat them as subhuman.
Iâve been on dates with dudes who made inappropriate or alarming comments that indicated some sexist beliefs. We didnât go on second dates. If they decide to become more sexist than they already were after our date, thatâs not my fault. If they decide to reevaluate their thinking and consider why they donât get second dates and make a change based on those considerations, thatâs not my doing either. In both cases, heâs the one who is responsible for his thinking, not me.
Misogynists/guys with mildly sexist beliefs think about situations in ways that reinforce their sexist beliefs. Those situations donât reinforce sexist beliefs for dudes who actively try not to be sexist, or for women experiencing similar situations, like not getting dates. In general, women are more likely to assume itâs their own fault and not blame men as a class. But to expand on this, would you defend women for becoming misandrists if they canât get a date, and blame men for making them like that? Probably not.
Women arenât the ones who make men into misogynists. Thatâs on them.
Well, yeah, women arenât going to warm up to people who hate them or treat them as subhuman.
And most men aren't going to warm up to women who all have treated them as subhuman.
Again, not saying any of this hatred is justified. I wish people had more empathy for one another. But for some men, they've never had a single positive experience with women.
would you defend women for becoming misandrists if they canât get a date
Yes. Well, maybe not defend, but I could be empathic. That assumes she genuinely can't get a date though, not that she's rejecting every guy that asks her out.
and blame men for making them like that
Well I'd rather not blame anybody.
Again, regardless of how people, including women, have treated the guy, itâs up to him to interpret those interactions through a sexist lens. I doubt ALL women have treated some hypothetical guy poorly; some interactions are neutral, day-to-day exchanges. The feedback loop is all in the manâs head. He interprets neutral or negative interactions that happen to be with women as women, as a class, treating him poorly. Not everyone views the world through a sexist lens and they donât all interpret your average negative social exchange with other people- women in particular- as being treated as âsubhuman.â
Edit: itâs also illuminating that you would mention that detail about women getting a date. Of course I mean they genuinely canât. That is a thing that happens. Thinking that a woman who âcanât get a dateâ is denying every guy that is asking her out instead of defaulting to âoh yeah, unattractive and socially anxious/weird/nerdy/autistic/horsegirl women exist, and sometimes they canât get a date too; thatâs what itsadesertplant is talking aboutâ is interesting
The feedback loop is all in the manâs head
The feedback loop is all over the internet. A man can't even say "I'm lonely" in a reddit post without women jumping into the comments accusing him of the worst. It's why these men seek out communities of people with shared experiences. It's not like anyone else cares. And it doesn't shock me that these communities full of lonely outcasts become full of hatred. It's cathartic for them.
I am fortunate enough that I have had positive experiences with women, but it took me until I had a retail job with female coworkers when I was 17 before that happened. Most of my experiences with women are neutral, but I've watched and heard with my own eyes and ears how some women treat unfortunate looking men. It's sad. All it takes is one or two women to do this to a man, and if he has no positive experiences to balance it, then it doesn't shock me that it kicks off the feedback loop and spirals out of control. Again, it's not right. I'm just saying it doesn't shock me.
The last strictly positive (not neutral) experience I had with a woman was actually quite simple. A former floormate I barely spoke to, and hadn't seen in 5 months, suddenly ran up to me while I was walking on campus, enthusiastic to see me. That's it. That's my story. I still think about it to this day, 6 years later.
Of course I mean they genuinely canât.
That's fine. I just wanted clarification because occasionally women complain about getting too many guys hitting on them, but reject all of them, and then wonder why they're alone. But if she really can't get any dates, then of course I'd empathize.
Men who are more likely to be misogynist. While of course Iâm sure the majority of men who havenât had sex past 18 arenât misogynist/think theyâre owed sex, it makes sense that celibacy might be a contributing factor to someone becoming bitter and misogynistic.
I think they would have to have existing toxic views on women and sex to begin with in order to dive so deeply into misogyny, but to each their own
I mean, a lot of men who havenât had sex after 18 also havenât had sex before 18 either. As in, during someoneâs formative years. A man/boy who felt rejected and sexually frustrated during the entirety of their formative years can 100% lead to the development of bitterness towards women.
And I doubt thereâs any 1-12 year old boys out there with an inherent pre-existing hatred of women. Like all forms of hatred, misogyny is a learned behavior.
A patriarchy- or a society where men are considered superior- shapes us from a young age and can show itself in the teenage years (before 18). Source: there were plenty of dudes who seemed to enjoy their recent discovery of sexism when I was a teenaged girl.
I agree, itâs a learned behavior. I think the seeds are planted before a dude turns into an incel following years without sex (when they are a person who desires sex), while others donât turn into misogynists after going without sex because they donât nurture the sexist things theyâve been taught about/learned about/picked up on.
Iâm trying to say in multiple threads that I donât think men who go without sex are by default misogynists. I didnât expect people to disagree with me about this
Thatâs a good point about the patriarchy and being exposed to sexism at a young age. Wonât fight you on that one.
Secondly, I clearly said âthe majority of men who havenât had sex are NOT misogynisticâ, meaning I obviously agree with you that they are not misogynistic by default. All Iâm saying is that it makes sense that it would increase the chances, even if slightly, that they learn to hate women.
[removed]
Sex is a very important part of males if you look over the world. Many parts of the world allows herems which reduce the marriable women for men. Which often results in more crime. For men if there is a woman waiting at home it makes people question dangerous decisions, like should I join with my mates and break into this bank. I highly bet crime is going to go up unless this dating problem is fixed. Because I see no reason to abide by societies rules, I have nothing going for me. Why should I care if s few people get hurt. It won't bother me, heck I mightily improve my situation by going against society. Society doesn't like angry men, maybe we should fix why they are angry instead of blaming them who aren't even involved in the "patriarchy".
Yes, I included that detail about whether someone even desires sex since this post doesnât specify if the people who arenât having sex actually want it. There can be many reasons for someone not having sex and not wanting to have sex. However, I acknowledge that this post does indicate that more people arenât having sex, and those people may mostly be the ones who actually want it. (Edit: the post specifies opposite sex sexual partners, so this excludes everyone who isnât heterosexual too.)
I agree that sex has a lot to do with perceptions of masculinity. Also, people are a part of a patriarchal society if men are considered a superior sex. It describes a culture, not an individual. If I were to say âIâm not involved in the patriarchyâ it would be like me saying âIâm not involved in capitalismâ even though I live in a very capitalist country. Iâm a part of both a patriarchal and capitalist system.
Anyway, Iâm sorry you feel that way. I donât think that there is such a direct link between sex & men as a class to crime rates in a place. Itâs extremely difficult to change someoneâs preexisting beliefs if they donât already want to, though, so Iâm not going to argue. I just wish you all the best & I hope it gets better.
1) Men are not owed sex just to give them an excuse to NOT be violent or big angry
2) If men are big angry over not getting sex, men need to fix those problems themselves and figure out why they feel entitled to sex and why their lives are so unfulfilling without it-- it's not a woman's responsibility to fix that issue for you
3) Buy a fucking blow up doll if you can't adapt to waiting a few years more to have sex, FFS
[removed]
If they haven't had sex yet, it's likely they also haven't had positive interactions with women either. If every woman you meet thinks badly of you for reasons you cannot control, I can understand why you'd become hateful. Not saying it's right, just that it's unsurprising.
This is part of it.
I was heading down that path, resisting, but ultimately heading that way, then one cutie where I worked actually regularly sought me out to have a conversation with me. She liked talking to every guy but that was besides the point.
The relationship went no where beyond work acquaintances, but because I decided I didn't desire it to. Having that option made a world of difference to my thinking. Doesn't make being a virgin any easier, though.
Gist of it is, if the opposite sex might as well be aliens from another planet, or worse, if they make an individual feel invisible or like a monster, it's easy for an individual to fall into the thinking the opposite sex is solely to blame for their relationship problems.
Common advice to "be confident" and "keep trying" is all well and good, but at some point they either have to come to terms they'll never be good enough, or no one's giving them a chance.
Unfortunately, society looks unfavorably upon the results of both mentalities.
My experience is very similar to yours. Female coworkers treating me like a human was the first positive experience I ever had with women, and I still fondly remember my time working there because we all got along very well.
If it wasn't for that job, who knows, I may have become a misogynistic and angry individual. And it's largely why I empathize with men who went down that darker path.
So, as an asexual, is a sex drive really that powerful a thing for people feeling sexual attraction that it can change ones views?
It's not about sex.
It's about being wanted. It's about the emotional connection.
If I just wanted sex I could hire a prostitute. But you'll find that most lonely men have no interest in that. They want to feel loved.
It's just a shame society often conflates the frustrations of these lonely men as "just wanting sex."
I doubt the majority of them would turn down the opportunity to have sex, but that's not necessarily why they're frustrated. It's just an unfair assumption because it's easy to paint people in broad strokes and never take the time to understand their grievances, and since people feel better about themselves when they have someone else to look down on, especially when they feel justified in doing so, they're not very inclined to care.
Ah ok.
Exactly 100% this
If there is any training to give a man on how to get a woman, it should 100% involve understanding their (female) point of view of the world. So much incel hatred comes from misunderstanding why things are the way they are and blame being pointed in the wrong places and at the wrong people.
If you see friends and everyone else being sex but you. And no one wants to go out on a date with you, and you struggle with social anxiety; would you give a shit about women or other people. Fuck no. This is going to get nasty and it's not heir fault, we need to show compassion and try and stop this mess by getting rid of social media.
I knew a guy who beat the shit at a woman he got tons of pussy so this is actually false
No. Your one-off anecdotal story doesnât prove shit. Stop treating anecdotes as evidence. Secondly, stop thinking of this as a black and white issue. You do realize misogynists can exist amongst celibates AND the sexually active, right?
This is obviously true. Another conclusion to draw from it is that it is not misogyny that is the cause of celibacy.
True, but earlier generations of men that actively hated women were often able to access the levers of patriarchy to take advantage in ways that are just less available to them now. (They could harass them in public or assault them in private with a degree of impunity hopefully no longer available. Men almost always had more money than women in their class, higher education, and as you go back in time, more rights.) We've not reached equality, exactly, but the average misogynist today can't assert his superiority over women the way that most men throughout much of history could do.
There are lots of real problems here, and I do think that nearly all outwardly misogynist men today are reflecting personal pain and isolation through a dying patriarchal worldview and could be socialized to being people with access to fulfilling relationships (to the extent that anyone is 'normal' in this context). But the problem I see is that there's no one really working on that project, and there's a huge profit motive for various corporations to keep us all miserable, obsessed, isolated, doom-scrolling, streamer-donating, click-baited, plastic-buying messes.
I see your point.
Edit: there are some people working on that project in Menâs Lib, but being an incel seems to be more popular on Reddit than joining that sub
Well that's the thing guys that get laid easily have no incentive to learn about the redpill. It attracts the guys who cant get laid and already have issues in that aspect, or wonder why their gf or wife never wants to have sex with them anymore. They learn about the nature of women, and then get bitter about it and want to complain and blame them for their personal downfalls instead if doing the work to actually be fuckable. It's always the ones who bitch the loudest get the most attention, and paints the broad stroke of the rest.
I don't know what exactly you are referring to when you say 'nature of women' but how I've experienced it is that it's all absolute bullshit. They paint what women desire in a partner as something that is the same for every woman, when that simply isn't the case. This leads to more problems when the man 'does the work' to be desirable based on these rules, and it falls short because the woman he's pursuing just isn't interested in him in that way.
I would agree that itâs the loud ones that we hear, but I have found myself repeating the notion that a man can go without sex without becoming bitter or frustrated or developing a hatred of âthe nature of womenâ based on pseudoscience.
He has to have preexisting beliefs that make him receptive to TRP. Itâs difficult to change a humanâs mind, and the ones who do change their thinking have to be slightly open to the idea first (they are not set in their existing beliefs).
Men who make efforts to understand womenâs perspectives arenât going to suddenly decide all women are the same. In other words, men who grow up knowing that women are complex human beings that are more similar to them than different arenât going to turn to TRP when they get depressed.
Redpill has nothing to do with hating women(even though some people there definitely are in that phase), its mostly a toolkit designed to help you achieve your goals. Some of the stuff posted there literally changes lives to the better, and most of advice I have seen in years is better than 90% of advice you will get anywhere else.
Of course primary goal(for majority of people there) is to get women, and some of the strategies might be amoral, but overall I would say its much better than giving up(black pill, mgtow). A lot of the posts are even aiming at socialization, how to get money, work out plans, etc. Sidebar of its own subreddit is probably one of the most important things young man can read on the internet..
I am not going to explain it more, as anyone who wants to know more knows where to find more.
Either I should be alarmed that you find such a toxic place comforting as a male (obv you are not a woman) or I should be surprised that TRP has changed since it was all about how horrible and simple women are in 2016-2017. âGetting womenâ is kind of hard for me to get over, since it treats them like commodities or trophies to be collected instead of people. There is plenty of documentation of the misogyny, with news articles about redpillers being misogynists. link-1 link-2. As a teenager, reading the shit they said about women really fucked with me and made me suspicious of men irl.
Honestly, I think itâs unlikely that a quarantined subreddit that was known for rampant misogyny is suddenly a nice, happy place that has zero sexism and doesnât worship pickup artists. Maybe you canât see it now but I hope you do some day
I disagree. You and the rest of society don't like the idea of men dropping out of society. Society doesn't help us so why should we help it back,.to keep the garbage trucks and favorites working..fuck that.
What? If you are angry about the world there are more outlets, even healthy outlets, aside from becoming a redpiller/incel/MGTOW.
In this comment, it seems to me that youâre less angry about what men deal with as a class and are more upset about what capitalism frequently does to workers? You know, treat them like shit, not appreciate them by calling them âunskilled laborâ (as if skills arenât required for every job) and paying them as little as possible to run said garbage trucks.
I should have said getting laid, instead of "getting women" as it might have different meaning in this instance.
A lot of people get to that subreddit because something happened to them(in a lot of cases women cheating on the guy, who would sacrifice everything for her), or flat out have no success with women - because of their looks, personality, social status, money, etc. Redpill is trying to teach men how to fix these things.
A lot of is self-improvement: Workout, getting better at social life, making more money. Thats pretty much a sidebar stuff, and if you didnÂŽt read that, and didnÂŽt try to implement in your life, then you have in my opinion no say in what redpill is about.
How can you tell me that any of those mentioned things is wrong ?
Are some of these strategies amoral ? Absolutely(which is why I called it a toolkit), but thats up to you how you decide to use knowledge you have acquired.
It was quarantined for a reason. Itâs not all about self-improvement. News organizations write about the misogyny like I linked in my comment.
I already said that I browsed TRP myself as a teenager. A lot of the content is immoral- it describes women in terms that diminish their humanity. As a teenaged girl, it made me worry that real life men thought about me like the men in the popular posts in TRP talk about women. I realized I was a feminist and researched what feminism was in those years because of the content I read in The Red Pill combined with the Gamergate nonsense.
You can live your life; I canât change your mind.
It was quarantined because reddit is a leftist platform that doesnÂŽt like ideas that are shown by redpill. Its simple as that. If it was some toxic landscape that broke rules of reddit it would be deleted.
Instead mods decided that its better to remove it from public eyes.
TRP is not for women, it is for men, so obviously you canÂŽt understand it. And the fact that youÂŽre feminist basically tells me everything I need to know. No point in debating further. Have a nice day.
I told you that I didnât know about feminism UNTIL I read the content in the red pill. I researched what it was BECAUSE of TRP. I didnât identify as or know about it until I read what awful things people said in there. TRP is what sent me down that path. Prior to this, I was just a teenaged girl going about my business on Reddit, but then I was harassed by sexist men.
But yeah, Iâm a stupid woman who is incapable of understanding, just as TRP teaches. Excellent. Yeah, I think weâre done here. Have a life.
Now go over to r/FemaleDatingStrategy. It's equally as disturbing. The discussion in this thread is pretty wild. "Here we have a study in which the focus is how often penises go into vaginas.". It's amazing how often that is used as a measure of happiness and fulfillment. It's as if a penis being in a vagina will erase all loneliness and cure social ills. The world has gone absolutely fucking mad.
Not sure what that has to do with what I said. Iâm saying that TRP is a misogynist hellhole. Yeah, FDS exists and has stuff I completely disagree with. Iâve looked at it. Itâs not nearly as famous and isnât part of a populous network of misogynist (or misandrist) subreddits on this platform, but yeah, itâs not a good place.
If your point is âbut both sides,â I disagree. On this platform, one side is much larger and has a bigger voice and the users of said subs get upvoted for what they say across Reddit. Saying shit from FDS on general/popular Reddit subs would get you downvoted to hell, as it should. The same canât be said of every bit of sexist âadviceâ or related comments you see on this site.
Red pill actually originated from the Matrix as a trans allegory. In the 90's estrogen pills were red (estrace) and thus taking it is a sign of no longer living a lie. Even if you use the more literal version that it shows you the reality of an inconvenient truth, conservatives are still misusing the term.
Nah they just look at women and say that they want the exact same thing I'm not sure if you would call that entitlement
Men that hate women or MGTOWs, redpillers, and incels? Those two things overlap a lot.
Itâs entitlement when they think they deserve sex and are angry that women arenât giving them the sex they âdeserve.â Itâs not entitlement when a person just wants to feel desired and wants to be able to have sex, with women or men or whoever. The difference is whether they are angry at women/people for not giving them what they are âowed.â
According to what I just specified, people in those groups- men that hate women and the subreddits that overlap with that- do tend to have entitlement issues. If you feel that you are owed sex by women, I would call that entitlement.
Is interestingly enough if a man uses a woman just for sex no one is going to criticize the woman for being entitled that a man should Do what he wants with his body
What? Get some sleep honey
Not an argument
[deleted]
What did I say that is bothering you? I said that I think misogynists have always existed. Just because some men arenât having sex doesnât make them misogynists. I think the misogynists are just extra loud, and the lonely men who arenât assholes are the ones we donât hear as much from because, again, they arenât assholes.
[deleted]
Yes, I just said I donât think the 27% of men are incels (misogynists). I only think some of them are.
I wonder if statistics connect this with people who commit mass murder.
Yup. Itâs why the MAGA white victimhood cult and other white supremacy/nationalist groups have been having a field day recruiting socially inept, white shut-in males for years online.
I'm pretty sure a lot of Islamists are also sexually frustrated males.
Teen and 20 something Mateless and disaffected (but I repeat myself) males have for all of history been the best and most fertile recruiting stock for cults, demagogues, and authoritarians.
Men need belonging with other men. Men need sex that both requires and gives commitment. They need purpose, and purpose that brings societal and female esteem with its satisfaction. Men need younger men in whom they can invest their knowledge as they gain knowledge - and they need respect from those younger men. All of that together provides reasons for men to go about the hard work of being useful, disciplining their baser instincts, and forging themselves and each other into something worthy of esteem.
Not really, we don't need a large population now. With automation we need to accept that a significant amount of labor simply wont be need for bot manual work and also skilled labor. In 50-100 years if population doesn't shift we will be at the stage where some people never work unless we artificially create "busy work" jobs for people or pass laws against automation. We will stop defining ourselves by the type of work we do, it really will be a massive societal shift. Having more people will simply make this worse so making a decision not to have kids is great. Your family DNA is not really that important to pass along before people respond saying how important it is for them to carry on their family "legacy"...
Just so I understand: your contention is that the only reason we are here on this planet, that the entirety of millions of years of struggle, is ânot that importantâ?
Absolutely correct, individually we are not that important in the big scheme of things. Do you think simply that more is better? When is more and more just too many and not needed for society to function - would you be happy with 30bn people on the world by your logic with nothing for them to do, shall we just give everyone a tin of paint and ask them to re-paint the sidewalk outside their house every day?
When you look at a bee colony it regulates it's population both on food availability and also what it needs colony members to do. They don't keep producing more bee babies in winter when there is nothing for them to do. What would happen if the bee colony decided to just "fuck it" and keep making more and more bees in fall and winter?
We can argue about the relevance of bee colonies vs human but that's not the point, it is natures way to regulate population to fit within it's society need. Obviously we can screw that up by removing impacts of natural predators, disease etc. which is fine but then as a society we need to make rational decisions about whether promoting having babies as a great idea is really for the best. I'm not talking about some kind of forced de-population idea, that is horrific no matter how you describe it. But why not reward people for deciding not to have kids? Why not promote the idea that having a kid isn't some great savior of society - it seems to be some kind of pyramid scheme where we worry about social security not being funded by future generations! Is that it - should I just want everyone to have kids in order to fund social security, is that what we have become?
I definitely don't dislike children, that's innate within us to want to nurture and protect. I like seeing kids play, learn and develop it's literally an amazing thing to see. But I also don't think that the world is going to collapse if my scrap of DNA doesn't mix with my wifes and create a great little baby. You may say - "baby might grow up and cure cancer", well that s possible but statistically more likely to grow up, study (based on parents), work reasonably fulfilling job, buy a house, have a kid, spend 20+ years nurturing, have a few interesting vacations then settle into some kind of retirement hobbies.
Please donât take this as a mean negative comment, but the view you and others express is tragically narrow and internally focused. We are and always have been an exploring and colonizing species.
We are Earthâs seed and there are no scientific, social, or moral reasons we should not joyfully embrace that aspect of our nature. The moon, Mars, Io are merely problems of drive, determination, and engineering. They barely qualify as real science problems beyond some medical issues that we can already imagine the solutions to.
The view you express will lead ultimately to despotism and misery because it lacks vision and hope. Itâs an âoh well I guess this is it, letâs just make dueâ. Itâs almost British in itâs quiet desperation. As an American, I see that vision as beneath my people.
In the States, what we should be doing is having kids, training those kids to be fiercely independent with a hunger for elbow room and expanse. Then training them in engineering and the hard sciences and gifting them with the explicit vision of bringing life to a dead universe. Not just human life, but bringing to every barren rock we can find every species of plant, animal, micro-organism, fungus we have. And doing so knowing that in a thousand, ten thousand, ten million year time frame some of that life will find a way to take hold and thrive.
Virtually all of the fiction and myth we have that is enduring has at root the story of some ancient and mighty race that started it all. We should embrace the evidence we have: we are that race, we are the start, and we must get about the business of creating what comes after.
I would disagree that my view is too pessimistic! If you look back in time all great civilizations have collapsed. Without exception. Largely this has been because they have failed to change and evolve but instead have tried to maintain a status-quo even where there have been cataclysmic events - floods, fire, volcano etc. History tells us that to survive a society has to evolve with what is happening around it and instead of just maintaining the business as usual approach that you are advocating we have to adjust our structures to deal with the new realities.
I totally agree with exploring new frontiers but we will be unsuccessful if we try to do that within the structures we have now. Being fearful of thousands of people dying on the way to space means we will never get there. Imagine what would happen if SpaceX or NASSA built a mission with 100 people on it and it exploded mid-flight. To be successful we would immediately have to be ready to send another mission the following week. And again and again till it works. Look at the British expeditions to find the north west passage round the top of North America. The Shackleton first mission was out for ten years and they got lost, another two ships were sent after them and also got lost. They kept going till eventually they found the route. That takes a mindset and a willingness to address your environment and make the necessary changes and sacrifices to develop. If they gave up when the first person died of scurvy these things would never have happened.
Pretending that our civilization can keep going with a population that has increased by 3bn in my short lifetime is fanciful. We do not need huge numbers of people, we need hardship ad a willingness to change and adapt. Your hope of us making no changes and it will all be fine is exactly why the Empires in the past have failed.
Yep, weâre pretty closely aligned!
No. It isnât.
Yeah, and no one seems to want to acknowledge that it's a real problem, or when they do they just blame men and video games again. We had plenty of those before the mid 10's, but what did take off was dating apps and those heavily skew choice. The bulk of women go for the top few percent of men, while an average man might get 1 match in 100.
As always, the tech companies that created the problem will in no way address the problem.
Libido does have to go somewhere, not always a good place.
Rarely a good place unless society provides and pressures men into clear path that both satisfies that libido and rewards men being mighty in service of their societyâs benefit.
I don't see a capitalistic society helping people that way. Capitalism doesn't require citizens to be happy. In fact, less happy citizens make better consumers since they're trying to fill the void by buying goods and services.
I agree sorta but sideways. I donât really think the US and much of Europe is nearly capitalist as we used to be. We are now very far along the Fascist road as defined by the knucklehead that invented Fascism. Trump was such an outrage on all fronts that both government and industry took off their masks and revealed where we are: the government is actively partnering with large businesses to control us.
What marks a healthy society is something like the following three pillars. 1) you have a very strong social sphere. This social sphere cannot use violence, but can using esteem, encouragement, the giving of honor, shame, shunning, etc to control behavior. This sphere has a core function of education, the continuation of culture, and charity. Something like the idea of âif you behave rightly and are still one of societyâs losers then society will help you. If you behave wrongly it doesnât matter how else you succeed you will have no esteem.â
Second, you need a strong economic sphere. This cannot use violence either. Itâs core function is to see to it that the society as a whole is producing more than it is consuming and to direct resources to capital. âCapitalâ being wealth that is set aside for the purpose of producing more wealth. This sphere will continually face pressure from the social sphere to assure that resources are siphoned off to feed, clothe, house people that are just bad at economic things.
Finally, the healthy society needs a violence engine that is very small and very laser focused on violence problems. In the realms of invasion, encirclement, rape, robbery, murder, theft, fraud, etc it should be ridiculously omnipotent. This violence engine should be constantly frustrated at the economic spheres parsimony and in constant terror of encroaching on the prerogatives of the social sphere.
A healthy society has a rock-paper-scissors construction.
It's woke...
Imagine the world ending because of the virgins.
Btw I would be apart of that.
The problem is that these men are not going to go away. Nor are they going to do much that is useful and constructive. Just the opposite: they will do something and it wonât be good.
Although itâs certainly not perfect, the only method human society has found to keep young men from being a dangerous, destructive, nuisance is to put them on a course of work and education that has its terminus in useful employment and fatherhood.
Giving off some weird tradcon vibes there my guy.
Not so much. More like giving off âIâve studied a lot of history both ancient and modernâ vibes.
Nah, we need less humans on earth, so it works out
Overpopulation is a larger problem than a declining one.
Overpopulation is a problem in the third world, not the west
Thereâs only one world.
The population growth/decline is not the issue.
My young dudes, you alright?
Defintely not vibing, thanks for asking đ€
I wish I was dead
So do I
Dont kill yourself.
Fortunately have had partners⊠but yeah, shitâs been terrible lately for us.
Yes, just not into women, and thus increase the number
Yeah they're just getting more dick
the internet hates us, the world hates us, all I feel from this culture is hate!!
no, i'm not, but also i'm gay.
No. Fiancee recently broke up with me a few months ago and I just realized how absolutely fucking lonely I am without her. My job has me overseas in close quarters with dudes ranging from age 30 to 50.
If I didn't go out to buy groceries I'd never talk to a woman.
I became religious and it's made it tough to find women in my age range.
I'm a decently attractive guy and I've been asked out randomly in the past by girls just walking through grocery stores and did pretty alright with dating apps, but now in my mid 20s it's disheartening.
Just having a lot of negative feelings and thoughts and literally the only person I could talk about them with was her and I just can't do that anymore.
I went through a really bad few years back when I was in my mid-20s. Sort of similar situation. Long time girlfriend dumped me, and in a really harsh way. I really didn't have anyone because she had become everything to me. Like a lot of men, when I settle down with a partner, my friendships tend to fall away, which can make it especially difficult if you break up and are suddenly alone and lonely. It got really dark for a while there. I mean it was a bad 4 years. But I eventually adjusted to my new normal and things got better.
That was over 20 years ago and I'm now married with children and that part of my life is a distant memory. I wish I had some rock solid advice for you. For me, it was just a matter of persisting and eventually making some changes (I moved, went to grad school, made a commitment to say yes to any social opportunities). If I could go back, I would have gotten therapy. Ironically, I'm now a psychologist, but I used to be very skeptical that anyone could help me. I got some help a few years ago for the first time in my life after going through a bout of depression and anxiety. I was amazed at how helpful it was. If you find someone who does cognitive behavioral therapy, there are some good tools to help get out of these kinds of ruts.
I could do this. Or I could go back to the middle east and take up self destructive behaviors and vigorously exercise again.
I became religious
How does that affect it?
Greatly narrowed down my dating pool. Went from being interested in women around my age who were cute and with nice personalities to women around my age who practiced my faith who were also cute and with a personality I could get along with.
Wait what? You were emotionally dependent on a person and you don't see the issue in yourself?
Additionally: "I became religious and it's made it tough to find women in my age range.", so you became a priest? Otherwise what should your believes change with finding and dating women?
I'm a decently attractive guy and I've been asked out randomly in the past by girls just walking through grocery stores and did pretty alright with dating apps, but now in my mid 20s it's disheartening.
That sound like as if that was a thing in your early 20s and you believe that in 5-6 years later that is not a thing anymore? Do you really think you age in 5 years like that matters for first contact?
Wait what? You were emotionally dependent on a person and you don't see the issue in yourself?
I mean you go from talking to someone every day to not talking at all and it sucks. You have someone who knows you better than anyone else. I still have close friends. But when a good amount of them are spread across the country/world, it makes it a little tougher. Plus being emotionally vulnerable with others is something I'm not super comfortable with, if you have your little moments of vulnerability with your friends you just get a "that sucks".
Additionally: "I became religious and it's made it tough to find women in my age range.", so you became a priest? Otherwise what should your believes change with finding and dating women?
Practicing catholic means you have to date other practicing catholics. Narrows your dating pool down from ~50% of the population to about maybe 4%
That sound like as if that was a thing in your early 20s and you believe that in 5-6 years later that is not a thing anymore? Do you really think you age in 5 years like that matters for first contact?
Dating now is a little different than it was a few years ago. 18-20 year old dating was mainly just proximity and if they thought you were cool/attractive. Now I'm competing with dudes 22-50 and things such as lifestyle are also in play.
Things are probably better than I'm making them seem. This is just a very bad night for me.
You have someone who knows you better than anyone else.
Why is that such a bland movie phrase? Why do people always think they need someone else to know them? What's the worth in that? Security? What's worth that someone knows you more than others know you?
Necessary is that you know you.
Practicing catholic means you have to date other practicing catholics
Wait what?
We are in 2021 and that still is a thing and a mindset people who can reason comply with?
Sounds very much like you make things harder than they have to be. Religion has never helped someone reflect tehmselves "objectively" and find themselves. It only is a distraction to substitute a certain things, for a lot it's reason and the fear of confrontation with normal life situations.
I'd say go out and dare. Dare things you don't do normaly and don't discriminate people based on believes.
I mean .. 30 isn't very young.
When you're in your late 40s, your 30s feel like an ancient time when you had energy, hair, a will to live.
(/s I am in my late 40s and my life is great, don't worry about me.)
hair
I haven't had that since my early 20s
30 is a baby
Tough out here
I havenât gone outside for anything but food in literal months. I might be coming up to a year at this point.
Source: The General Social Survey
I saw this graph posted alongside this Washington Post article by Christopher Ingraham, which only lists the statistics for men. I was curious, so I looked at the source data and found the same information for women.
The data of course does not account for individuals in non-heterosexual relationships, but according to this Gallop poll from 2020, 6.4% of women identify as LGBT, and 1.3% identify as lesbian. For men, 4.9% identify as LGBT, and 2.5% identify as gay. These numbers are inaccurate to any given year on this graph, but can be used to see what scale of impact LGBT individuals might have had.
And before anyone calls me an incel or something for making this post (statistics like these have been misinterpreted and used maliciously by them), I must say that I am not. If you really don't trust me, check my 5 year history of comments/posts, and you will find that I am very much a progressive. I simply found this data interesting.
Edit: This data is for the US. I totally forgot to include that... Sorry.
The GSS, the survey you're drawing from, DOES ask everyone both how many male sexual partners they've had since turning 18, and how many female sexual partners they've had since turning 18.
I'm not sure why the graph you posted only lists the male sexual partners of females and vice-versa, but that isn't a limitation of the survey. If you go to the SDA codebook to analyze the GSS data, you can filter by men, filter by ages 19-29, and look up how many reported having had male sexual partners since turning 18. Overall since 1989, it's 6.3% (weighted). That's information available in the survey but missing in your charts.
In fact, we can filter further, to only show respondents who said they were male, were ages 19-29, and said they hadn't had any female sexual partners since turning 18:
Of those, 15.2% said they did have male sexual partners (in 2014, it was 30%!). So your graph's conclusions would indeed be different if you'd included these same-sex partners. (And 12.3% of those who said they were female and hadn't had a male sexual partner said they had had a female sexual partner.)
To be honest, I just copied what the Washington Post did but added women.
I did think about filtering for sexual orientation, but that question is newer and has a lot fewer survey responses, so it gave pretty few data points. I gave up on that there for whatever reason.
Technically my graph is still accurate, but yes, accounting for relationships with both female and male partners for both sexes would have made a more useful graph. I donât know why I didnât think of it.
Thanks for the reply, and for the info about what you were looking at/thinking about at the time. Glad to hear that we agree that a version including more people would be more useful for this case.
The Washington Post article you linked doesn't seem to make the opposite-sex distinction that you did in your graph, so I assume that you were inspired by the twitter version, which does (albeit directly captioned with a caveat about how it is missing the same-sex partner data).
Ohhh, it's only in the US.
Please also mention where the survey was taken in the post, otherwise it could get a bit confusingâŠ
Thank you! I was looking around the links and the post and there was no mention of the country.
Americans think they're the only people on earth, because most of them never leave the country
That's also because the US is absolutely massive. So many places to go for cheaper than international.
this is true for many countries, but it's still good to get out and see the world. there's a reason Americans think they're the best country in the world, and very very few other countries do. (they're also blatantly not the best country)
I don't think you fully understand the massive size of the US.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3be95810561c83df4cfe5d97ec88ab95
I'm Canadian, champ. I know the US is huge .. but your defensiveness and commitment to "American exceptionalism" is really outing your nationality. regardless of the size of your country, I was talking about how you guys think you're the best/ the biggest ?. it's annoying as shit
Idk why you're farting out irrelevant shit?
The reason people don't leave the country much is because it's huge and there's plenty places to go.
You're the one squeezing shit out of your teeth angry about Americans for some reason.
It's like saying someone never travels outside the EU. It's fucking huge, by nature of simple physics it's easier to go to places closer rather than further.
this is why the American education system has failed you miserably. You really don't know why we shit on Americans. you're genuinely clueless, like the vast majority of your countryfolk.
over 80 democratic governments have been overthrown by your power hungry military, or the CIA. you start wars left and right. you're arrogant and self-righteous as shit, fascist, the 1% oppress your country and the world, you sell arms to militias, you're a breeding ground for ignorant religions like mormonism and scientology and pump out missionaries to dull the world with your capitalist dogma, you water down global political discourse with right-wing propaganda and shitty racist conflict .. your peoples' quality of life and education is horrendous and hundreds of thousands of poor people die every year without healthcare in the richest country in the world, the mega-rich and media have a vice grip on you .. it's a two-party system so barely democratic ... many of you are violent assholes obsessed with tribalistic hatred.
all countries have their problems and all this would be fine if you didn't brag like crazy and defend your country as the best. You literally don't know why you're the most hated country on earth and that's sad.
Nobody gives a fuck how large your country is, size doesn't matter. what you fucks need is to get out of the country so you can understand that the way you live and let the 1% and military ass-fuck you is WRONG and can be changed.
imagine being proud to be american
lmao shut the fuck up i dont care about you or what you think i made a factual statement and your just digged out shit from your compacted asshole and flinging it. no one cares about all that bullshit you've said, no one.
and nobody gives a fuck about you. You're a massive dumbass and guzzled the bullshit from your media overlords. I'll provide evidence for anything I've said -- it's all factual. I have no idea what a compacted asshole is and I'll leave you with that knowledge. Enjoy mediocrity
lmao you are literally insane. I was never defending anything yet you're frothing at the mouth with blind nerdy edgelorge rage.
I was stating a fact about a topic at hand and nothing else and that fact alone somehow pisses you off to blind rage.
You know how pathetic you are to be so mad at everything? Like why are you so fucking jealous of another country? You just blew the fuck up for no reason.
Fun fact is more than 20 million canadians visit the USA for vacations/recreation per year. That's right, almost half of canadian population travels to the united states for FUN. Does that piss you off? Do you hate half of your fellow countrymen for visiting such a facist shithole of america? How many times have you been? ahahahahah so fucking pathetic. You probably live in some shitty cabin drinking bagged milk and jerking off a moose ehh?
here's how I know you're suffering in America. From your comments:
"It would be absolutely massive. It would be life changing to me and I've already paid like 20 of my 70k debt and the world would open up if I had an extra 600 a month."
that debt is most likely from either healthcare or education bills. in most developed countries you wouldn't have debt from either of those things. You're literally struggling to get by .. "the world would open up" if you could get a leg up.
but keep loving the country that's f!king you in the ass!
hahaah what the FUCK dude you are WILD!
This has nothing to do with me or America or any other bullshit you keep saying. I dont give a single solitary fuck what countries you jerk off to and which you don't.
It's like the biggest thing Canadians talk about is America, its pathetic and sad lol.
all right, keep telling yourself that.
I don't have to tell myself anything, you keep proving it every single time you go off on some random syrup fueled rant.
you really think it's jealousy man ? I blew up because it's rare to spot an American in the wild that actually doesn't understand why their country sucks ass. But keep defending the war crimes, crimes against humanity, children bombed, millions killed, all that good stuff. I pity you.
Yes you are extremely jealous and I don't know why.
Why do you keep bringing up completely unrelated shit? this was about one thing: the fact on why Americans don't travel much abroad.
THATS IT. And then you come in with all this fuckin insane shit out of no where. What the fuck is actually wrong with you?
and yeah, I've been to America, it's got some beautiful places. It's not all bad, but it's far from the best country. What I'm saying is Americans need to do the reverse -- visit other countries -- so that they can get insight to improve their own, and realize they're not number one. But you're just an idiot. Which I could've guessed, statistically, but you confirmed it heartily. I hope your gaming helps take the edge off your debt
because seeing ignorance is sad to me. and yeah I go pretty hard trying to educate people .. way too hard, especially since I'm talking about shit like war crimes and oppression and you're talking about jerking off moose, like that's either funny or a good insult. It's just retarded. You're just retarded.
by the way, I'm not proud to be Canadian either. My country is genocidal as shit and destroying the earth. but we're slightly more democratic than you and we do not start wars or overthrow democracies around the world. The problem is the insane commitment to nationalism that you're best at. Nationalism is not good, and this isn't about one country vs. the other, it's about America being absolute dogshit.
Bro chill out. Itâs not that deep.
It's a reasonable assumption given the overwhelming majority of English language research papers are written in the US
Considering most journals publish in English, so the papers have to be written in English regardless of country of origin, I highly doubt this.
yes, because no other scienticians would write in English.
Only people born in the US know how to speak or write English. It's is known.
Is that an exclusive or, because that would explain so many things.
[deleted]
You mean the link in the comment, right? So not the post, a link in a comment. Did you go? Because I did before commenting.
It isn't immediately stated where the data was collected so of course it's from the US
The % of the population identifying as LGBT is dramatically higher for millennials and Gen Z.
1 in 6 members of Gen Z identify as LGBT as per your link. Thatâs between 15 and 20 percent of the population.
And polls can have variances in their findings based on methodology; another poll might find even more LGBT young people, or less. The only thing you can really discern for sure is change over time when polls are conducted in succession with the same methodology.
There might also be less stigma around self-reporting no sexual partners; you donât have to convince anyone youâre straight these days.
So though I think an âepidemic of lonelinessâ is an interesting possibility and a concern, I donât think this chart provides enough info to say it found that. Certainly, the surveyors didnât think they were looking for that or they wouldnât have limited their query to opposite-sex partners.
LGBT is broken down in that poll. And only 2% of Gen Z identified as gay and 1% of Gen X. So I think the overall effect on a chart like this would be quite minor. Although at least worth noting a bit.
Even if youâre Bi, it means that thereâs a chance you only had same-sex intercourse.
Still, that change includes bisexuals, and it's entirely possible (and common even) to be bisexual at 18 in a long term relationship with a same-sex partner, which would also add to the graph
Thatâs not what I found on the survey, although the number of people who call themselves gay is pretty low. But a higher number (10% in the figure I saw) of Gen z men reported exclusively same-sex sexual partners.
ah ok, we must have been reading different surveys then, cause that part wasn't in the one I read.
wtf, 10%?
Are men turning gay because women are too hard to get with ?
Yeah, you find a man from San Francisco and give them a silver coin and say Valhar Margoulis. Theyâll take you back there to the temple where you can gradually learn how to be gay. Then youâre in.
I remember it like it was yesterday. Good times!
My thoughts exactly.
With the additional data of same-sex and non-binary sexual partners, one could make a very interesting graph showing the trends in same sex sexual partners, opposite sex sexual partners, non-binary sexual partners, and sexual partners in general. We could then make some inference about sexual encounters in the age group between 18-30.
As the graph stands on its own, it is mildly interesting, but it feels more like a novelty than anything to me.
I think what qualifies people as LGBTQ isn't clear. I consider myself straight but I've heard by a person that I would be under the LBTQIA umbrella.
Something that really bothers me about the whole gender... thing. Is that many the people who are so serious about how strict gender roles are harmful also expend a shit ton of effort telling people that they are aktchually something other than what they identify as.
There are really only two defensible positions.
1) Genders are assigned by society and mean something concrete, like a dictionary definition.
2) Genders are defined by the individual that they are describing and nobody else gets to choose them for you.
I personally think that (1) makes more sense in that if I was to describe a person who I have never spoken to it is much easier to communicate who they are using classic gender terms.
I think (2) is a well meaning but unwise response to a society that thinks gender determines how a person is supposed to be when really it's just a convenient descriptor.
I'll totally live in a world where (2) is prioritized though if it means people are happy.
Both are the case. I'd only change for 1) that gender is not a concrete definition/thing, it's more a set of things. Mainly bcs you can't specifically define what a specific gender is as humans vary (eg both tomboys and hyperfeminine women are women, but have a drastically different gender expression).
Yeah. They have been creating and dissecting more and more sexual identities and added them into LGBTQ+ to a point where almost anyone can be part of LGBTQ+ by now.
To be honest I find it silly. I think we are reaching insanity at this point. I think it stems from our need to create our own identity. And for some reason, we try to do it by creating groups that fit our complex selves. I think no group or label does justice to the complexity of humans. Why go so deep? Why try to label myself perfectly? I think those labels will never reach that. They will perhaps limit you as you mold yourself to those labels. It is a very neurotic thing to do. People really crave a labeled identity these days. But I think trying to create boxes so that everyone can fit into one and be part of a "community", which is artificial btw, is not the way I would go.
I would rather just remove as many boxes as I can and just be me. A complex being like all others who for the sake of simplification wants to be defined by his name: Francisco.
I think if we were less egomaniac, we wouldn't be in this position right now. Don't worry about labeling yourself. Just be.
Who is âthey?â
The LGBTQ community exists as a concept for very powerful historical reasonsâit was literally illegal to be gay/lesbian/trans in most parts of the U.S., and simply going out with other gay people could lead to being arrested under âindecencyâ laws and in addition to getting a jail sentence or fine youâd now have your identity public and lose your job and you could be rejected by your family and more.
Thereâs a history for all of it, and even though it seems complicated from a 5280-foot view I think most of the situations make more sense when you dive in to them.
I dunno if really young people are kind of stretching to sort themselves as they figure themselves out but I also think thatâs part of growing up, and as they kind of get settled in the community they will shake off any extra labels that donât really seem necessary anymore.
"Who is they?"
Society at large. Or whoever engages in the practice of finding and labeling all sorts of sexual behaviors out there. You have a gigantic list of sexual identities nowadays included in the LGBTQ+.
Again, feel free to do so. I just think people are focusing too much on what they are rather than what they do.
"It was literally illegal to be gay/lesbian/trans in most parts of the U.S., and simply going out with other gay people could lead to being arrested under âindecencyâ laws and in addition to getting a jail sentence or fine youâd now have your identity public and lose your job and you could be rejected by your family and more."
I understand how important the LGBT community was and is on that aspect. I am not disputing that at all. I think I can criticize the over-labeling of sexual identities without having to dismiss LGBT and the civil rights movement in general.
"I dunno if really young people are kind of stretching to sort themselves as they figure themselves out but I also think thatâs part of growing up, and as they kind of get settled in the community they will shake off any extra labels that donât really seem necessary anymore."
That is a good observation. I hope so.
While identity is important. I think it would be good for everyone if we focused more on what we do rather than who we are. Funny thing is that we often mistake what we do with who we are. It can be reductionist. Imagine you work as a receptionist. Do you think saying: "I am a receptionist" rather than saying: "I work as a receptionist/I do receptionist work" is the same? I don't. And I believe that every person is so much more than what they work for a living, what sexual identity they have, etc.
So because I believe that people are so much more than whatever infinite labels they put on them, it is best to use no label at all. Just your god-given name is enough for me. That name attached to me... That one label, says everything about me. Something that no other label could ever do.
It's a movement to show that many people don't fit into the idea of "normal" that has been pushed on society. It's really as simple as that. Recognizing that who you are is fine and you don't have to force your round peg into society's square hole is the intended goal. It's clear that younger generations are much less repressed and more free to be themselves, largely thanks to civil rights movements and the massive shifts we've had as a culture towards being more accepting of "others."
The massive catalogue of labels may be silly, but it serves its intended purpose of helping social outsiders feel like they belong and aren't alone. I'm a cis polyamorous pansexual. I don't need a P to be included in the obnoxiously long acronym to know I am included and I belong, but I'm not the person the movement is trying to reach out to and help.
There are millions of repressed people currently in America (and millions more throughout our history) who don't feel comfortable being themselves because of ridiculous traditions and ignorance. They're constantly being attacked physically, mentally, by their state and local governments, by their schools, etc. The Plus movement (I've taken to calling it that rather than the acronym) forces society, both common folk and those in power, to acknowledge that we do not fit into the boxes we imagine for ourselves, and we will not willingly go into them again.
I personally feel like all of those labels aren't for me, and that they are more restricting rather than freeing. That said, if it makes people feel better about themselves and more connected to others, more power to them.
I agree.
Just because I find it silly doesn't mean I am telling them to stop. Who am I to demand that?? Let people be free with all their limiting beliefs they come up with constantly. If they are happy and cool with others, better for everyone! I dig.
But if they start demanding that I have to accommodate my language to meet every imaginable sexual identity they constantly come up with... I will just call people by their name and not enter that game... While also demanding to be identified as an Assault Helicopter, with the appropriate pronoun: brrrrrrrrr.
You know... A person's name is to me the only timeless label that actually encompasses everything that a person is. Other labels will never fill the shoes of that person's entire being. For that reason I tend to pay no mind to all the other labels. They just limit and don't do justice to what I really am: Me.
The nice thing is that this stuff doesn't really come up in real life conversation or even online. You basically have to be seeking out a conversation about identities to find it.
I wouldn't like people putting a label on me, as much as I wouldn't like people telling me which labels I shouldn't put on myself to define and describe my identity.
Fair enough yes.
In my opinion, labels are just a way we try to feed our own egos.
But feel free to do what makes you happy and at peace.
I would rather focus on the things I do rather than the things "I am". That is way more important I would argue.
For example, rather than worrying about constructing this narrative of being an artistic person, and presenting myself and to others that I am "an artist" or something like that, I would rather worry and put my energy into doing art.
Labels often times get in the way. Before you know it, you deceive your true self trying to mold yourself to a label that you idealize as being you. It can become a mask. And that might hinder your true potential to do unique things.
Accepting people without judgement instead of lecturing them on who they are, in my opinion that would be the best way to free them from any masks they might feel compelled to wear.
Are you asexual?
[deleted]
Eh, you can still call it straight if you wanna. Being attracted to nbs is honestly as straight or gay as you or they decide it is
The classic ">!shemale !
As mentioned, the term you used is both offensive and irrelevant as we are discussing non binary people, not trans women.
Not sure if you're aware, but that word for trans women is a slur. It can be really upsetting to see it without warning
Edit: thanks for spoilering the word! đ
I'm aware there's a whole industry of porn involving the size and color of a certain kind of cock. Nothing about porn is pretty or safe for work.
But that is literally the title of the Ted Talk. Unless you want me to alter the author's work for a subset of people he is not strictly talking about.
In the case of a title, I might still censor some letters to dampen emotional impact. I understand the complication of quoting a problematic source.
Sorry if I'm insensitive, but I'm trying to understand. Does it really help if (spoiler for the same reasons as the person you're responding to) >!the word's censored, say "sh*male" instead of "shemale"!<?
It absolutely does! I know what the word is of course, but not seeing it fully written out without warning gives me a buffer against the actual upset. Knowing in advance you're about to see something upsetting, or tricking your brain into needing an extra moment before recognising the word, are both ways to reduce harm.
The downvotes against a trans person for complaining about a slur used for trans people is a little rich. I hope that cis people reading this take a breath and recognise that there are people in the world who think and feel wildly different from you, and that they're not necessarily wrong for being that way
It always seemed weird to me. I still don't quite get it, but if you say it helps even when you know what's the censored word, then I can just take your word for it.
If you feel straight, that's of course absolutely valid. In the LGBTQ+ umbrella, we can also describe attraction to women and fem non-binary people as Neptunic. Contrast with Uranic (men and masc enbys). So you're welcome with us as well, should you want to be đ
So you're welcome with us as well, should you want to be
This is the part that confuses me the most. Unless we're going to fool around, what's the point of associating with each purely on the grounds of our internal sexual attraction?
Humans tend to seek out other humans similar to them. Be that in beliefs, experience etc.
A big part of Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities (GSRM, synonym for LGBTQIA+) is that members of it all share similar experience of having to live in a cis-hetero-normative society and all the struggles that come with that, eg. realizing you are different from somebody else, not fitting in, accepting yourself, having tl come out to people, dealing with hatred towards you based on who you are. So GSRM share a lot of experiences and as a result tend to bond and form social groups.
Same thing happens in other areas, eg with mental health (finding people with similar illness or disorder) or common, everyday stuff like sports fanclubs.
Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities
Even grouping these doesn't make sense to me. Your gender is a part of your very being, permeating most aspects of life. Your "romantic" life, assuming I'm not misunderstanding the meaning, is a somewhat public aspect of your life, and certainly affects the others in your life. But sex? Most people are different no matter how you label them. Why would I want seek out others that share my bisexual fetishes anymore than people who are into any specific sexual act would seek each other out for non sexual reasons?
Like I mentioned:
members of it all share similar experience of having to live in a cis-hetero-normative society and all the struggles that come with that
Many GSRM people do have a lot in common, hence why they tend to form social groups. EG something they have in common, as mentioned, is having to come out in order to be themselves. And that is a thing that exist primarily with GSRM.
And yes, your sexual attraction actually matters a lot. Each come with their own individual challenges, but they still have a huge influence on you and how you are perceived in society.
The romantic part is for romantic attraction (works analog to sexual attraction and uses the same phrases (eg asexual & aromantic) ).
This is starting to sound more and more like an excuse to make friends
If you want to believe that, then go ahead.
Less offensively stated, what advantages would there be for me to nonsexually meet up with people that share my sexual proclivities, versus meeting up with people that like the same football team as me?
Can't really say anything about advantages bcs I don't look at relationships with people through that lense. From my PoV it is easier for people to form relationships with each other if they have a common ground, and non-heterosexual people (and queer people in general) have a lot of common ground.
And it's totally fine if that doesn't appeal to you.
If a person deviates in any way from the compulsory cishet society we have built ourselves, they will often find themselves mocked or excluded from things. The LGBTQ+ umbrella is for people who are told they don't fit if they show their authentic selves
The LGBTQ+ umbrella is for people who are told they don't fit if they show their authentic selves
I would imagine this includes a majority of people
1 in 6 members of Gen Z identify as LGBT as per your link. Thatâs between 15 and 20 percent of the population.
I just have to point out that 1/6 is 16.66...%, which is technically between 15 and 20%, but I don't know why you wouldn't just use the number or round.
Because 1 in 6 is rounded
Maybe they didnât feel like doing the math?
Thinking about LGBT percentage, that Gallup poll showed significantly higher representation in younger generations.
Yeah, is this chart indicating that people are banging less, or that everyone's riding the Rainbow Train more and more?
Right? It's an incomplete data set that renders itself useless except as a novelty or a rhetorical talking point.
I think that gallup poll is for the whole population, which would be a very rough estimate. It would be better to look at rates of LGBT identifying people in that age range each year, which I suspect is going up based on that gallup poll you sited. e.g. 1/6 of gen Z ident. as LGBT ... or something like that.
I do suspect there would be an upward trend with that accounted for, but I doubt it would be as dramatic if same sex actuvuty were figured in.
I just looked at it again, and it does actually have information for Gen Z in particular! For individuals born 1997-2002, 11.5% are bisexual, 4.2% of men identify as gay, and 2.8% of women identify as lesbian.
That's a lot more than the total population, but still not enough to explain most of this shift.
Gen Z members who identify as trans or non-binary are going to have a really hard time figuring out who qualifies as âthe opposite sex.â
I think the only way to gain meaningful data on people who are isolated or celibate is to ask people about sexual partners, period, not ask a broad question that would catch several very different circumstances and try to parse.
Yeah, this poll is weird. Why did they limit it just to opposite sex partners?
It seems to have started in 1989 when there was strong social stigma against being anything but heterosexual.
The poll itself does ask everyone about both male and female sexual partners, and has done so since 1989. OP posted a graph that only includes opposite-sex partners for some reason.
Thats a good explanation. Just seems like maybe they should update the question nowadays though. Unless that's exactly what they're looking for I suppose.
Well if they changed the question, the current data wouldn't be comparable to the past data. I guess the cost is that it is only really useful for heterosexual relationships.
I havenât looked at the questions, but my suspicion would be that to maintain comparability, theyâd ask an additional same sex partner question. That way, youâd be able to keep your opposite sex time series and do a shorter more up to date series on all sexual partners or same sex partners only.
I often see these disclaimers accompanying data. Alarming.
When that data about LGBT proportion is split across generations, you get more of an increase, with 17% of Gen Z adults not being straight in the 2020 poll, making the omission theory more likely
I am confused.
The WP graph is about having sex, yours is about having sexual partner. Is that just a mistake are you really using different datapoint?
The WP graph is about not having sex in the last year, yours is about not having sex since 18. Is that just a mistake are you really using different datapoint?
The link might have sent you to the wrong tweet.
Itâs the one titled âFinal datapoint: the share of young men reporting no female sex partners since they turned 18 -- a rough a proxy for virginity -- more than tripled since 2008. I say rough proxy bc 1) some had sex in their teens and 2) some exclusively have male partners.â
Got it, you are talking more about the tweet, not the WP post, my mistake.
One more thing, I wonder how many of those who reported having sex actually paid for it.
Bruh 1/4th of men not having sex since they turned 18?? There must be some kind of mistake, I've tried to loon up the methodology to see if their results are statistically valid as new outlets often use these studies.. idk
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Thanks for sharing. I've been trying to find this bit of the discussion here, but failed: It's a very "jerky" stat. The numbers jump a lot from year to year, usually an indicator of low n. 50%+ variation between years is wild. Do you have some thoughts on why it looks this way?
It's a very weird thing to ask, you'd have thought they'd just ask if you've slept with someone and then if you were gay or bi / what the sex of the people you fucked were. This current question just says "are you gay or a virgin?" Which is an odd thing to combine.
Also could do with further binning by age.
Just curious: LGBT/progressive people, etc can't be incels/virgins?
I don't understand who is included in this. A 4-year-old is an "individual under 30", but I assume they're not included. A sexually-active 17-year-old is an "individual under 30", but can't have had any sexual partners since they turned 18. If 27 percent of 29-year-old males haven't had sex since they were 18, that's a very different thing than if 27 percent of 18-year-old males haven't had sex in the few months since they turned 18. So who is included here?
https://twitter.com/familyunequal/status/1455955536625680385
Stick Confidence Intervals on your chart and it looks incredibly silly, because we are trying to pull out of a very small cut. GSS cut this finely is garbage and leads to lots of navel gazing and narrative confirmations. Look at all the bullshit explanations of a few dozen dudes answers in the GSS in this thread. This is a Confidence Interval Crime.
Inceldom isn't a political ideology.
I can feel that. Honestly I'm so beaten down in the world today I don't even want to go out and find someone to have sex with much less form a relationship and get married which I can't afford and have kids which I also can't afford.
Eh marriage has traditionally been a largely economical decision. But two incomes and sharing expenses can absolutely be economical. Kids are expensive as fuck though.
Yeah. Generational wealth transfer is much, much higher when parents are married and stay married. Having two separate households obviously greatly increases costs.
If people are serious about wanting to reduce the racial wealth Gap in the United States, promoting intact families among relatively poor racial minority groups would go far to decreasing that wealth Gap.
This ignores the elevated divorce rates for low income households as well as inflated instances of domestic violence and femcide that are precipitated in these marriages. Having money is great and all, I mean sheesh we built our entire society around it, but I would rather stay single and childless forever than gamble on a shit marriage for some cash.
To be more clear, I'm saying foster the conditions for a good quality marriage. Offer free pre-marital counseling, for instance, and reduced rate day care.
Being lower income creates stress for sure, but many poor couples have good relationships. Stress doesn't lead directly to femicide - a cultural acceptance and lack of skills to deal with emotions in other ways does. There are social interventions that can help.
But yeah, stay childless and the issue of generational transfer of wealth is moot.
Don't have kids then. It's not the default. Marriage is money boost if both people are working which they should.
Having sex might make you feel less beaten down. Plus, it can just be for fun, without having to get married or have kids.
I'm sorry you're feeling so down. Here's an internet hug.
As someone who's 30 and a virgin I can confirm
Lower your standards
What I need is for other people to lower their standards
Have you tried women over 50?
Maybe he doesnât care. Iâm almost 29 and in the same boat. I just canât be bothered. Honestly canât stand most people these days. I donât fit into many societal norms and donât plan on changing any of that. Iâm me and me just isnât good enough for most, Iâve accepted that.
I definitely agree. I'm a 25 year old virgin and I don't really care. Would it be nice to try it? Sure. Am I actively looking for it? No. I'm perfectly happy with my life as it is. If I find someone amazing, that's awesome, if not, oh well. No reason to lower my standards.
Same dude. My career is rocking and I have the best friends anyone could ask for. Would it be nice to have someone on the same wavelength to share life with? Sure. Is it worth the effort of conforming to what (seemingly) most of society wants from âa manâ? Absolutely not.
I find most people unrelatable aside from maybe 1-2 facets on average. I donât want the same things it seems.
No relationship =/= virgin. Have fun without porn. Porn will literally destroy your brain and the way you view sex/women to a far greater degree than casual sex. Porn has destroyed your standards.
Iâm sorry your life is so pathetic that this is all you can come up with as first thoughts. Iâm pretty sure Iâm doing just fine and donât even consume porn all that often.
I would argue that your mentality is the exact type of person Iâm speaking about in my earlier comments. Itâs like you morons only value sex and nothing else in life matters.
If anything being lonely, not having casual sex and only consuming porn has made my standards âlowerâ than average. I show my friends an older, heavier âavgâ looking girl and they all think Iâm âdown badâ
I hear this anti-porn reiterated all the time. It's bogus, please stop. Some have issues with it, most can separate fantasy from reality.
What the fuck do you know about him to talk like that?
His standards could be on the floor and it doesn't matter.
Lonely men are generally willing to date lonely women, but lonely women refuse to date lonely men, ironically, because they find it unattractive.
And if he's physically unattractive too? Yeah it ain't happening.
Loneliness isn't per se unattractive but many people who are lonely and depressed used to overburden me with their struggles just at the start of a relationship and it made me feel even more depressed than beforehand, so I generally look for people who are somewhat stable or at least empathical enough to not throw at me their shit all the time and make me their therapist
See, I get that, but as a guy, I'd love for a woman to open up about her loneliness to me, even if it was the first date. I can't imagine losing attraction or feeling more depressed because of it, so I just can't relate. It seems so cold-hearted to reject someone for opening up to you.
[deleted]
The thing is, have you ever been in such a situation?
Not exactly, but a classmate of mine opened up to me once and I greatly appreciated her willingness to trust me with such a sensitive topic. It felt good to just listen, and I like being helpful.
But sure, I can understand if it goes too far. If a guy you're dating forces you into an hour-long conversation about how sad he was after his dog died, I could understand being annoyed. But honestly, it doesn't have to go anywhere that far before most women get turned off (may not apply to you).
Even the slightest hint of insecurity, like saying "Sometimes I'm worried that I disappointed my family" is enough to make women lose all respect. Many men have experienced this first hand, it often signals the end of the relationship. And why? Because it destroys the illusion of the man being a stoic unbending rock of confidence. It's a display of weakness.
puts an enormous amount of pressure on the other person
I'm genuinely curious what you mean by this. What pressure is there?
someone who ignores your boundaries and treats you as their therapist
I think men are just a lot more comfortable with that role.
Just saw another post in this sub about how women have a higher college enrollment than men. Wonder if these two things somewhat relateâŠ
Men are seriously struggling in school recently, more dropouts, lower enrollment, worse grades. Super present in higher education, but the trends are visible in grade school as well. It's a sad situation, especially since there's seemingly nobody recognizing and taking steps to understand or resolve the problem.
It's crazy how this is true yet my stem classes are 95% men; I have a class right now without a single woman.
Engineering and math are the two major fields left without a female majority. Most biological sciences are dominated by women
Weird about math. In my country women are a majority in math.
Yeah this is just in the US Iâm speaking about, should have specified
In Mexico it's also mostly men. What Country do you live in?
I studied in Slovenia.
Interesting, thanks!
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/04/01/stem-jobs-see-uneven-progress-in-increasing-gender-racial-and-ethnic-diversity/ Just reading this it's crazy to me that women earn 53% of STEM degrees; I guess my degree was just really biased in the other direction lol.
STEM is just a really wide range of fields, some are heavily dominated by women and others barely have any.
I'm a CS student and we have one of the lowest rate of female students. I'm usually the only woman in class.
It varies heavily by school or even by college within a school.
At my school CS in the college of arts and sciences had a majority held by women, while CS in the college of engineering (separate degree programs) had a majority held by men. Chem/Bio and Chemical/Biomedical engineering had strong women majorities, while EE had >90% men.
I had one class that was 11 students in my CS degree. 6 women and 5 men. Professor said in his 30 years of teaching it was his first class to ever have more women than men. He was really excited it happened because it was the same year he was retiring and he thought it was cool. We threw him a mini retiring party at the end of the year with cake.
Most women will choose what interests them, most men will choose what makes money. When STEM is some of the only fields left in the entire job pool that pay a thriving wage then that's all you're going to see men pursing.
It's an interesting idea. Men have historically been the breadwinners. We are told that we need to get a job in a profession that is financially lucrative in order to provide for others. It would make sense that anything outside of that is not supported.
To be fair, men and women both choose things that interest them, not just women. They simply have different interests as population groups on average. There's a truism that "Women tend to be interested in people, Men tend to be interested in things". The latter include STEM and other fields that typically 'scale' better when it comes to wages/earnings. Those fields also have much better demand curves than human centered professions, so men as a group tend to out-earn women.
There's vast evidence showing that when a male dominated field becomes more dominated by women, wages go down and that field is regarded as less prestigious.
I would imagine a job would becomes less prestigious when the supply of workers for it outpaces the demand (i.e. women joining a career field historically reserved for men). An element of many prestigious jobs is rarity.
Regardless, people aren't paid for prestige. They're paid based on the value of their labor, and the value of that labor is based on the supply/demand curves in the labor market. On average, men work more hours, take less vacation, don't leave the work force to raise children, and as mentioned before -- prefer to work in jobs that have wages that scale better for higher pay due to their interests in 'things' and not 'people'.
Explained more simply, an entrepreneur can create a gadget that launches a business with hundreds of employees and reaches across the nation, while the world's greatest nurse can only see so many patients in one day. The scaling is completely skewed against people that choose human centered fields since their productivity has a lower ceiling.
Of the thirteen four-year universities in the University of Wisconsin system, only one has more male students than female. And that school has a disproportionately large engineering program compared to other majors.
its cause math and engineering are more practical, tend to be graded by final exams rather than ability to keep up with constant homework, assignments, paperwork, and deadlines - something women are better at due to their higher conscientiousness (a known, consensus fact) .... I genuinely believe they inject a ton of homework into many of these degrees just so women do better at them tbh, if they were graded only by final exams men would certainly succeed in biology too. Higher education is a lie and a scam and its why less and less men are enrolling, they see through it - they see more value in the trades. Higher education has deviated from its original purpose, has been corrupted into a system of assessing competence for future employers rather than a training centre for learning of the universe - they dont even train people into becoming wageslaving robots tbh, they just select for them and choose for them to be those who succeed, artificially make them the fittest of our middle class environment..
anyways, keep in mind this is just an opinion obviously, I could be wrong hopefully
As a chemistry major though, Iâve at minimum had a 60/40 female/male distribution in every chemistry class Iâve taken so far.
Survivorship bias
Itâs about which stem field as well. Iâm doing psych and my classes are mostly women.
My ECE program was perfectly following the national trend of 80/20 men and women. But of the women, 80% of them were going into computer engineering or one of the semiconductor subfields compared to only 40% of men. So after you finished the common courses and started on your specialization courses, if you went into one of the other subfields, you'd probably have no women or only one woman in your class.
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal two months ago. Colleges actually recognize the problem but like you said donât want to answer the thorny questions needed solve the problem and deal with the political fallout.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-university-fall-higher-education-men-women-enrollment-admissions-back-to-school-11630948233
This has been a trend since 2000s but just now really starting to show in higher education. 10 years ago women started beating out men in college attendance/graduation. Over the past 5 years, women have started beating out men in things like law school, med school, and masters/PhD graduations. In the early 2000s there was the big push to get girls interested in school, providing scholarships, etc. Well it worked extremely well and was a good thing. But society continued pushing this idea that women were still behind men way too long since all the metrics used (post-college education) reflected that women were still not on par with men. But these effects take time to manifest and so people are just now realizing it. This will probably continue to get worse over the next 20 years unless the pendulum is forced back the other way but I doubt that will happen.
Iâve always been concerned about this. The public campaigns and movements mean very different things to the before and during group. A 50 year old man hearing about all this is going to be effected very differently over a boy spending his whole life under it. We talk about all the terrible stereotypes about girls but Iâll Iâve heard my entire life is that boys are gross, mean, rapist, dumb, and responsible for everything bad
When I went to Ohio State University, men in the college of engineering were graduating with $15K more in student loans than women. Granted, lots of fields needed more women. But they led to a lot of resentment by the men because while we were struggling to afford attending college, women were able to take unpaid research positions and not work during the semester leading them to have better grades on average. Let's just say it took me awhile to realize it was the system fucking me over and not the women.
Recently? Women have been the majority of the college graduates since the 80s. I think its pushing beyond a 60/40 split now. Meanwhile there are about 10 times as many scholarships for women as there are for men, and most of the time they are for more money.
I've been seeing this for decades. Every girl had every attention. I was literally told to "go jerk off" by teachers. I did great academically, but for most it wasn't just not easy, it was a hostile environment.
Yep, women are getting higher education degrees 2 women per 1 man. Yet the narrative is that women are less privileged than men and hence get supported a lot more than men in popular media and school.
I agree, systemic sexism against men.
Hahaha good oneđ
Here's two serious ways to read this:
1) toxic masculinity is sexist and bad for men, not just women.
2) it's possible for multiple forms of systematic sexism to coexist, and for them to impact different members of each gender differently.
Yea thatâs not a thing
See you at the polls!
Colleges have been low key lowering admissions requirements for men for decades now, just so they can approach gender parity. This is an old problem.
I loved going to uni and oft being the only guy in class. No problems there haha.
Really though, there's the other edge to the sword that workplace wage gaps arn't shifting fast enough to represent shifts in qualifications. Women are still discriminated rapidly for the fear of taking time to be mums. The oft inadequate men are promted faster, seen as leaders. Etc etc.
I shouldn hope for this, but if a shift in gender inequality in schools lead to a rebalancing of gendered norms that'd be cool(ish). But its not so...
Yeah, and it's detrimental to the guys as well. I believe that more educated men will do more to help equality than those who are struggling. Its difficult to talk about an issue like this because of how intricately intertwined it is with how the opposite gender performs. Women's success is awesome and in no way needs to be targeted in order to have this conversation. Often time's people are unwilling to toe the line, and any constructive conversation will fall apart.
Women have succeeded because they had to develop support structures to advocate for themselves and fight for their rights. These systems persist past their initial functions and continue to support women. These systems do not exist for men (for obvious reasons), and without support structures in place, there is less to help those who don't mesh well with the system.
But if you dissect a bit it gets interesting.
Young woman with no child in urban areas in the US now make more money than their male counterparts.
So you take a single 26 years old woman in many cities and she's likely making more money than her single 26 years old male counterpart.
The shift is happening nonetheless and it now often favors woman
Maybe thatâs because your thesis is wrong.
[deleted]
Maybe its just me.
Probably. For all intents and purposes you've already won the evolutionary game so it's not surprising you'd feel that way. I'm in that second portion you describe(sans ever having the wife part) and honestly after 10+ years of it; it gets incredibly soul crushing.
You start noticing the little things like people saying "my wife" with incredible jealousy and/or sadness even if you don't act on it. Seeing everyone around you progress onward while you seemingly stagnate into nothingness. Each day being the same thing with effectively nobody to really talk to.
Couple that with the absolute shitshow that is being a man on a dating site and you just get the perfect recipe for depression with a cold side of apathy.
So your wife is basically useful for cooking meals, having sex and "making you house look nice"? Big yikes.
trends are visible in grade school as well
My son cannot stay off youtube. He is addicted to it. And so many classes want to use laptops now. And then they tell me I need to make sure he stays focused.
I have told him stop making him do work on laptops and I am told that is not an option. This kid is being set up to fail.
Bruh Tinder happened in this timeframe.
Sex is a swipe away for women.
Sex is 14,000 swipes away for men.
[deleted]
Yeah. every upper class tall white guy practically l have concubines now thanks to insta and tinder.
You need to talk to one of your female friends about their experiences with dating apps because thatâs very much not what itâs like.
Even if youâre picky about who you swipe on, people are often extremely weird or pushy or creepy. You wouldnât want to meet up with any of them. And even if someone is cool, getting involved with a stranger is usually a cautious and occasionally terrifying process. Unless you want to risk getting assaulted and having every response to that be how itâs silly that you didnât expect to be assaulted for meeting up with a stranger and that really, you maybe had it coming for being an irresponsible slut anyway.
That's true but it's also true that it's much easier for women. Not every guy is a crazy creep. If that's all you get it's due to who you're swiping on. I promise you there's plenty of nice men that get no likes that won't do that, but you won't swipe on them because they aren't tall or white or socioeconomically desirable.
Youâre assuming a lot about my tastes here, but setting that aside - my point that women donât have constant, immediate, and effortless access to sex stands. They have to sift through creepy guys and even when a guy is not creepy, it takes ages to where you can be sure theyâd be safe to be alone with.
Sure. But ultimately atleast you have options. Men really don't. Doesn't take a genius to notice if s guy is a decent person. Pro tip. If a guy you're dating is over confident and cocky he's probably not someone you should sleep with regardless of how hot he is. I'm certain you're ignoring men who are too shy/reserved to even be noticed by you. You would never swipe on an avg non white guy that's perfectly nice but doesn't have any socioeconomic advantages
I have and would date nonwhite people? But again this isnât about me personally - To the point, itâs not that simple to know who is potentially dangerous. Sure confident people might be douchebags, but shy and reserved people can also be the kind of insecure that breeds codependency or controlling behavior.
Yeah. The issue is lots of relationships have a clear power imbalance and that leads to shit. Men using money to practically coerce women is almost the norm it seems.
And it's not just about sex. It's also about relationship and companionship. As a guy I've never even been on a single date. literally a kissless hugless dateless virgin.
That was me until I turned 23 and found a woman on a language exchange app. Didnt last but at least I experienced love.
Sooo what I'm hearing is you got a match and someone wants to go on a date. Must be nice đ
Matches that wanted to immediately discuss things like fisting, their lab-coat kink, whether they could âshare meâ with my friends, or how their co-worker is such a f****t. (All real examples). Itâs not half as nice as you think.
What was the not nice part?
As a woman I get so many matches of men who donât reply or are stuck in perpetual texting stage. Match doesnât mean much
Shitty awkward dangerous sex women wonât enjoy
[deleted]
Yes, I often heard this, but as a University graduate it still feels like women have the choice, not the men. So I guess many of the Single educated women have very high expectations or are just fine with beeing Single.
men donât want to date someone more educated than themselves.
Just going to say that the linked article does not support this and neither does other data on dating or even anecdotal discussion on what men and women look for. Further citations available on request.
Men donât tend to put as much weight on what their partner brings into a relationship financially/educationally. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/rich-women-like-rich-men-and-rich-men-like-slender-women-2015-09-28
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244015613107
The whole article is about how some women are having to widen their standards to find a partner or go it alone. Many women would rather be in an extra-marital arrangement than pair with unmarried men. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jomf.12603
Why donât men want to marry a woman who is more educated than them?
A big correlator for reproductive prospects for men is IQ (educational attainment, income etc.), the converse is true for women (smart women are less likely to reproduce) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25131282/).
Women date across and up, men date across and down. Men signal (Cars, Clothes, Rolex, job, intelligence) women choose (sexual selection) (Ape that understood the universe, Stewart-Williams, S. 2018).
Its not that men are intimidated of educated women, it has more to do with how educated women have higher standards (due to how they want to date across and up) and don't necessarily meet the expectations of the men they want (men don't care about status, they care more about beauty) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8046577/).
If you have ever met an attractive professional woman, you will understand that she has zero problems finding a guy that is on 'her level'. It just happens that her less attractive counterparts expect to have that same guy, and may not qualify for him.
Rich men have understood for millennia that they have to date down, for some reason (probably biological) women refuse to do the same.
Interesting articles thanks for the share. I love when people cite corroborating evidence for their opinion. I wish we as a society adopted this as best practice for any and all opinions.
Itâs been my experience that smarter people are less liked.
I should know, in school I was often around others and we rarely got along. Them being smarter than me was often divisive.
I don't know if its biological so much as just societal. For now at least.
We've spent so long on the notion that men marry down, women marry up that the programming isn't going to just undo itself overnight.
I'm convinced we're in the middle of a renaissance, partly because of the internet, partly because of upheaval of social norms. People seek to change the world, but they don't think to change for the change in the world.
I think it's biological because it exists in a lot of species. Additionally I read somewhere that out of the ancient humans only 40% men were ever able to reproduce in comparison to 80% women.
We've spent so long on the notion that men marry down, women marry up that the programming isn't going to just undo itself overnight.
I don't buy that argument. Cultures differ in degree of 'societal programing'. If your argument was valid, the degree to which women marry up would be more in poorer/conservative/patriarchal countries to a higher degree than in rich/feminist's countries. Data from the US, Scandinavia + 3rd world shows the opposite. As a general rule, the more liberated women have become the more selective they are in partners (Due to less family/societal pressure to settle).
Although women in Scandinavia are willing to date down in status (education), they tend to date across and up with affluence (money), to a greater extent than is seen in poorer more patriarchal countries (where you would be forced by your parents to marry the local farmer, who is 'on your level').
In instances where women enter hypogamous arrangements, marriage stability is compromised (due to hypergamy) https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.2017.1120?casa_token=0jGJOCIoCwwAAAAA:kgS5jRcGNfEbt1bdKZXiwwCpj7l0IwBlG3BzvTWlRZv5K20ZiHI9sXMCoEdXPnbt1xoT7cWrIPk.
Hypergamy is part of human nature (its not something that is necessarily bad or something that warrants changing (or something that could be changed)). Historically, the buffer on hypergamy been the patriarchyâą (IE marry who your family wants or lose my last name, without it people are free to make decisions that benefit them and are in line with what works for them evolutionarily)
The behavior of humans is based far more on evolution than many people in the soft sciences would like to admit. For some reason people refuse to believe that humans like all animals and act on instinct which was forged through millennia of evolution.
Toxic masculinity I assume. The man is traditionally the provider. Even men who have no problem with their partner being independent can be battling this cultural notion.
EDIT: Insecure men, no need to downvote me, it won't help your masculinity.
Why is this so heavily downvoted, I had assumed the same thing?
If I only knew... since no one is coming forth with an argument, I assume I hurt someone's feelings.
but men donât want to date someone more educated than themselves
Really? That's very surprising, I'd think they just wouldn't care
Sleeping with them? Probably don't care.
Long term relationship? Yeah, I can see a fair number of men being intolerable of being the less intelligent partner.
Part of the problem with loneliness isn't just the internet, it's the standards of heirarchy too. There are plenty of women that won't date financially down, or someone shorter than them or below some arbitrary height at any rate, so it goes both ways in places. Good luck to all the women earning 7 figures annually I guess?
In other words, women marry up, men marry down. It has pretty much always been that way.
That only works as long as the average woman is "lower" than the average man.
Historically women marry âupâ for financial stability and/or status. For every woman marrying up, obviously thatâs a man marrying âdownâ. Women donât tend to need to do this for survival anymore.
It has not always been this way.
No it has always been this way, but it might change and j hope it does.
Yet they still do it? It's biological if anything. And society may play a role in rewarding it.
Culture doesnât change overnight or even within a generation. The trend has changed but yes, attitudes are still largely the same.
Saying itâs biological is simplistic. You can say that about anything. We all react to external stimuli.
I think people blame the society and culture for to much of human behavior.
Right now I am sitting far away from you in a third world highly patriarchal country. Yet even our "culture" shares this one thing with the Western "cultures". Although the patriarchy hides it or tries to some what control it, it's still obvious to the extent that it's a popular meme in our country. This is true for all the cultures around the world that are otherwise very different from each other.
Not only different human societies but most animals also share the same "culture".
It's pretty well known that, far more women have reproduced then men. Our very own DNA bares witness to this. I think history is going to repeat itself because it's not the culture that's to blame it's the human biology. And I would say this is a pretty important process for most if not all species.
I am not arguing that the culture doesn't act as a catalyst. But sometimes things are simple and we just try to run away from them by over complicating them.
Itâs complicated and people like easy answers. I get your point, biology plays a large role.
I wouldnât like to comment on all cultures around the world especially in a globalised world such as this. For example, If you read anthropological studies of just the last 100 years you can see how much western values have continued to shape cultures. I personally see differences even within sub-cultures in my country.
It creates a statistical issue since women tend to not date too below their level of educational attainment, but men donât want to date someone more educated than themselves.
The bolded is completely false and runs contrary to the literature on intersexual dynamics. Most men do not care about a woman's educational prowess. There may be a floor, but there is no ceiling, in other words.
The idea that men do not "want" to date a woman more educated than them (or even worse, are "intimidated" by her) is one of the biggest canards I've seen in these discussions.
The data shows that men do not put the same value on education and status that women do. Men are far more interested in youth, beauty, and other indicators of fertility; and weigh them accordingly.
Most men are so sex starved they wouldn't even think of disqualifying a potential mate over her superior educational accomplishments.
the effect of women not wanting to date down is drastically more pronounced than men not wanting to date up, you're totally off
Interesting article, thanks for sharing
I mean who fucking cares about the high school graduate guy. He doesn't have a choice in the dating pool
Why should he? You are not entitled to love.
never said he was
I just posted my thoughts on that elsewhere in this comment section, but I think that is a far bigger driver than just "dating apps not giving ugly guys a chance".
Currently the rates of women graduating college are outpacing men at almost a 2:1 ratio. Most women are not going to "date down" to someone with lower educational attainment and lower career earnings potential. Additionally, the jobs they are going to be working and by extension their social circles are going to have a smaller proportion of men in most cases which is also going to shrink their non-dating app potential partners.
I think where the dating app effect actually shows up is in the increase in women not having sex, as this is likely due to less attractive women having high educational standards for their potential mates, but the educated guys actually having more freedom to be pickier because they have less competition.
Kind of a funny correlation to men having used to always, "date down" in terms of education/finance and now that the power dynamics are...sort of equaling out, women are not dating down. Not trying to act as if men were more giving, as it was typically related to power dynamics and control, but it is an interesting correlation.
Wonder if that's because it's easier for men to find labor intensive jobs that pay well right out of high school and don't require a college education.
It's also because if you're a poor ugly non white guy on a college campus it's practically hell for your mental health. Seeing all the privileged guys sleep around and seeing women always having social opportunities while being socially outcasted quickly makes you want to kill yourself.
My freshman year I had a 3.8 gpa. My sophomore year I stopped going entirely to class because I had become too nervous, scared and defeated.
Damn man! I hope you're doing better now. I feel your pain, I went through a lot of similar feelings around that time in my life. I cant speak for everyone, but it does get better as you get older. Once you're out of school the social pressures take a back seat to living, and it makes it easier.
The way education is done in the United States is geared towards women
There have been a ton of studies on similar aspects.
Young people today have less sex, drink less alcohol, do less drugs, smoke less cigarettes.
They also have greater anxiety and perceived stresses.
Im sure social media has a lot to do with it.
Itâs funny because conservatives, especially the religious right, still think that the youth are doing those things more and more. Theyâre completely out of touch with reality.
[removed]
Could be either/both; this finding is not very useful on its own.
It's a little frustrating seeing people make assumptions about society based on data like this. There's so many factors that could be contributing but to blame one or the other or automatically look at something like this as bad.
Could even be positives like people are more comfortable being on there own; or less societal pressure doesn't push people to have sex as much as it used to. Just ideas but without more data can't assume any are connected.
[deleted]
if you're voluntarily seeking consensual sexual relations with members of the same sex, I got news for you.
It means not having sex, regardless of relationship status.
The title reads as if it groups people with same sex sexual partners along with people who have no sexual partners at all.
Yes it does. Not sure why they would discriminate on the sex of the partners. But that's besides the point.
It seams clear that this data is talking about sexual patterns. So, I don't know why the person I responded to is asking about relationships and sexuality. The only question here is how the survey taker may have interpreted the definition of sexual partner, which is pretty straightforward.
Yeah how could the title be interpreted otherwise?
âopposite sex sexual partersâ
That was my first question as well.
2008 was a wild time, folks were so hopeful back then.
Maybe before the 2008 stock market crash, but not so much by mid September of that year...
Obama said yes we can and people believed him.
Then he bailed out the banks and let everyone lose their homes.
Dude did a doozy on hope.
If something is deemed "too big to fail," probably best to let it fail and hurt in the short term rather than continue to let it steamroll in the longterm.
I was a 17yr old junior in highschool in 2008, everybody was fuckin around that time.
Edit:i read that chart wrong
As someone who unfortunately peaked in high school (so far) this is a little reassuring.
Social networks was a doom and not a bless
Wait, Iâm missing some important information here: where has the data been sampled? There must be huge regional differences in this metric.
This data is only for the US.
If it doesn't state otherwise then assume it's from the US. You know, the default option.
Ah, I know too well ⊠I actually studied Social Psychology and that subject is full of very fundamental studies that were done in the US and donât replicate well in Europe ⊠:-/
Is that because Europe is communist and has no guns? /s
That, or because we have made bad experiences with autocratic systems and maybe some people would have learned to not listen e.g. to some authoritative figure who tells them to torture the other test subject with electric shocksâŠ
Not surprising to anyone who are interested in how meeting apps and social media work.
We became the slaves of algorithms, and it's starting to be felt across society.
The data seems to correlate most for men with the financial crisis starting in 2008.
maybe to noisy to be that accurate about dates
True. The iPhone launched in what? 2009?
The financial crisis also correlates with the raise of the Internet as a social experience, too, so it's not very relevant.
This could be one of the factors in that recent disparity between men and women. Itâs harder for males to put themselves out there the way that modern society is trending towards using apps and social media. Women basically have access to a meat market on dating apps. Tinderâs paid subscription model has already been found to prey on men.
For profit dating apps are inherently unethical. The algorithm is the equivalent of emotional blackmail and manipulation.
The lack of regulation and blasĂ© attitude towards them is concerning. Theyâre incredibly insidious, and letting our dating culture revolve around them is not going to go anywhere good
Now imagine what this stat would look like if it would include people like me who get laid very infrequently. I'm in my mid 20s now and its not uncommon to meet people who have gone years between hookups.
This is pretty surprising, to me at least. I would have placed the number at about half that.
Thereâs a saying that an outlet exists for every plug, and that thereâs a seat for every face⊠but it seems thatâs not always the case.
I wonder at the extent to which the internet has contributed to the rise? Do we now have a bunch of digital hermits whose only social interactions are online?
My take on the internet is it contributed in many ways, such as :
-social media made people more picky about physical appearances
-as well, social media is crushing every average person's self steem, creating more insecurities and depression
-there are studies showing less developed ability to answer quickly in a conversation due to the habit of messaging people
-highly availability of p0rn makes more people think they are not ready for sex because they cannot do those things, and comparison problems similar to social media appear
-putting yourself out there are flirting with somebody is more high stakes now. They might take a screen shot and show it to everybody for internet points. Seriously people, don't do this
I'm sure there are many more things I haven't considered, but yeah, the internet as we have is f*cking people's minds.
I tend to agree with you. Iâve seen the same and have heard this from friends and family, too.
I mean, people's minds were already fucked well before the internet. The internet just makes it more obvious. It's a but if a two handed sword, but one that imo will point us in the right direction.
For one, social media may be killing people's self confidence, but it's also teaching people like me how to actually be physically attractive thus skyrocketing my self confidence. For one, there's been a noticing of how women will do all the work to be sexually attractive, while men typically put zero effort into that category while also aiming for the male gaze unintentionally. This will lead to a positive change imo. Especially when people start educating others on how to be more attractive, and that average looking people can become attractive themselves with any sort of effort.
The studies about how people talk less quickly could say a many number of things. While it could indicate we've become slower, it could also indicate we think more before we speak. It could also indicate that people are slowly tearing away masks from their conversations, and learning how to speak what's truly on their mind rather than repeating the same old phrases over and over again like neurotypicals do. It could also indicate all of those and more, for each separate person.
I doubt high availability of porn is making others not want to have sex. It definitely can lead to misconceptions about it, but those misconceptions have been brought up often so I doubt those misconceptions exist on a large scale anymore. Still, we need more sex education. Not that we're gonna get it tho.
Flirting has always been high stakes, especially for women as men flirting can easily turn into sexual harassment and violence real quick. It can also act as a double edged sword, as to where someone trying to innocently flirt with another could end up getting mass bullied online, it could also turn around to cancel the bully as the internet supports the flirter.
It's a lot more nuanced and complicated than just, "social media bad." Cuz in my experience, I've actually been able to use social media to a benefit. Especially education-wise, as I follow a lot of doctors and educators on TikTok.
[deleted]
That allows the women on tinder to be picky. But the other women have broadly the same choices they always did, and this is about the whole population.
I think the point is that any average looking woman who isn't overweight can hop on tinder and have sex if they want to. I don't think the same is true for the average looking guy.
This is the succinct answer, people are just beating around the Bush to avoid it because of the implications and the way certain assholes run with it to an extreme.
below average/overweight women aren't an exception to this
It's interesting how this can be explained by the differences in sex drive between men and women.
75% of men have spontaneous desire, which means they'll have the mental interest to have sex without any need for physical stimulation. Therefore, they'll seek out a partner on a platform like Tinder. Only 15% of women have spontaneous desire.
30% of women have responsive desire, where the want to have sex first has to come from enjoyable physical stimulation. Only 5% of men have responsive desire.
The remaining 55% of women and 20% of men have a mix of both.
The average looking woman could have sex if they wanted to, but for most women a lot of the time, they don't 'just want to' in the same way most men do. That's not considering the risks that come with hooking up with strangers which disproportionately impact women (although it has risks for men too).
I guess, what I'm trying to say is that it's understandable that the average man feels like he doesn't find success on tinder, particularly when he compares himself to the success the average woman can experience.
30% of women have responsive desire, where the want to have sex first has to come from enjoyable physical stimulation
Is that really hard for a woman to get on Tinder though...? I mean are there swaths of men on there that would reject a date if the woman said she wasn't really looking for sex? I'm kind of doubtful of that...
I think the issue is more from the woman's perspective. I don't want to generalise too heavily because every woman is different, but I think to get to a place where physical stimulation occurs (kissing, touching etc) trust is most important thing. Looks are important, but if there's something off about how the man is acting or treating her or others then she might not want to be vulnerable with him. I guess, it's not so much about rejecting the date on the outset (although, yeah, some guys would do that), but actually achieving that sense of trust with someone who you've met through an app.
My main point was more that, although the average woman can do this, she might not want to, or not as frequently as the average man does anyway. It wasn't a contradiction to your point, just an addition.
Citation? I'd like to read more about this.
Dr Emily Nagoski talks about it in Come As You Are, which is a pretty popular book on sex education geared towards women.There are lots of non-academic articles that also discuss the topic. It's not really my area of expertise, and I don't have the physical book to hand to find the exact study. However, I think the article that first introduced the idea of people, mostly women, experiencing the mental and physical desire to have sex concurrently as opposed to the mental desire preceding the physical action is Basson, 2000.
Yes, but when have they not been able to do that? That is true because there are more men seeking casual sex than women, which has been true certainly for the last couple of decades (and indeed is the cause of the imbalance on tinder).
They have the ability to meet a larger population of men. This gives them more choice.
Yes, and men have the ability now to meet a larger population of women. This does not explain the disparity in this data between men and women.
The point is that this ability to meet more people is roughly a zero-sum game, in that if a woman doesn't use something like tender with an imbalance towards men, she gets left with the people who don't get snapped up on tinder.
Only the men who would have previously been having sex anyways are meeting more women.
[deleted]
You misremember the study. Women ranked men more harshly but still reached out to less attractive men much more than men did.
Because 99% of the bots on Okcupid were "women."
Right, but that study came out ten years ago IIRC, and crucially also showed a completely different picture when you looked at the contacts made where men focused vastly more attention on the most attractive women, whilst women focused their attentions more equally.
It's not a zero sum game though. Men have far less aversion to having sex with multiple people than women do. Therefore you end up in a situation where 10% of the men having 90% of the sex with women.
10% of the men having 90% of the sex with women
Incel culture is so cringe
I'm not sure of the exact numbers but evidenced by the chart there is an element of this.
Stop making shit up and maybe source some numbers?
Here you go
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/qz3pri/oc_share_of_individuals_under_age_30_who_report/hlliz7z/?context=3
You're welcome to stay mad but this shows nothing at all about 10/90%. Anyway it's your cope
It's not as extreme as this person is claiming but it's certainly skewed in that direction.
I don't know why the idea that a smaller percentage of men is having sex with a larger percentage of women is so abhorrent to you. The concept may have been popularized by incel communities, but Im almost certain the observation didn't actually originate from them nor is it endorsing inceldom to merely observe based on the data it appears this way.
If it turns out women are more picky thereby causing more men to not have any partners, it's not like men haven't done anything societally harmful in the past. Men are much more violent and aggressive than women. Both genders have flaws.
But that hasn't changed significantly since the early 2010s is my point.
The other women have the option to go on tinder if they want though
As more women go on tinder, the gender imbalance there equalises.
Also, Iâve heard a saying that goes, âWhen the odds are good, the goods are oddâ so women only have choices from the men who are also on tinder, Afaik most of my friends gave up internet dating long ago.
???? It's not like it has a high barrier to entry. Anyone feeling desperate enough will probably think of downloading an app nowadays.
It does have a pretty high barrier to entry, online dating is a skill, a skill i do not have. Also looks and general ability to take pictures of yourself play a massive role
We are talking about for women though??? 3 pics of oneself where you can even somewhat tell what you look like will get the vast majority of women more matches than they could ever deal with.
We are talking about for women though???
I thought you were talking about men, but reading your comment again it does make sense that you were talking about women. Sorry, I just got up and I'm still very sleepy
I think this is oversimplifying, currently the rates of women graduating college are outpacing men at almost a 2:1 ratio. Most women are not going to "date down" to someone with lower educational attainment and lower career earnings potential. Additionally, the work they are going to be doing and by extension their social circles is going to have a smaller proportion of men in most cases which is also going to shrink their non-dating app potential partners.
[removed]
But that actually confirms what I'm saying though, if there's a strong hookup culture in populations where males are in the minority that would account for these discrepancies in which gender is having sex. If women are selecting based on educational attainment, then the pool of males is smaller than females in the college and college graduate populations. Whereas in the population that is not going to college there are more males than females. This results in the males in college or with college degrees having more sex with more women while the guys who don't go to college are more likely to be in a monogamous relationship, or left out of the dating pool. Since a greater proportion of women are going to college then that would explain the discrepancies between the amount of sex each gender is having.
[removed]
So while I agree with your assessment that the lack of frequency data or age breakdown does leave it open for many interpretations; the statistics I cited are actually nationwide population data and not just driven by a few schools. The Wall Street journal actually had an interesting article about it recently.
But regarding my initial point, I agree that there are probably several factors influencing this divide, but I highly doubt that dating apps are a major driver of this problem, like the initial commenter I was replying to was implying.
Edit: also getting a degree doesn't just influence your social circle while you're in school, but also once you leave school as it influences who you're friends and coworkers are.
Most people don't meet their partners on tinder, women especially hardly use it, or hardly meet up in person.
It seems like that's rapidly changing. I saw this graph a few weeks ago showing just how drastic the rate of people meeting online is.
That graph is really interesting. Seems like people are becoming less likely to meet their partner in situations not specifically designed for that
Of course. No one wants to be the creep that harasses women when they are just trying to buy groceries/work out/take a walk/whatever.
So your best bet is apps where theres implicit consent for being talked to. But of course they are not interested in you...
No one wants to be the creep that harasses women when they are just trying to buy groceries/work out/take a walk/whatever.
Are men more worried about this than they used to be? If they were always worried about this then that wouldn't explain any of the change.
I do think they are more worried about this than they used to be btw, just pointing out that that happening nowadays doesn't mean anything by itself
I do think they are. I (born about 95) grew up being told how badly women are treated, how much harrassment they experience, how i should be considerate of that kind of stuff.
And thats of course right and important and something that still is being communicated and needs to be communicated today.
As an extreme counterexample, back in the 50s no one gave a fuck.
I do think there has been an additional shift within the last ten years or so, though. I believe that with the rise of LGBT acceptance and political correctness in the positive sense the climate has also changed towards the positive for women. General culture was a lot more "fratboy-ish" 15 years ago compared to today - e.g. using gay as an unironic insult.
However, as a result of this I would never approach a woman on the street.
a) The chances of her being interested in my advances are slim to none (<10%)
b) She probably already experiences a lot of unwanted advances because assholes still exist
c) If I do approach her I'm part of the problem.
So instead I play video games, masturbate and feel miserable
If I do approach her I'm part of the problem.
IMO it can be done respectfully
It can, but whether she interprets it as such is a flip of a coin.
What might in actuality be a reasonable approach and rejection might feel to her as creepy and unwanted. You ultimately cannot control how she is going to react and If you seek to avoid those reactions as a rule, it only makes sense to never put yourself in situations where this is a potential outcome.
It can be done respectfully, but that is irrelevant to whether it was interpreted that way or not.
Are men more worried about this than they used to be? If they were always worried about this then that wouldn't explain any of the change.
I disagree. There used to be no alternatives. You had to talk to women IRL to have a shot. Nowadays there are alternatives, so people will be less likely to take that risk.
Bars are an alternative which has always existed but are increasing in the graph
That graph does not add up to 100%, unless I'm reading it wrong.
Dang. "Meet through friends" down since 1990.
That's crazy. So it means women stopped finding partners through their friends earlier than the rise of online dating. Wonder why?
Online is rising since 1990
Yeah I donât even use tinder anymore (male). Hinge leads to 2-3 new dates / week. Then add follow ups and I have 6/7 days booked
NGL, that sounds exhausting.
[deleted]
I am pretty average looking (maybe slightly above average for reddit
You're not wrong but damn
It has been. But I specifically moved for the dating scene / single life so itâs my own doing.
Where did you move? Hard to think of a specific spot that might be better for dating
Neighborhood of Chicago that is largely full of early 20âs starting out their careers. Also walking distance to a large stretch of nightlife, so thereâs plenty of bars to hit with the bros on Saturday nights.
But yeah, itâs a prime spot. My coworker recommended it to me, and he didnât let me down
Which neighborhood out of interest? I am also in Chicago.
Lake view east
If youâre nearby and wanna grab a beer, PM me. Always down to make new friends
[deleted]
Yeah I donât plan to keep it up. This is my exposure therapy to actually learn how to date people. Coming out of a LTR, youâre basically starting from scratch.
[deleted]
Second largest neighborhood in Chicago (100k+). Coworker specifically told me to move to the area, quoting it as âtinder town.â He wasnât wrong. And yeah itâs starting to get difficult remembering who I told what haha
[deleted]
Yeah Iâd argue the location is the most important thing. When I was at home, I was in the same boat. Profile is essentially identical, so the location is what changed the game for me
[deleted]
Yeah itâs kinda where Iâm at. I definitely donât do pickup, Iâm just learning as I go what works and what doesnât. Iâm treating it as exposure therapy really.
Are you an extremely good looking person who has an extremely interesting life?
Visible abs and I put effort into the first message prompt, not just a generic first message
Note: One of the founders of OKCupid talked about the data behind first messages, and while well thought out messages tend to get a higher response rate, it doesn't make up for the average amount of time spent crafting the message. The people who get the most messages back are those that ctrl + v their messages. I imagine the same applies to other dating sites.
Yeah itâs mostly cut and paste.
Ex: they have a picture with a beer Iâll suggest a local brewery with a twist (this is my most successful opener)
Ex: they mention dive bars, Iâll mention a cool dive bar
Ex: they mention a show I like, Iâll mention something related to that
If I canât come up with anything, Iâll send a generic clickbait.
But nothing or some variation of hi will lead to nothing. There are a shit ton of other guys of identical caliber to yourself that are putting some effort behind their messages, so youâre automatically disqualified.
I spend maybe 10 minutes to go through my 10 daily likes. Itâs really not that much of an investment
Visible abs
There it is. I guess I need to get a shirtless photo taken that doesn't look douchey.
Itâs required. My own results confirmed, my friends have confirmed, and my female friends have said they need something because thereâs just so many people. Anyone who says itâs not is lying.
Yeah I have a solo shot with a jet ski from vacation. Otherwise a beach shot holding a football or volleyball works. Donât do a mirror selfie. Iâm about 12-13% body fat if I had to guess.
Based on what?
I'm going to push back on a lot of the "wisdom" in this thread. I'm not an overly attractive man, I don't get a ton of matches on dating apps. But without dating apps I would be in this graph (with like, two exceptions) - I had a dry spell after my college relationship until dating apps came along, where I definitely attempted at meeting women in-person, it just didn't work. I worked a job that was all men in a small office, and I worked a lot.
Dating apps changed that, it's the only way I've gotten dates in the past 10 years. Plenty of women use it, and meet for dates.
Men who complain on Reddit about dating apps being a wasteland for them - it's either the location where they live (rural area), or something with them, not women being picky. Personality or appearance, both can be improved. Just look at r/Tinder, a lot of men on there are just complete idiots and make stupid puns instead of trying to engage in a genuine conversation.
I agree with you. I see that stupid made up "wisdom" daily that "the top 20% of men blah blah blah 80% of women" and it's truly the most frustrating lie men tell themselves. It's honestly embarrassing how men will go to any length to claim theyre victims in a dating world somehow stacked against them. They're just taking their own power out of the situation and certainly not making themselves anymore attractive to women.
Fairly basic human trait though, nobody likes to blame themselves, they'd rather blame something external. Something not working? It's the device, not how I'm using it. That kind of thing. Silly anecdote, but I've seen it first hand with someone needing to move my manual car for me while I was away. They know how to drive manual, but it had been like a decade since they had with any regularity. He later grumbled about how he stalled it and that the clutch is janky. Car had like 40k miles at the time, and has 80k now. Clutch is fine. He just didn't want to admit he was rusty driving manual and that's why he stalled, so he blamed the car.
I think we let a lot of things slide because they're "basic human traits" until they get dangerous. In my opinion, the truth is it's actually not a basic human trait to insist that all women are just hyper-selective shallow objects looking for the best provider or whatever single men think we are these days. There are ppl that say men are "hardwired to rape", that "it's just biology" etc. Those things are learned and we shouldn't excuse them as things that just happen to exist.
It's a basic human trait to want to be happy and to have a connection. But to feel entitled to that, and to expect someone else has to give it to you, and then to become angry/bitter/violent/whatever is certainly not the humanity I want to be a part of
Facts. Something something 80% of the women on tinder go for the top 20% of men.
I mean, imagen try to get a date as someone who has overweight. You get swiped left to oblivion, even from other people who have overweight too.
And that's just one example, there are many other things that will drop your chances to zero.
Weight can be changed. Thatâs not a permanent attribute, or at least itâs an optional one.
I think facial disfigurement would be a much bigger issue. Same with very low intelligence or complete lack of social skills.
Social skills are probably a major component as well for people. The internet removed a lot of that for most individuals, so a lot of people just arenât good at it. Add that to the increasingly split worldview of people between politics and it leads to a lot of isolated people.
The problem with instant gratification culture is that weight can be changed, but why wait for that to happen when you can just swipe left and get somebody who is already fit? It's the idea that there is somebody even better than who you are looking for around the next corner so you never stop turning corners
Or why bother at all? Losing weight is no guarantee for a date and thst takes months.
Not months, years. I am just mildly obese with 125kg at 185cm height and it would take at least two years of extremely strict diet and workout to get down to a normal weight. And then I will look like a 90yo with all the loose skin flapping around. Guess I am gonna stay right at my weight because the work is absolutely not worth it.
Overweight isn't binary. A BMI of 29 is better than one of 36.5.
Is it worth it just for dating? I don't know, but it definetly is for health reasons. Even if you'd do nothing other than loosing weight for 2 years that would be offset by an increase in life expecancy.
I do not plan to live much longer then 70. Maybe not even that long. I do rather invest my time on enjoying the time I have then to work on ideals only other people want. I do not date, and do not plan to date. I am sociopathic, probably slightly psychopathic and a gay male. Surely I can deny myself some really good food for a while, but you need to keep in mind that I will have to continue denying myself all that great food for as long as I want to not go back to my current weight and that is something that I can not do.
I know someone with severe facial disfigurement. Her boyfriend cheated on her and within a few months she found another guy. Anecdotal and all, but I'll admit I was surprised how fast she found someone.
wat bout height,
Lie about it. Not like people can guess your height from a photo.
Lyingâs not great. And if you get selected claiming youâre 6â5â and show up 5â0â theyâre not going to be particularly happy or kind. Lol
That's their problem.
Not really. If you show up and they can see for themselves that youâre a liar, youâre going to be rejected and not get the âchillâ that goes with Netflix.
Then donât be overweight. Your life changes dramatically when you are in shape. Coming from someone who lost 85lbs.
Easier said as done I guess. (I am not overweight btw) but I can bring in low high hahaha.
I try to exercise, depression and addiction usually have other things in mind though.
Then eat less. In the meantime see a doctor for your other issues.
I wasn't overweight a few years ago, now i'm slightly overweight. Nothing changed at all, 0 social skills is more than enough to make all the difference
Something likely changed. Either youâre eating more, less activity, or youâve lost muscle and your metabolism has slowed.
But yeah, abs canât replace social skills.
Something likely changed.
I meant in the dating department. I know I'm a lot less active in the last few years, especially since the lockdowns started
women would still get swiped right as overweight, maybe not as very obese though
If you are trying to find love on the Internet maybe stop thinking about yourself as the top 1% of humanity's greatness.
Ah, thx, good to find you stranger u/elveszett, who knows me better than I or my friends do. I am lucky that you show me the way!
Was an impersonal you, not you specifically. My original comment made it clear but I'm stupid so in the end I wrote something that doesn't make any sense for anyone but me. The original comment was something like "that's why you set up your bio to say this:"
Yeah, I'm obviously only in the top 8%
The problem is that ever person you match thinks like that, because for a woman not to drawn in likes they need to tailor their profile to be as repulsive and sketchy as possible
Or a skinny boi
Your chances are never zero. Claiming that is a disservice, and demotivating to a group that needs it the most.
Yeah, imagen that.
Women hold most of the power when it comes to sex and dating.
Thank God I'm married because dating in 2021 would suck as a below average looking man. I'd be fucked, and not in the literal sense.
I'm pretty attractive and it still sucks. The increased commodification of relationships as a whole means whoever's the best salesman wins: relationship capitalism.
You're more than a sleek tinder blurb or a collection of pixels, you're a human being and so is everyone else there, but that's all you are on these sites. It's really fucked up.
Ha. I understand. Now in my 40âs and not looking forward to getting back out there.
Women hold most of the power when it comes to sex and dating.
But people misconstrue what this actually means. They frame it like it's women leisurely sitting on a throne and comfortably picking whatever they desire. IRL it's often a bizarre amount of work just to try to figure out who is safe to even approach at all. There's an unsettling amount of openly (to women) maladjusted dudes, and then an extra layer of maladjusted dudes who can mask it until they get the foot in the door.
This data is for opposite sex sexual partners only, not same sex sexual partners
I read that. What part of my comment made you think I was talking about gay people?
Either more people being gay or fewer gay people having heterosexual sex despite their sexuality would contribute to explaining the trend.
More people being gay explaining more than 1/4 men and almost 1/5 women not having an opposite sex sexual partner for the entirety of their 18-30 life?
I don't think you can explain this graph away like that when the stats I'm seeing elsewhere in this thread say that about 5% of men are gay.
Even if it was drastically higher now than previously (again, this is all people aged between 18-30) then that would still be 1/10 (or more) men not having a sexual partner for the "prime" of their life, which is very high considering gay people also existed in 2008.
The data seems to suggest men have been having less sex since 2008, which was a financial crisis. That's a more likely culprit.
It also shows a second rise around 2013-2016, when the courts began legalizing gay marriage and more people stopped needing to date someone as a beard as often. Gen Z, in the latest polls, is 17% LGBTQ+, so it's definitely going up
Nothing did, but itâs possible that the graph is showing more gay people.
Thereâs a saying that an outlet exists for every plug
That's a ridiculous idea. It presupposes monogamy, which we should know by now is a fantasy.
The gap between males and females suggests what's happening to me: certain men have multiple sexual partners while others have none.
I also think (in fear of sounding like a complete incel, but hear me out) the dating apps have really moved the boundaries for meeting potential partners in the wrong direction for men. Before dating apps you, as a guy, only needed to compete with other local guys, which puts you at a much better position. Now you compete with literally the entire country, so if you're, say, average looking, you may be further away from the "top 10%" which every one keeps talking about.
I donât think many people are willing to travel around the country to get laid. Lol. I understand that potential matches are now exposed to the appearances and profiles of everyone, but of those potential partners they available partner pool is still limited to local proximity.
For those guys who are very concerned about their appearance or height, etc., not measuring up, donât be. Iâve seen guys who are with women âway out of their league.â
Their secret is not some convoluted scammer pickup techniques⊠itâs a classic: humor, honesty and personality. If a woman is looking for more than just sex, those are the things that most really want.
It may be true that people don't want to travel to get laid, but there are definitely more enticement to do so. I understand that for the US perhaps it may be different due to the size of the nation, but if you're from a smaller country (like myself for example) it is very common for people to travel to the other end to meet a Tinder match.
With that being said, I wholeheartedly agree with your statements about guys being concerned about their appearance. While game and pickup has attracted a big crowd, I find that the best way to go about it is to be your authentic self 100% and shit will come your way. That's not just in the dating world, but in everything you do as a person.
[deleted]
Erm.. 56kb modems were pretty dire way back then and internet access was nowhere near the levels it sits at now.
[deleted]
You really don't see any difference in how much impact internet had on how many lives between 2002 and today?
[deleted]
It isn't the internet per se, but the rise of internet dating and apps like tinder. Tinder and Hinge both launched in 2012 which is where you can see a stark rise in Virgin's, as people (women) moved to using these services instead of meeting people in more traditional settings like pubs and clubs etc.
Eh, I lived with dialup in my teens. Porn was slooooow on it. It was there yah, but not nearly like what it is now.
Smartphones align much better with the data than the internet.
Maybe, but as does social media. Sure, they existed earlier, but so did smartphones. It becoming mainstream is around the same time.
I was there. It was the same crap, you just got less of it, slower. And not even a lot less, just a little less, because the advertising had a smaller data footprint.
What happened was that parents gained the ability to monitor and control the behavior of their children through the use of phones and social media. That, combined with the total loss of economic opportunity, ensured that young people could never enjoy privacy or disposable income.
And the internet became ubiquitous and widely-adopted for social interaction in the year ___?
First iPhone: 2007
4g: 2009
Instagram: 2010
Tinder: 2012
2 things happened:
This somewhat makes sense, although it seems almost criminal that a dating app could hold such a tight grasp on peopleâs sex lives. Maybe the incels should be raging at dating apps instead of at females.
Honestly even as an attractive man I can find it difficult to find a suitable date these days, Tinder is just depressing. Lots of matches but not what I would call "equal" in terms of attractiveness and thus not something that I would really persue. The best women I've dated I've met in real life rather than through an app
[deleted]
The majority of Americans were internet users by 2002, but the time spent on the internet each day has ~quadrupled just from 2010 to 2018. I feel that internet usage has most likely made a major impact.
Probably because everything that was without internet is now with internet. Television? Netflix->Internet. Newspapers? ->internet. Music->internet. Computer Games? Most of them now online-> internet. Messaging? WhatsApp/Facebook instead of sms->internet. And thatâs only for private life. Internet is now mich more present in daily worklife than it was 10 years ago.
People didnât use the internet as much in 2003/04 as they do now.
The year Facebook was started has nothing to do with it. Of course it had little to no influence in those days. It took years to build up to having significant impact.
Smart phones.
Yeah, this was top of mind for me. The first iPhone came out in 2007.
When did the first iPhone come out?
What a ridiculous idea.
Yes, the Internet existed in the 90s, but "internet dating" was a punchline for at least a decade. It wasn't common until the 2010s, and continued to have a big stigma until Tinder really took off.
Yes, but when the question restricts types of outlets and plugs (i.e. LGBTQ people with the "opposite sex" caveat), you are kinda getting an incomplete picture
Oh my god these comments have me wondering HAS EVERYONE FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE GAYS?? We exist. Surely the people answering this aren't all heterosexual.
I think one big aspect of this is that many 18 and 19 year olds may be virgins and are pushing the stat up.
If someone loses their virginity at around 21, they spend about 25% of their time in the 18-30 age range as part of the 27% statistic.
It IS half of that⊠this data is misleading in countless ways
[deleted]
U ok bro
Thatâs insane to me more then 1-4 dudes isnât getting laid at all? I wonder how often or how many partners the like top 10% of dudes have. Would be interesting for Women as well but I find their % to be more reasonable.
Thatâs insane to me more then 1-4 dudes isnât getting laid at all?
Well, no. You can have all the gay sex you want and you're in the 27% here.
The same survey also stated the number of men that reported being sexually inactive has TRIPLED in the last 10 years.
Maybe, but it still isn't 27%.
It's probably more than that. The avg guy can't even afford his own place. That alone keeps a bunch of men from the dating pool.
You think 27% is an underestimate? More than 27% of under-30 men haven't had sex since they were 18, and you think it's because they can't afford their own places? Neither part of that seems plausible to me.
Doesn't seem plausible to you because you're profoundly privileged. You don't see the men that are invisible and worthless In society. But even if you don't consider money. Just the fact that 10% of men get 90 % of likes on dating apps is proof of 3nkugh that a ton of men are being left out. It's no coincidence the numbers have tripled ever since tinder and Instagram became the norm.
I'm profoundly privileged? Ha!
First of all, not having their own place is an inconvenience but people have been dealing with that inconvenience forever. Hotel rooms, back seats of cars, friends' places, etc.
As for 27%, a historically high number, being an underestimate... because what, tinder is rough?
It's not just tinder.you can extrapolate this to dating apps in general. There's okc studies from way back in like 2013 that showed this disparity and it also showed the disparity by race so it's been whitewashed from the internet.
Not even mentioning Instagram which is now basically even bigger than actual dating apps for dating. If your insta doesn't show you in a specific socioeconomic class you'll be ignored. This is why any kind of privileged upper class guy with good looks or popularity practically have concubines anywhere they go. How do you think these good looking women from poor families are being flow all over the world.
You sound like an incel searching for justification to drive your van into a crowd.
What's so farfetched about this? See how when you have no real comeback you just result to shouting and shaming me for something I deeply struggle with?
You're literally seeing here how 30% of guys are practically incels. You think every guy that's an incel is a deranged lunatic? In reality an incel is very likely to be an avg guy. Just being poor non white means you'll have limited opportunities in general, especially as a guy. Incels are disproportionately POC but when you think about incels you only think of the sensationalized version. You realize non incels are much more likely to actual hurt women right? Domestic abuse is an epidemic.
What's so farfetched is blaming everything on Tinder. What's deranged and lunatic is blaming an app rather than taking some personal responsibility.
Was it somehow easy for unattractive men in nightclubs or bars? At least with Tinder you get to choose your first impression by choosing your best pictures. If you make contact you get to wow them with your wit, rather than dance moves.
The main thing that's different now seems to be a lack of willingness to work on oneself and instead to blame women, or blame apps. That's probably because in the past, there was no online support group where everyone could blame everyone but themselves and the most radical could plan terrorist attacks against the world which owed them sex.
Not true at all. There's plenty of men that self improve, or atleast try, yet are still worthless. The difference now is women will never swipe on an avg guy. At a club a woman might actually let you dance with her.
I'm 29 and even though my family is poor I managed to get a career against all odds. Now my parents live with me cause otherwise they would be homeless. I've played sports etc but if has never mattered when it comes to women. I'm still just a ugly non white undesirable. I've worked for years to take better and better pics, I've even paid to have pictures taken of me. Still not a single like on a dating app. My socioeconomic status can't be hidden. Women know
Incels have always existed. It's why 80% of women have had offspring while only 20% of men in history had children. Men have always been work mules and women have always been horded by the most elite
Please stop drinking the incel koolaid.
It's not koolaid. People are finally realizing what's going. It's why podcast freshandfit has gotten so popular. It's just obvious now
Fuck dude. Get the fuck out of your incel communities before it's too late for you.
I'm not in any incel community. I agree most incels are too far gone, by the time people start caring it's too late
If you listen to shit like that, you definitely are.
Freshandfit is practically synonymous with rap culture and therefore mainstream. Sorry. Not that I'm actively using any advice. They say it themselves unless you have money and status you won't get girls
They say it themselves unless you have money and status you won't get girls
Clearly not true, but popular propaganda for incels.
Are you Canadian? You probably underestimate how deranged American culture is
It's clearly true. Especially now. They've spilled the beans on how powerful Instagram is. Women don't sleep with any avg guy when they can be wined and dined by rich tall dudes
Seriously dude, get away from that incel propaganda before it's too late. They're lying to you and radicalizing you. Keep listening to that bullshit and it's going to ruin your life.
That's what you don't get. Our lives are already ruined and over.
No, they're not. You only believe that because you're drowning in incel propaganda. You're as fucked as the Qanon idiots drowning in their BS waiting for JFK to reappear, or Flat Earthers convincing themselves the world is flat.
Piease dude, don't let this propaganda ruin your life. Take a break from it and pick up a hobby or something. Knitting, juggling, singing, jogging. Just about anything is better than being radicalized by incel propaganda. It's clearly well on its way to destroying you.
Q shit is completely different from this. The fact that so many men are sexless should be alarming enough
Seriously guy, you sound just as unhinged as the Qanon morons, you just can't see it because you're in the incel cult instead of the Qanon one.
Get a hobby and change your media diet. It's not too late.
I have plenty of hobbies. That doesn't change the reality of men like me. My parents would litterally be homeless without me. I'm not your avg incel that's never done anything.
Poor people don't have cars. A hotel room is too expensive for most poor's. Most poor's especially poor men have fewer friends.
Also gay people exist. I don't know why that isn't being brought up in this thread more.
Thatâs a very interesting point based on the wording that could account for 20% right there. I had just assumed no sex but this might make a lot more sense. Good thought!
According to my personal experience (so shitty source, I know), I wouldn't believe that 27% of men haven't had sex in their adult life, but I'm sure the number could be even greater than that if you asked how many men didn't have sex in the last year, even before covid.
In my experience there's a lot of men out there that just don't have sex, and they aren't virgins because they had like 5 sexual intercourses in their whole adult life.
If a guy is socioeconomically valuable enough to have friends and know people they aren't in that 30%. The men who aren't getting laid are invisible
I don't think it has to do with "socioeconomic value." Middle class people are more likely to have less sex than poorer people, and students at top colleges the same trend persists.
Got to factor in a lot of the ones who arenât getting laid also arenât getting out to meet you
While I agree that the chart is definitely lacking by limiting itself to only opposite gendered sex, fewer than 5% of men identify as LGBT, and of those, fewer than 3% identify as gay. Even if you assumed 5% of men were solely engaging in gay sex, that still leaves a significant 22% of guys not getting laid. Even if the percentage of men who were strictly having gay sex was steadily increasing across the time period displayed in the graph (doubtful. Itâs important to remember that itâs not like our generation invented gay sex. Dudes have been boning for eons.), the graph would likely still show an increasing percentage of sexless twenty somethings. Gay sex alone isnât going to account for that slope.
that still leaves a significant 22% of guys not getting laid
I meant a 5 point drop is actually still quite significant.
Yeah but the point is its a 5 point drop across the whole graph and the slope remains roughly the same, meaning the increase is actually greater as a percentage of the original celibate population.
Edit: to be clear, I 100% agree the chart would benefit by including data from non heterosexual relationships. Iâm just trying to argue that the data is compelling even when you account for them.
The problem is multifaceted:
I'm not sure how to exactly articulate the problem, but it's almost like an egotistical epidemic too. Everyone wants something better, meaning no one is happy.
Men are looking for even higher quality women than previous years.
Doubt this.
It might be true for guys in the top 10% of men who have an abundance of sexual options
As a guy in that top 10%, no it still isn't true. Sure I have lots of options but they are all much lower quality than I was hoping to be able to get by getting myself in the top 10%. Women my level have access to the top 1%.
Yeah I doubt this as well. Itâs anecdotal, so take it with a very large grain of salt, but Iâve literally never witnessed this type of behavior in my life. Not saying it doesnât happen Iâm sure it does, but personally Iâve never met a man or had a friend that refused to be with a girl that was interested in him because of her looks. Nothing wrong with standards, but everyone I know dates âwithin their leagueâ relatively speaking ofc.
I was a man in that position three times actually when I was younger. I just doubt men have much higher standards than they used to. I could easily be wrong though
I agree. Especially with how stressed body positivity/body shaming/female empowerment is today. Itâs all good of course, and itâs worked pretty damn well I think, most males my age are extremely respectful when they interact with woman. Canât remember the last time any of my friends referred to any female we knew as âunattractive.â
Well in real life, they might not have higher standards. But on dating apps, oh boy.
Why would you settle for someone who has obvious flaws when there are hundreds of other potential partners just a few finger gestures away.
And as online dating has become the main way of finding a partner, that has terrible implications on real life.
Are you suggesting men don't just swipe right for everyone? You couldn't really be more wrong. Idk about real life but average men have no standards on dating apps cause they aren't getting any matches
Yeah wtf? If anything us men have collectively become more desperate by lowering our standards into the floor. This is particularly apparent with online dating where the majority of men will literally take anyone they can get.
Most incels I've talked to online seem outraged at the prospect of not getting to fuck a girl that is out of their league and settling for someone more like themselves. They get all pissy and defensive and then make up weird conspiracies about all the 10/10 chads also fucking the ugliest women for some reason.
That's not a conspiracy.
Even ugly women don't want ugly men. But men have very low standards.
Self-contradicting incelspeak. Oh yes, the chads who get all the hot girls totslly go for the ugly women. Ugly women get laid by hot dudes all the time đ
They do. Practically ever obese women I know typically date men in much better shape. Or at least sleep with them
You're the one using incel terminology here, not me.
And by the way, from my experience talking to incels, most are literally just looking for someone to love them. But they get accused by people like you of being sex-obsessed rapists that only want the hottest women and reject all the ugly girls that are desperate for them. The exaggerated stereotypes are fucking awful.
The craziest incels you see posting on incel subs aren't representative of your average poor lonely loser virgin That's not a bad person but had zero socioeconomic value.
Look at female weight gain. Men still put their dicks in anything.
What about age? Maybe not 18-23 but at 24-29 many women expand in to the 30+ dating pool but many men keep their settings at like 1-2 years older and as many years as there are to 18 on the younger side.
Hmm I definitely don't do that at all but idk about most men, you could be right. Of course, if they were always like that then men aren't getting more picky over time
You should reverse the order of your first two points. Women overall are looking for higher quality men (mostly driven by rising equity in education & economics.) The subset of men that fit that criteria is shrinking, and raising their standards even higher due to demand. Most men that arenât in that ballpark arenât getting shit. Similar to a âK-shaped recoveryâ
I'd take a different guess in that women hold the power on dating apps.
The mens role in the app is to hit on the women, while the woman might be recieving many many messages from different guys. They can be selective. Also work life balance changing
[deleted]
Which is what I said.
I disagree with the first point, but rest makes sense.
... or people just aren't interacting in person as much so develop socially less and have fewer chances.
That wouldn't explain the disparity between women and men though.
Males are the performative partners in humans. A male is much less viable than a female if he cannot perform proper social protocols. Women instinctively judge partners for this, even if they too have deficiencies.
This makes me wonder if some people are secretly robots.
I am not sure about other ppl tho
Sorry, what does social protocols mean?
Just a shred of proof for your assumptions thanks
[deleted]
Its hilarious, but this one blames it on people so I'm calling it out.
I think thats a pretty wild assumption.
The issue is much more likely that as social media and internet groups develop, people are able to find little bubbles of other people that they relate to, or little bubbles of their hobby of choice. They then insulate themselves from the broader population and never grow.
Look at online gaming. How many people do you think work some shitty job then come home and spend 12 hours on X game. Then they repeat the process the next day.
The longer a person is isolated from other people, the more dependent they get on that bubble, and the harder it is to break out.
People just arent going out and meeting other people. What happened to meeting someone at the grocery store? That really doesnt happen anymore.
Also, men are looking for even more men than in previous years
You make it sound like itâs absolutely essential for dudes to get laid. Maybe they just donât care?
Top 10% are absolutely slaying it. Gotta remember the avg dude is overweight, broke, short, socially ackward loser. Fitness puts you in the top 25% easily. Being social puts you in the top 20% alone.
Someone with those "stats" would be what I would call below average.
You're not short if you're average, you'd be average height.
You're not broke if you're average, you'd have average money.
You're not overweight if you're average, you'd be average weight.
And so on and so on.
If everyone is fat, the average is fat...you can call it average all you want. And we can call it fat all we want
These are probably not fully independent variables. So if you are of average height, have average money and average weight, it certainly puts you above average at the end of the day. Probs top 30%
That only goes so far though. If you're fit, but short, non white and poor you're invisible.
Would you say same apply to women? i.e., being fit and sociable puts her in top 20% and would you find such woman attractive?
The data doesn't show that, it says 1 in 4 dudes aren't getting laid with female partners. The data ignores the rise on LGBT acceptance between 2008 and 2018 that made gay men not need a fake girlfriend to avoid harassment
27% of people arenât gay though itâs closer to like 5
Around 100 or so by age 30
Really 100? I would guess thatâs higher then even 10% but certainly not impossible.
Right wing cults taking off is making more sense.
I dont think that this is even a new phenomenon. Like, I wonder how men preformed historically? Like, looking at second and third sons with no prospects, no careers and no land... how many actually got married?
Given how much women (who had little value except having kids, but at least had that inherent social value) had to rely on their parents in the past, men without anything behind them wouldn't have done well either. The done thing was join a priesthood in my country, or join the army /navy and try to survive long enough to work your way into stability before marriage. Maybe the difference isn't that men are having less sex, but culturally expect it more?
Well it kind of is look at the graph. 2008 was a great year for everyone!
That is interesting. It probably is, as other people have mentioned, linked to the economic reasons and social mobility as well.
And it's only getting worse tbh
Weâre not really allowed to talk about this gap
The majority of guys effected by this gap are very average normal dudes as well but get dubbed an incel if it's ever brought up.
Pretty effective way to shut down the conversation. The typical girl gets suspiciously offended at the mere mention of this imbalance. It's like they know they are scoring out of their league.
True.
I read somewhere that in prehistoric times only like 5% of men were reproducing while the percentage for women was much higher.
So if you compare it to cave men days we are much better off lmao
Edit: Source
Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around todayâonly one man did the same
Incels are a worse than terrorism in 2021
https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-faith-less-sex-why-are-so-many-unmarried-young-adults-not-having-sex bump the age by 5 years and women shoot up. Interesting.
One more thing a few people asking how more choices would lead to less sex. But this is very possible. I think it's very well established that women are far more picky than men with sex, for some good reasons and some societal reasons. But either way it's very rare for a girl to have sex and/or date someone "below" her whether she's using a criteria of looks or social status or whatever other metric. But plenty of well-off attractive guys will have sex with any woman average or better, even if they're "below" them. So with dating apps women are easily able to play a numbers game and get with a guy above them, and the top guys are able to get tons of girls. But let's say you're a girl in the 30th percentile of attractiveness. If there weren't dating apps and people were more monogamous, they'd end up having to settle for someone more around the 30th percentile guys. But with dating apps, they can easily find an endless stream of 70th percentile guys to have sex with.
Now I don't have any data on this and I'm sure it's not the full story, it's just an explanation on how it is very possible for there to be more sex in general, but it to lead to a higher percentage of virgins, particularly on the male side. But of course that wouldn't really explain the increase in female virgins. But of course LGBT increases and age distribution changes could also be contributing to that.
These aren't necessarily virgins, they could have had sex before 18 and not after, or they could be having sex with the same sex
I have a hard time buying into the idea that there are a bunch of young Barneys out there from How I Met Your Mother hogging all the girls on the dating apps. Yes, hook up culture is rampant in today's society, but that doesnt mean most people (men and women) don't still desire monogamous relationships. A real life Barney is rare. And even if there is such a guy who is really good looking and charismatic, with an abundance of time and money to pursue hookups, pretty soon he's probably going to get burnt out/ realize the shallowness of it all.
As I mentioned I'm merely throwing out a hypothesis I don't have data to confirm or deny, but I do know several people who have since gotten married but slept with 20+ women before doing so. I think most people are looking to settle down eventually but when I met my wife the standard progression was meet someone, go on a few dates, make sure you like them as a person, then start getting physical. Whereas with apps it seems much more common that people would get physical the first night they met then see if they like each other at which point they decide whether to get serious/exclusive, stop seeing each other, or keep just hooking up no strings attached.
Again idk if this is even indicative of society at large or just my friend group, but just a hypothesis that could explain an increase in overall sex but also an increase in virgins.
Honestly from many years of personal experience with tinder I think this is the most likely. I am not a bad looking guy, I do okay for myself when I meet face to face with woman in a bar, club whatever and always have. But my hit rate on tinder was awful despite changing my profile around a lot, making changes on advice of female friends and the usual shit, I guess being 5'9 has something to do with it. Anyways I would find myself having to just kind of lower my standards at times, whereas there were some female friends I knew who would have a constant stream of casual relationships going from tinder and they were really what I would consider to be quite average looking girls. Certainly they wouldn't have had this much sex available to them in the pre-tinder days.
Ime with my male and female fuckboys and fuckgirls, women usually seek up and men usually seek down. I know women who have basically no redeeming qualities and still can easily find someone "nice enough" to get laid. With fuckboys it's different, they get laid because they aim down, most of their dates are women who are in a worse situation than them.
Exactly what you're saying here is very common from my experience and people I know. Both on the men's perspective and women's perspective you made.
Being 5â9 is a problem? Well fuck my 5â4 hobbit ass might as well catapult myself from the cliffs!
Women don't know women, advice from women isn't going to really help tbh.
Actual average men get a match rate of less than 1% on Tinder (0.87%) while virtually any woman can choose from a pool of men to get a date whenever she wants on Tinder.
A study found out that âthe bottom 80% of men are fighting over the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men", on Tinder. Because women are sexual gatekeepers their preferences decide the dating scene. (What do you that the main preference on dating apps are? I give a clue it's looks)
https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
And the 78% of women aren't so much "fighting" as "waiting for their turn". The top 20% guys will get to them eventually... On a slow night for them. But, of the 80% guys going after the 22% women, most of those guys will never get chosen.
That's not a study it's a blog post
That's a blog post, not a study.
while virtually any woman can choose from a pool of men to get a date whenever she wants on Tinder.
You have no idea what it's like for women on tinder. You're projecting your own desires onto the lived experience of women.
There's a study attached in the blog post.
I do have an idea how female dating works. I have several sisters/female friends +plus multiple female tinder accounts that validate my statement.
+plus multiple female tinder accounts that validate my statement.
And none of the female experience of how safe those feel. All you're revealing here is how bitter and paranoid you are. And I'm sure your sisters tell you all about their sex lives.
You sound like a women. I am just gathering accurate data nothing more nothing less. I am not responsible for your femcelsness
Your links don't state any actual studies or data collection. It just states a bunch of numbers and formula they made up and it doesn't say how they got the formula.
Most people don't meet their partners on tinder anyway so it's really a moot point.
It links to the actual study at the bottom of the article dude, jeez. Don't be so whiny.
Oh yeah? Then link the study.
Hint: it's not there because there wasn't one it's all made up lol. Poor attempt to gaslight too
Lol downvote me all you want, pretending to be the victim won't get you any dates (:
Here, lol. The data was released by Tinder themselves, the NY times made an article on it, and Medium turned it into a GINI coefficient.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/fashion/tinder-the-fast-growing-dating-app-taps-an-age-old-truth.html?_r=0
That still isn't tinders data. Just another article speculating on some numbers a company said.
Oh boy I've got news for you. They didn't include any bots/fake accounts/etc. The other news is that women know tinder is trash compared to hinge/bumble/etc. I'm happy to direct you to r/tinder for proof
Here's a real scientific study
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aap9815
Or instead of being an asshole you could have just lead with that.
I love this article thank you
I mean, people keep saying "nobody's getting in to a relationship on Tinder" but literally everyone I know between the ages of 23 to 28 who's in a relationship met on a dating app. Literally everyone. And a majority of those were through Tinder specifically.
Look at this Guy coping over here
I'm a lady who's married
congrats, you've got it easy. Maybe learn to empathize
âthe bottom 80% of men are fighting over the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men"
Now look at the ratio men/women on the app
Oddly enough, this makes me feel alot better about how things have been going on these apps... always knew I wasn't a looker but, damn, these apps can make you wonder if you're freaking Quasimodo sometimes.
Don't worry my man. I'm a very good looking guy.... Get complemented frequently, have been suggested to model etc. I get matches but they are typically much lower quality and the higher quality ones are total conversational dead ends. Ain't no man doing well on these quality wise.
It's percentage
Mmh yeah
[deleted]
how so?
[deleted]
I wouldn't call it pseudoscience at all. Also, it makes sense to model many human interactions as essentially competitions at a large scale at least.
Also, of course dating is unfair for both men and women! No one can choose the genetic elements of their physical attractiveness.
the most attractive men are basking in the glowing attention of unworthy women who are too blinded by their own false sense of beauty to realize they should just fuck OP.
Idk where you got that from at all
Good point, but the discrepance between the sexes ist not so clear as it seems. There is only one data point (the latest) that suggests a significant difference between the sexes. Which could be an artifact or in other ways random or unrelated.
There is also the former data point but that's only about 5% which is in expected margin.
Reason for women being so picky is mostly due to evolution and biology. Women have to be picky since getting pregnant is a pretty big commitment. Need a strong partner for that. Men on the other hand could in theory just impregnate multiple women and just move on.
Right that would be one of the "good reasons" I mentioned, along with being more likely to be assaulted/raped. Societal reasons would be social pressure and fear of being labeled a slut.
Well the being called a slut part has its roots in evolution too I think. In fact in exactly that gender divergence concerning the choice of sexual partner I just described.Think about it. A woman chooses a partner easily. That automatically means that she has a higher risk of choosing someone unfit than a compareable 2nd woman taking more time to choose. Now, if society publically denounces the choice of a woman choosing a man easily they automatically create an incentive for other younger women to take more time with choosing a partner. By denouncing the actions of one you automatically heigthen the odds of survival for the women that are yet to choose, speaking in the extremes of course. Sounds harsh, but would be a plausible explanation I think.
So I saw this post on Reddit and it's sad. Looks like people are broken
Perfect explanation on why you should NEVER date or marry down!
https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/qw1ljp/perfect_explanation_on_why_you_should_never_date/
This phenomenon is pretty obvious. I have heard it suggested that this is really the business plan of the Dating Sites. If the metrics were tweeted a bit to encourage more sub 70âs women to link up with sub 70âs men the result would be a lot these folks starting relationships and terminating their memberships. The real driving force of their revenue stream is women who keep paying month after month, year after year. The promise of â attentionâ from high-value men, even if it doesnât lead a relationship, a hook-up or perhaps even a face to face meeting might be enough.
The big question is how much of the decline in sexually active younger people can be attributed to on line dating.
I'm honestly more interested in the periodicity of responses for men from 1989-2008 and (less strikingly) for women from 2008 forward. It looks like \~5 years from trough to trough, which I think is the frequency of the survey, but that it's only for one sex at a time makes it look less like a data artifact.
Am I missing some technical explanation?
Could be wrong here, but a very quick google search shows that the sample size is around 1500-3000 depending on the year. If itâs split equally by sex, and like 20% are in the age group in question, thatâs a 150-300 sample size in each group. Uncertainty should go something like the square root of that: 12-17, which is a 3 sigma of 25%-17%. So except for the recent rise, there doesnât appear to be âstatistically significantâ change over time. Thereâs a lot of context and information about the sampling not provided here, and I donât care enough to look it up. Itâs easy to hand wave about what this graph means, but without said context its not terribly meaningfulâitâs just a couple colored linesânot very beautiful imo.
https://twitter.com/familyunequal/status/1455955536625680385
Look at the fun CI on this figure. It's a crime to present this without CI - OP isn't the only one guilty, I see this GSS shit pulled out on incels all the time and it's just not the right data source to get at this Q.
The survey is every two years
I'd guess coincidence/noise
That's my usual assumption, but this is so regular it made me wonder.
https://twitter.com/familyunequal/status/1455955536625680385
GSS is just not meant to be abused in this fashion.
Truly majestic, walrus-caliber whiskers.
No wonder zoomers are so pissed off all the time.
A lot of these are what you'd call "doomers" too
it's a bit of a chicken egg situation.
Why is this only counting opposite sex partners? It's clearly a survey, why not just ask 30 year olds "have you had sex since 18?" My guess is the trend would still be there, but it'd be far more informative.
The survey this is drawn from, the GSS, DOES ask everyone both how many male sexual partners they've had since turning 18, and how many female sexual partners they've had since turning 18.
I'm not sure why the graph that was posted only lists the male sexual partners of females and vice-versa, but that isn't a limitation of the survey, it's a limitation of whoever made the graph and chose to only include the data on opposite-sex partners. If you go to the SDA codebook to analyze the GSS data, you can filter by men, filter by ages 19-29, and look up how many reported having had male sexual partners since turning 18. Overall since 1989, it's 6.3% (weighted). That's information available in the survey but missing in your charts.
In fact, we can filter further, to only show respondents who said they were male, were ages 19-29, and said they hadn't had any female sexual partners since turning 18:
Of those, 15.2% said they did have male sexual partners (in 2014, it was 30%!). So the graph's shape would indeed be different if it had included these same-sex partners, though of course the general trend would mostly still be there.
When they started the survey way back when the didnt consider it relevant due to the low number of reports they would get.
Nowadays they cant change the question without abandoning the previous data due to changing the very nature of the survey
Possibly they didn't even consider gay sex actual sex in 89.
Hey, have you had sex?
Yes!
With a woman?
Oh...
No, the GSS has asked everyone both how many male sexual partners they've had since turning 18, and how many female sexual partners they've had since turning 18, and has asked that since 1989. Those data are available, so it was either a decision on the part of the person who made the graph to leave them out, or possibly their lack of awareness of about the existence of the data. But the survey has asked for several decades.
I don't know if this link works, but you can go to the SDA and filter the GSS data to see this yourself.
Of men ages 19-29 who said they hadn't had a female sexual partner since turning 18, 15.2% said they did have male sexual partners (in 2014, it was 30%!). The graph is missing this, but the survey is not.
I was also curious about how this treated the same-sex questions in the GSS and figured this might be the case. This is great context, thank you for providing it!
Glad it was helpful :)
Then start a new data set. As given now this data isn't really useful, who knows if 5% or 26.9% of the people who didn't are gay?
Why not survey how many straight people haven't had straight sex, how many gay people haven't had gay sex, and how many people haven't had sex in general?
They likely also asked that question, but the data set is still small. Showing data from the last few years doesnt have the same impact of ahowing it alongsidr data from decades ago
You're expecting people to hedge their numbers on a tiny and nearly irrelevant (in day to day experience) fraction of the population?
In 2014, in this same data set, 30% of men who didnât have a female sex partner since age 18 had had a male sex partner. Thatâs a huge change in what the data means. Now, thatâs the highest year, but the average year to year is about 15%. Which means if you want to get the real number of men who havenât had sex, you need to reduce each point in the above graph by about 10-30% depending on the year.
https://twitter.com/familyunequal/status/1455955536625680385
Thatâs a huge change in what the data means
No, it's not. GSS is shit cut this finely. Look at these confidence intervals.
Are you saying the percentage of gay people is trivial and not relevant to this data? Most estimates I've seen are that 5% of Americans are gay. That's definitely not irrelevant.
I'm very curious if the increasing acceptance of other sexual orientations would change the trend shown.
Maybe everyone has turned gay? That is the real finding in this survey.
Well you can also ask about same sex partners as well - more informative.
Because imbalance doesn't matter for single sex relationships.
I would like to compare this with a chart of people under 30 who still live with their parents.
I hope that one day living with your parents becomes less stigmatized. I say this as a 27 year old PhD student who lives with his parents and has a fiancée
tbh sex becomes more difficult when you don't have a place to have it, and for many people living with their parents means that.
What's the correlation of having paper thin walls at your parents house and having a fiance?
It's almost exclusively a North American thing I think
Not at all. There's a housing crisis in a lot of supposedly developed nations, where it's still stigmatised to live with your parents.
I wonder how much of this is related to Americas well know Puritan relationship with sex. Thereâs a lot more shame in our culture surrounding it.
Itâs hard enough to get busy, and even harder when you would rather die than risk your parents stumbling on the fact you do
Thereâs a lot more shame in our culture surrounding it.
Only if you are not married, on the other hand there is a lot of pressure to marry young and move in with their partner. While the average marriage age is higher than 30 for everyone, it's 26 for puritan men and 23 for puritan women.
idk know that there is still stigma, I just think it is not exactly an aphrodisiac. I have a poor relationship with my parents and since I live in Toronto I cannot afford to leave. This affects my self-esteem haven't dated since moving back in. And that was after a prolific hoe phase.
Living with my parents until I was 30 was a big reason for my virginity. I actually had a few chances to lose it but I was too ashamed of my situation.
who needs sex when you have world of warcraft?
Clearly the devs do since they can't stop themselves from assaulting their coworkers.
It's all about FF14 these days. Why sacrifice yourself for the horde or alliance when you can have catgirls
Give someone under 30 a reason to be motivated and have sex? Let's look at their life thus far:
Not exactly an environment that simulates an individual to be happy!
I think these points are relevant for why people arenât starting a family, but not for not having sex. Iâm in my late 20s, 9/11 didnât make me reconsider my sexual relationships.
Young men are often taught that a degree of financial stability is required before pursuing women or entering into sexual relationships. The messaging hasn't improved with the proliferation of the internet.
I'm not suggesting that dating is a strictly financial process, but there is a key financial component involved. The percent of women who insist on a man paying for the first (or all) dates is well above 0% and guys in college or early in their work life are openly competing against far more established men on dating sites. The data coming out of these sites is abundantly clear and it follows a Pareto distribution when looking at which men are actually getting contact, dates, and sex.
that a degree of financial stability is required before pursuing women
And a degree a mental stability and self esteem. The points listed impact finances and psychological health.
The other part I feel that goes along with this is people feeling that there is an unlimited pool of people they can choose from on their phone using apps like tinder. This I think has also led to people not accepting some flaws with one another as they can easily just hop back on the app. Before tinder I would rarely have a 1 date to 1 month "relationship". Most were generally around 3 months or so.
Well, you're not in the cohort he is talking about if you were in your 20s during 9/11. If you had experienced such a large share of your life with such existential issues, maybe it would be different.
You misread, Iâm in my late 20s now. Blaming 9/11 and an economic crash for you being a virgin is a bit much.
I certainly did! I both agree and don't make that claim or fit the abstinent cohort. Conversely, it's reductive to not consider the impact an overall environment of increased stress on people's social lives and wellbeing.
None of this matters. You think they dont fuck in 3rd world countries?
Maybe all millennials are just really good Christians? And obviously that means none of the above matters.
It's relative. In 3rd world countries the women are poorer than the men and more traditional dynamics are at play. ie women need men's resources, physical strength, protection etc. So men have something to trade with. Men in the west have fuck all to trade with.
Blames not getting any pussy on wealth inequality đ.
I mean.. âgetting pussyâ is kinda tied to how much you can provide, or at least appear like you can
When you have to work 2 jobs and a side hustle to get by because wages have stagnated the last 30 years and you cannot "just get a well paying job " like boomers did, I definitely feel wealth comes into play.
This attitude of boomers "at your age I had a house and 3 kids" just solidifies my point. Back then people had a well paying job, most likely in a union, had a company pension, affordable houses, and could do all that on a single income.
I'm fortunate that I bought my house 6+ years ago as there is no way I could afford my house today and I make what's considered a fairly good salary in this country. So yes I think wealth comes into play. The systemic strip mining the wealthy have done on the middle class is shocking and needs to be addressed or I guess it will course correct when the population of the country collapses in the next 40 years!
And the saddest part is that you have a whole generation that would rather protect multi billionaires instead of seeing that they are robbing the next generations wealth.
And doesn't bother to mention a terminally online, pornography addicted culture...the cope is real lol
All these reasons make people unhappy, and a healthy relationship would be the ideal way to leave it all aside and focus on something happy. Build your own world with a partner and do stuff that's meaningful to you without having to spend all that money. Hell, even casually hooking up with people at bars would be a way to avoid the depression. Also, condoms exist, and relationships can work even without a home for the couple to live alone.
On the other hand, if the economy grows, people start pursuing careers and it's more difficult to focus on relationships and creating a family.
[deleted]
Him: Babe I'm broke af and can't find a job! Her: we're so fucking happy and in love more than ever before because I'm broke and can't find work also!!
regarding number 4⊠Percapita adjusted wealth is pretty close between generations compared to 20-35 year olds.
Also, the only one that would probably contribute to less sex is number 2.
Haven't you ever been broke and young? More the reason to have sex! You don't need motivation, it's free and available, rich or poor everyone does it the same way
Yeah not is all womenâs fault you see! And damn feminists!
Those are all first world problems. There's lots of desperately poor countries in the world, with about a billion people living on less than $2 per day. They seem to get laid, despite having much more serious problems and much worse options than rich people in the US. The average american might not consider themselves rich, but I bet they have shoes, clean drinking water, electricity, internet, are literate and can access adequate calories and basic medical care.
Since when can the American population access basic medical care? There are so many people who rather die then get help as they know that they may be alive for longer but forever in deep debt. There are literally people who wear "do not call ambulance" wrist bands for exactly this reason.
Really, what's needed is a hookup site for regular or ugly people
Unpopular women hookup with popular men.
Popular women hookup with popular men too.
Unpopular men don't need a website, there is no one willing to hookup with them.
It's also that we're just choosing based on photos now. It used to be you could walk up to someone in a bar or other social event and show your personality.
And now cold approaching is considered unacceptable and creepy.
It really isn't, perhaps the way you are approaching is creepy. Be more direct and have nice teeth + hygiene (IE don't look homeless). Don't try to be extra or convert someone who isn't interested into someone who is. General rule of thumb, 100 approaches = ~10 dates (50-60 Instagram's, most of which are DOA), 100 swipes = 1 dates (yes really, 30 matches, 10 convo's, 3 planned dates of which half flake).
In the words of Jordan Belfort, "don't sell a pen to someone who doesn't want/need a pen".
Here's a sankey graph of 6 weeks on dating apps by a very much above average looking guy (not me)
https://i.redd.it/cjr42nb9r9g51.png
And why wouldn't it be creepy? You go up to a girl you know nothing about other than her looks and try to get her number. If she wants that experience, she can go on Tinder. She doesn't want that from unattractive men irl.
75% flake rate damn that is rough. He is very selective with his matches (or maybe he lives in a small city). The number of matches I get in a big metro area is higher due to the fact that there is a greater proportion of young attractive women.
There are also more men. So keep in mind that while you get more matches in metro areas, most men get literally zero.
It really is, based on numerous opinions I've read directly from women.
And why wouldn't it be creepy? You go up to a girl you know nothing about other than her looks and try to get her number. If she wants that experience, she can go on Tinder. She doesn't want that from unattractive men irl.
General rule of thumb, 100 approaches = ~10 dates, 100 swipes = 1 date (yes really, 30 matches, 10 convo's, 2 planned dates of which 1 always flakes).
Your "general rule of thumb" doesn't apply to most men. I mean seriously, 1 date per 100 swipes? You really think that's common?
I am far more direct than most. Tinder (for me) is exclusively for attractive women that are interested. If I offered dinner/something fun/unique as apposed to "Lets split a bottle of wine", the % might be higher.
Edit: For an 'average' guy (80% of women find them unattractive on dating apps), it is probably more accurate to say that 100 matches = 1 date. But the 'average' guy wont get 100 matches to begin with. Self improvent is probably a prerequisite to using tinder (they should make a disclaimer lmao).
Self improvement doesn't do shit if you're below avg non white guy.
And why wouldn't it be creepy? You go up to a girl you know nothing about other than her looks and try to get her number. If she wants that experience, she can go on Tinder. She doesn't want that from unattractive men irl.
Don't try to get her number (not at first). Give a compliment that is unique to her (nice eyebrows, nice shoes that is context dependent), make the interaction man to woman, determine logistics, give a false time constraint (let her know you aren't going to waste her time), read her body language (Does she like the interaction, fairly easy to read), then close w Instagram and/or number. If she says 'no' reply with "No problem, have a nice day!" (with a smile). In what world is that creepy?
As you become more confident and are able to communicate in a more organic manner, your results will improve. When I started, 100 approaches = 1 date (and far fewer Instagram's). And my looks have perhaps increased 10-20% in that time period (~9-10% body fat + neck exercises add a point to your SMV).
Women are not pets, dude, no need to approach her like they were leopards, with a set of instructions on how not to get your face eaten.
Thing is, women may or may not be interested in people approaching them with these intentions, and there are places that we, as a society, have defined as appropriate or inappropriate for that. If you approach a girl in a library, it'll probably be taken as creepy, because it's a place people go for other reasons. If you approach a girl in a bar, then she may accept or dismiss you, but won't probably find it offensive. And the same goes for men, difference being that women approach men far less often than vice versa â but still you'd probably look like a creepy girl if you approached some random dude in a library.
It also depends on your race and class. If you get approached by a clearly good looking white guy with money you will speak to him. If a bald ugly non white guy approaches you, it'll be creepy.
Don't try to get her number (not at first).
She knows what you're doing. Women aren't stupid.
And of course I wouldn't ask right away, but the point is that, yes, I singled out a woman based on nothing other than her looks with the goal of getting her number. You can draw out the conversation and be as respectful as you like, but it doesn't change this simple fact. And she knows it. And so do you. And so does everyone else.
In what world is that creepy?
Ask the women who find it creepy.
Can confirm. I do much better in person. Like orders of magnitude better.
Same, I never dated ugly women did I tried internet dating
That's exactly right. I'd say my personality is by far my best characteristic. I've never done well on apps but thankfully meet women fine in real life. Thank god I learned how to date before internet dating was a thing.
I think this is a big issue really. I scroll through so many men and wonder what happened to all the attractive ones in my area. Then I walk into a bar and wonder how the fuck I think every guy in here is hot? Is it the lighting, the booze, the atmosphere etc? Iâm sure that all contributes butâŠ
The reality is if you showed me any of these guys profiles Iâd think, âno, thatâs you? You look way better in person!â
Itâs difficult because the average man who goes to the effort to overly market themselves on the apps just ends up looking shallow, while other men just donât look good enough physically to just throw up random photos and get likes. Its a very small proportion of men who are attractive enough to do it effortlessly (or make it look as much) even if there is a much larger pool of decently attractive men out there. The medium just doesnât do them justice.
And since thereâs 0 cost to rejecting a âmaybe, not sure if Iâm interestedâ on apps, there is an incentive to just keep moving.
Back in my day we'd call them bars
Women wont sign up, even if some would, theyd be immediately gobbled up by thirsty men.
Also not everybody is willing to 'hook up'. The fact that this kind of interaction has become totally common is imo closely related to the facts presented in this graph.
That means some small fraction of dudes is getting all the cake. Society is slowly going back 10,000 years in a matter of a couple of years
5000 years ago:
Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around todayâonly one man did the same
It doesn't say that. It could be evenly distributed among the 70%
It also needs to be addressed the fact that the spike of lack of sex experience, especially on men, began after the economic crisis of 2008 (That by the way we never fixed, we just used financial trickery to kick the problem to the future while not allowing the economy to recover).
Leaving that aside, economy is a huge factor for men to find a partner. A woman usually has herself to offer, her beauty and personality mostly, but a man needs to provide. If you ever been in the dating market you know that unless you're a 10/10 any chat ends when you don't have a place to crash or a car. Although the last part might be pretty basic for first worlders it is not the case for the rest of the world.
With all of this I'm saying that there is still a deep rooted component in society were women evaluate their partner's future with the socioeconomic odds where he's able to provide for her and future children, even if she has no plans at all to be a mother. There has been studies done in the variation of the Y chromosome over the course of history where every time there are cycles of poverty in big societies the variability of the Y chromosome goes down. Now we are in such times. Women get more picky or simply have sex with older men (outsider their generation) while dumping men of their age. This while that same group of men are unable to find partner in other generational groups because their measurement of value does not change.
There is also the academical surge of women, also in the work force, which doesn't help because now men not only need to gather wealth in this hostile environment, they also must make more than women who are doing pretty okay lately. I don't know many of you but my experience as a man in school and college has been one where whenever a girl started to do bad, teachers and parents quickly came to fix whatever issue she may be experiencing while if a boy had all bad grades or was at the edge of dropping then the reaction was "oh it's just boys being boys, they'll come around". Such thing was never solved and only projected deeper into the future.
There is an issue anywhere where women have the higher hand in terms of economic factors. Bubbles in real state, higher inflation, less heavy industry and more service oriented crappy jobs. There is a correlation but I have extended too much already. Women do not often have the burden to provide with a home or expensive things that require savings. Women spend way more in consumable items that men do. These are facts, men are savers by nature because they need to attract girls, women tend to be short time spenders.
I know this kind of analysis may not sound so egalitarian but the way our gender roles and the way society is structured makes such dramatic changes happen and later when we see a chart like the one OP posted we all act surprised and blame technology. Technology is not the cause but rather a correlation, because it serves as an escapism tool for such souls that are in pain of being pushed out of society. Then we act also surprised why so many hate groups exist in the internet, mostly crowded by lonely men. When you take away the dream of life from people you end with hateful folks that no longer have empathy nor are scared of the consequence of their actions. Only those who have something fear losing it and thus this is a message that society needs to riddle out. History is a great teacher, such times were always followed by violence and I would not find surprising if we see violence raise in forms of terrorism, tribalism, gangs, and any other spot where men can gather and find themselves substituting their lost male roles with things that can fill their spirts, with little regard for the morality of their actions.
All of this basically ends in a system that is rigged against men both economically, educationally, and culturally. This last item is essential because society and collective conscience is shifting towards feminism, where women get more even with men but we're not addressing men's problems to help in their own disadvantages. Such big degree of social engineering tweaking cannot be done in isolation, there is no such thing as moving a gear that belongs to a big machine without expecting changes happening to the rest of it.
Thought provoking. Thank you for this.
Really well written. Best post I've read on reddit in awhile. Even if it isn't perfectly true, I appreciate the level of depth here. Thanks for this intellectual snack/treat!
Thank you for taking the time to write all that out. Not many people here on reddit appreciate rational, well laid-out thinking.
Incredible insight, thanks!
Urge to kill.....rising
This society isn't worth keeping.
Edit: zoomers, it's a Simpsons reference. I'm not actually going to, nor do I want, to shoot you. I just understand the mindset of those who do, quite deeply.
Bottom text
Of course you end how itâs a feminism problem, and not a capitalist one. You were so close to the point yet couldnât get there. Even used the typical toxic masculinity excuse âboys will be boysâ - but no, itâs feminism at fault. Funny how men who rule the world arenât really feminist at all, yet you still blame feminism. Great conclusion. Misogynists are so short sighted.
I think I hold too much resentment towards men to take up the mantel of Men's rights. Though I do see how traditional masculinity has become debilitating for them, somethings gotta give either gender roles have to change or socioeconomic equality needs to improve. I for one hope it is both.
Stop over thinking it, just lower your standards. Ugly women like to fuck too.
"Ugly" women as you describe can still go onto Tinder and fuck all they want. There is no hope for "ugly" men, as noted by the statistics posted elsewhere in this comment section.
[removed]
What's to stop these "evolutionary dead ends" from ensuring everyone is a dead end, if you catch my meaning?
"Already have nothing to lose, might as well drag you all down to hell with me. You will feel my pain"
Just grind for money and see escorts, no need to turn violent on innocent people for excluding you from love and affection.
Beings who feel cast aside and denied their chance at happiness have a tendency to lash out in extreme violence. There are no innocents. Everyone is complicit.
Surely you see the difference between paying for sex and actual love and affection?
The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.
[deleted]
Your lack of compassion is what will end us..fuck you.
[deleted]
Just Google "incel shooting". They are not empty, and the last 5 years of mass shootings should be a hint at that reality.
Killing innocent people is not how you change society for the better.
Those innocent people have their own lives, their own problems, and their own mental health issues.
People change through conversation, empathy and understanding.
Don't you just want to be understood, at the end of the day? To be heard...
I know this, at least I do now. For many years I was, however, one bad day away from doing something absolutely ghastly. I have that evil hatred inside of me, I know I do. Luckily, I've slowly been able to pull myself out of that hole, but tbh, my problems have always been behind my ears and above my throat. Physically, I'm a decently attractive guy. Many guys are not. They don't see any path to hope in the future. They don't have anything to latch onto to even begin to pull themselves out.
Again, not condoning anything. Just giving you a glimpse into the thought processes of those who feel utterly hopeless and cast aside. Economic reforms to reduce poverty would go much further than shootings.
Cool, well done for pulling out of there man. That must have been damn hard.
I agree society needs to change, economically, socially, pretty much in every way. For the better. There's a lot of people who agree with that too.
There must be a way to help all those hopeless people feel empowered without resorting to violence. To change things in the right way.
Maybe that's what you found... I hope someone can help others find it too.
Words can only go so far in describing the burning hate that can only be calmed by violence.
The only change you want to see in people, when in this state, is for the worst.
Don't you think it's words that get people into that state?
The stories they tell themselves? The ones where violence is the only answer.
Violence does not calm burning hate. It tortures the soul further. A false promise of release when what was really desired was something else.
Understanding.
[deleted]
"Go out in a blaze of bloody retribution and glory", most likely.
I'm not condoning this shit. But I have, many years ago, fallen into that pit of absolute hatred, so I understand the mindset deeply. It used to be mine.
They are not empty threats. They are the tremors one feels before an earthquake.
[deleted]
You can try, but you might just end up bleeding out with an angry rage filled face staring at you as you slowly die.
[deleted]
Basic economic reforms that don't leave millions in poverty that completely destroys any chance they have at finding a partner would be a better start, but I'm willing to consider other ideas lmao.
We could regulate the swipers and get rid of the "pay to win" component. I think it's pretty clear they design the apps in frustrating ways to entice the user to purchase gold/premium. I find that to be exploitative. I'm not sure this completely solves the problem, but right now the apps pour gas on the fire with their design choices.
That creepy hivemind feeling..
sidenote: Technology is and will be blamed for everything, because it is "magic". The rate of change will only increase, what we do now was scifi 50 years ago.
We take it all for granted. It still blows my mind everytime i think a litle bit about what is possible now. The future is wild
So women have more sex because they all go for the same guys
Yep. Good read.
Mh... Women are fairing better with fewer shocks
Will women having softer shocks. I'm not surprising the trend brakes for men on 2008.
I think it correlates with the rise of dating apps
If you look at the dramatic spike around 2015 that is when dating apps became ubiquitous. In fact, thatâs when I downloaded my first. So it does play a significant role. The other noticeable spike occurred around 2008 which points to both the recession and the rise of social media which limited peopleâs social interactions in the real world
This is 100% it. I would also add another possible contributor is the rise of much better entertainment and distractions (vidya, Netflix, YouTube, instagram, etc.)
What this shows is the men who are in demand are scooping up all the ladies
Also older men scooping up those ladies as well. I'm 40 and any one of the last 3 years I had sex with more 18-30 ladies than I did the full time I was 18-30.
Same, I would have thought my dad bod would be a turnoff and it would be game over at 40, but happily, apparently not. Doing much better now than in my 20s.
Makes me wonder what the same sex model looks like
So it's easier for girls to get laid than guys. No shit.
It's easy for a guy to get fucked. Just walk into a gay club and you can get fucked by anyone you like. But you won't do it for obvious reasons cuz you are not gay.
Also for a Woman is impossible to find someone to fuck. More than 99% of Men don't like to get fucked in the ass by a Woman so infact being able to find someone to fuck is hard for both genders.
And being able to find someone to fuck you is easy for both genders. For Women is Men and for Men is Gays...
So in conclusion comparing Male and Female sex isn't fair, cuz Men fuck and Women get fucked. It's not the same oBvIoUsLY.
Getting laid is not the same.
I love how Iâve scrolled so far and havenât seen a single comment yet say that there is a possibility people were lying back then.
How many are not virgins with their same sex?
Dating apps combined with feminism.
I think this shows a trend towards honesty mostly
It seems like about 80% of people in this sub are reading this as "celibacy is on the rise" and the other 20% are reading it as "more people are identifying as LGBT" which is kind of interesting as it's own statistic.
the other 20% are reading it as "more people are identifying as LGBT" which is kind of interesting as it's own statistic.
this really says a lot about how the media influences how we view society. when surveyed, americans actually do think like 20% of people are gay, when the real number is like 3% at most.
I think you are forgetting bi which includes in lgbt
They're being intentionally obtuse about it
And that 27% are just the honest ones. It seems pretty likely that a lot of guys would lie about it. Wouldn't surprise me if the real number is more like 50% at this point.
[deleted]
Of course they would. Society and culture has conditioned men to tie their sexual success to their self worth. Anonymous or not, it becomes reflexive to never disclose such a humiliating fact about yourself, even to close friends or family. Even if we ignore the probability of liars, how many of the 73% who said "yes" to having had sexual partners were only technically being honest because the wording doesn't exclude paid sex?
So let's see.
In a sample of 10 of my Male friends around 30 years old, 3 of them are in a relationship and are getting laid (with the same girl) frequently and all the rest of them once per 3 or 5 months or even once per 1 to 2 years.
That's sad.
Would be better if they just polled sexual partners in general.
This technically indicates that there are less heterosexuals (or bisexuals) having sex than there were in the past.
This could be because everyone is having less sex, or because heterosexuals represent a smaller share of the population than they used to.
Lacking a bit of precision there in the survey.
Gay men have no problem getting laid. I put tinder on gay mode for 30 min because I wanted to see what guyâs profiles looked like. I got a 100 likes and 4 super likes. Gay men have significantly more sexual partners than heterosexual men
They would have to travel back in time to change the question they asked. They have been collect data for that specific question and can't change it without starting a totally new data set that would take decades to be useful.
I am sure there are some surveys that are more broad and just don't have enough data over time yet to be interesting but will eventually.
Oh yeah of course, very good point.
Didn't even occur to me that this question was first written decades ago.
Well, no survey can tell you the whole story... I doubt that there are fewer heterosexuals and I think it's fair to assume that people have less sex.
17% of Gen Z is LGBT according to Gallup's 2020 poll on the subject
Taking non-responses into account, just 78.9% of Gen Z respondents and 82.7% of millennials said they are exclusively cisgender and heterosexual.
This is not a big difference to make one think heterosexuality is in 'decline'.
3% is a pretty big number,
I strongly agree. Donât make sense to meâŠ
'08 was a hard times for dudes. In more ways than one, amirite?
It's the opposite of that, no? This data is showing that in '08 only 8% of guys didn't have an opposite sexual partner. Now it's 27%.
You are absolutely correct. I misread.
Not sure if lonely or gay?
Young men are being told they are toxic and their natural sexual and emotional needs are wrong and criminal. Itâs fucked and as a GenX Iâm appalled at how the world is being so cruel to young men in particular. This is a terrible situation. Combined with the fact that fewer and fewer men are going to college and more and more are buying guns, weâre going to have a serious fucking problem with radicalized (and very angry) young men here very soon. Call me sexist if you want but as a dad I can see clearly my daughter has every advantage.
Nobody is owed sex, so if you start to lash out on people cause you arenât getting any thatâs on you. Nobody is saying itâs criminal, but thatâs the victim complex that so many young men have. Yâall are not victims and never will be. If you donât get sex change yourself
My point is not about deserving anything. It is about how young men in our society are now the ones being left behind. Women are clearly outperforming men in education, emotional development and social acceptance. It is a very confusing time for young men and boys and their parents.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-university-fall-higher-education-men-women-enrollment-admissions-back-to-school-11630948233
âYall are not victims , and never will beâ lol there it is.
Youâre mean. Okay? Everyone deserves sex.
Maybe because people are more than ever focussed on their careers. Back then, people were more chill and were able to afford to raise a family.
yeah, having people in your life to care for is so expensive. When most young people are struggling just to keep alive and have a roof over their head, then there's not that much time left for anything else.
Not really. Where I live (London UK) I had to find a girlfriend to pay half the rent or I was going to lose around $700 a month. Talk about an incentive.
You can't just have a roommate in London?
London rules.
Women do as you can see.
But that push is for both sides, if that was the reason the curves would be roughly matched. Men arent being told to focus more on their carrer now so there must be something else at play
Maybe women have an even greater advantage on dating apps than they do for in person dating
This isn't about raising a family, it's about sex.
This is what so many people miss, theyâre not talking about marriage, itâs a discussion on virginity. You can focus on your career and have had a short term partner or even a one night stand. And if you havenât had sex by 30 because youâre âfocusing on your careerâ maybe itâs time to admit defeat.
It's not about virginity either, it's about the number of sexual partners since 18. You can have all kinds of sex in high school and still be counted here.
It's likely that many, probably most are virgins. But some respondents will be 21-year-olds who are going through a dry spell.
"Some guys have all the luck'" Rod Steward sang. Now more than ever, as social networks made social circle much bigger.
This is likely linked to mental health and economical issues. Not tinder like so many are yelling about on this thread. The men's line starts to rise in the '08 recession, blue collar jobs have still not recovered from the recession.
I would love to see this put together with people's class background. I'll put money that this is made up of more lower class men and women or those within lower class jobs.
I'd imagine lower class men have less sex, not sure for women though since that's much less important to their value on the dating market
Your assuming these people are even out there looking. I'm saying they may be too depressed to do that.
Why isnât it just âsexual partnersâ?
Because the gay community is gettin' it on so much it was skewing the data. :P
Even incels think that being a gay virgin is impossible... they call it impossible.
It is very much possible to be a late virgin in this incredibly fitness and ideology focused group. I would argue that it is even easier to be a late virgin if you are gay.
Sure, but your dose of reality doesn't align with my joke that was meant to flatter the gay community.
Why isn't it a graph about rice consumption in the antarctic?
Reflects the society attack on everything that is masculine. I would like to see the same plot but for different ethnicities and sex orientation. I would bet m money that male white etero are leading the loneliness Olympics
Fun fact, theyâre also leading the suicide Olympics
If this trend continues to worsen, I worry the "Mass Murder Olympics" will be the next competition
You'd be wrong. Women being more selective = women being more racist. Asians and Indians come out worst.
Are you really comparing a partner selection with being racist???? Really?
Are you really getting hysterical over terminology?
I am not getting hysterical but words have meaning. If we start saying that people are racist because they have partners of a given ethnicity but not the other, we are quite fuchked up
Racist = having bias against a certain race or races. Women not wanting to date certain races is racist, by the definition of the word.
But you're deviating from the point because of the use of a word.
He thinks women denying him is equivalent to rape. He lives in his own tiny world.
Well then why donât straight white males stop being assholes, problem solved. Yâall are fucking insane
Of course everything sucks because of the spooky lower and middle class straight white males spending every night on their computers and bathing in their loneliness, anxiety, and depression with no outlet or support. Sick generalization there and quit spewing the spooky "straight white male" hate.
This might be driven by the effect of people getting married later.
In the mid 60s, there was a sexual revolution. People in the 70s were swingers often and attitudes towards sex were insanely relaxed. I was in high school in the 80s and lost my virginity when I was like 13. Attitudes towards sex were still pretty carefree but the rise of AIDS changed that.
Gay culture went mainstream in the early 90s and there's lots of comments speculating about that influence in dropping numbers but that's negligible personally. They LGBT demographic is really small.
The biggest reason personally is the internet.
For me, I spent all my time socializing and looking for people to have sex with. When I stopped going to clubs and being social, I got into the internet and turned asocial.
Young people aren't socializing. Teenagers aren't hanging out together and doing stuff, they're alone on a device and virtually hanging out which sucks personally. Turn this stuff off, go outside and actually go meet people.
Small overall, but the population is distributed more on the Millennials and Gen Z, 17% of Gen Z in the last Gallup poll were LGBT, so it's probably having more of an impact than you think
[removed]
Of course it was greatly under reported, social ostracism of LBGT+ peoples were through the roof even a generation ago. Because the stigma is lessening, more people are comfortable being able to come out and identify themselves in that umbrella nowadays, without facing fears of losing their friends, family, job, etc.
[removed]
Disco starting in gay clubs means nothing, it's not really socially associated with gay culture because it was/is appropriated. Like with most of your examples of gay and bipoc representation, it's not at all indicative of social acceptance.
Also, LGBTQ+, and especially African-American, aren't "forced labels." They're legitimate identities. This rhetoric of creating cultural segregation through representation actually works against your argument that these groups are accepted. They clearly are not when representation causes so much white, cis-het rage.
You don't get it. Up until the early 90s, gay people weren't trying to be a segregated 'culture', they were just looking for equality as individuals and to be integrated.
Also, LGBTQ+, and especially African-American, aren't "forced labels." They're legitimate identities.
No they're not. They're labels that were imposed systemically by your establishment class intentionally to used the demographic groups as political & social pawns.
causes so much white, cis-het rage
You saying this proves my point.
Sexuality is biological, not political. You're making it political by accusing 'white cis' people of intolerance because your upper class imposed ideology that weaponizes other people's sexuality.
LGBT would skew the numbers up I'd imagine. As a relatively unattractive bisexual man, I get quite literally a 100 times more attention from men on dating apps.
I'd believe it. That's the one demo group that wasn't told to not have lots of sex and casual hookup values were prominent even before the internet and all that.
This old Porno for Pyros video is about that a little bit.
https://youtu.be/qd4sjkPBIC4
My pastor told us about how the younger kids never talked before confirmation meetings, "most beautiful intelligent girls" and not talking. I remember back in HS the tail end of my schooling was really when the digital revolution was hitting its stride and there was a hell of a lot less talking. Everyone just looking at screens. Teachers didn't mind it - less talking. It was kind of depressing though for me since school was the only time I listened to people talk(very asocial).
Why is this âopposite sex partnersâ? I think this number would drastically shrink if this was revised to âsex partnerâ in general. Also, including 18 - 20 year olds is just weird. Lots of people donât have sex for a year or two and it doesnât really mean anything significant.
So, you are telling me that there is a chance after 30. hurray!
before dating apps only dudes that are 4 and below were incels and even some of them could score.
tindr turned 6s and below into incels becuase 4-6 females only date 7-9 guys now
Does this imply that the non-virgin guys are hooking up at greater than 1:1 male:female ratios?
This should be hyper concerning for people. Sexual intercourse is a major player in mental health. This probably explains a lot more than the simple dataset shows.
Lads, get into the gym.
It will literally impact every single aspect of your life. You will become more confident just by being higher in the actual food chain. You will become more social because you go into public 3x a week (I literally never remove my headphones at the gym.) You will become more desirable because of the attractiveness muscles visually provide, the confidence that comes with gains, and the devotion keeping good health demonstrates.
I go to the gym between 1-5x a week just depending on whether it's bulking or cutting season and I've been doing this since I was 14. People ask how I'm so confident and it comes not just from knowing that 99% of the time I'm the strongest dude in the room but because lifting is meditative and gives you time to reflect on yourself in order to be more accepting of where you are in life.
Women donât NEED men anymoreâŠ. Thatâs gotta be a huge driverâŠ
It's quite the opposite, men realized that it's just not worth their time to be in a relationship.
Both genders "thought" they noticed its not worth investing in a relationship ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States
Naw it's that top men are taking all the women but not marrying them
This graph is r/suddenlygay when you think about it :)
It's a bit misleading since there is only a single data point that suggest a siginficant difference between the sexes.
I counted at least 10 data points where men were 50% higher.
I count 8 that might be about 50% higher.
Out of 17(?) highly fluctuating data points thats not very significant. Expecially if there are multiple data points where women are higher.
Just imagine the graph without the last data point.
idk man, feel like you could easily get a P<0.05 from those averages.
I'm no expert, but I doubt that's the the point, considering there are 5 data points with women > men.
Don't get me wrong. I don't doubt that the percentage is higher for men in average. But over all the time maybe around 20%. What I am aiming for is that the latest data point alone is not sufficient for marking a parting development for both graphs. That seems more like a 'felt truth'.
Okay, that's pure coincidence, but THAT's what I was talking about ;)
I just checked the source and realized that the data base of this particular graph are around 100 individuals, which is very low and might explain the stark fluctuations.
In 20 years 50% of men will be incels
Yes which is very worrying. If your a woman or anyone with power you should be worried. This is what happens when the child is ignored the warmth of the village too long.
If your a woman or anyone with power you should be worried.
Why? Violence inevitably gets directed at poor males.
I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but you literally did a "men are suffering, women most affected" kind of comment lol. Male suicide rates are off the charts. That's the main and most worrying effect of this.
[removed]
Dating as a young man is definitely more challenging than dating as a young woman.
Women have quantity but no quality.
Men have none.
*on average (or I guess I should say median), in the western world
In western societies I definitely agree with this point. Unless you are tall, good looking, rich man. Then world is your playground in western society.
With great power comes great responsibility
[removed]
So a woman has more power when it comes to lying, cheating, and fucking. Wow great argument.
95% of alimony payers are men, men get longer sentences for the same crime, and in general get more empathy. I can go on, but i'll stop here.
[deleted]
Do you mind posting the source? I would like to learn more about it.
Also what do you think about "\~80% of women initiate divorce" meme? Is it because women are evil or could there be something more to it?
I didn't really think about it to be honest. I just knew that 80% of divorces are initiated by women and that's it.
Women have to raise the child and that's also why they get more empathy. They get shorter sentences because women commit crimes far less than men so men are over-represented and punished harsher in response when you account for things like prior convictions.
Women have to raise the child and that's also why they get more empathy.
I wasn't really talking about women with kids specifically, but okay. Weird how fathers don't get the same treatment.
They get shorter sentences because women commit crimes far less than men
Ah so because of prejudice, got it.
They favor women because of the maternal bond from being in their womb for 9 months. And seeing these laws as man vs woman is dumb, it's to strengthen the entire family. Contract of marriage. Call it prejudice if you want but the sexes are inherently different.
It says report so could sentiment about lack of sex have changed enough for people to be more open about reporting 0 partners?
Individuals under age 30?? Thatâs a pretty big spread. What if they just asked a bunch of 19 year olds? Tell me its people over 30 and Iâll start worrying about whoâs going to keep floating my pension plan
Well if they asked the same age distribution every survey, say 8% for each year, then it wouldnât matter and the trend would still show a huge uptick recently. Now if they surveyed more 19 year olds recently than in previous years then this data is useless
For men itâs video games, obesity, online dating competition(you have to compete with every handsome guy in a 100 mile radius, it used to be your city.) that explains the gap women have access to more men. In any market youâre going to pick the top choices.
Stagnate wages and career prospects make it harder to be a âproviderâ, also culling your prospects. When men canât compete they just drop out and statistically we see it happening in droves.higher suicide rates and drug abuse.
Apathetic males are never good for society as they cause political turmoil, weaker military and overreacting government(sounds familiar).
Weâre currently in the last stages of civilization, the next step is massive immigration to offset the low birth rate, the immigrants bring chaos because they donât share the countryâs values. We get weak and taken over by stronger opponents globally. Rinse and repeat.
Itâs the digital life. Itâs how Japan has been for years. I assume Korea also, but havenât been there.
Is this a study about bisexuality or sexual experimentation? Or about loneliness? If itâs the latter, why is the âopposite sexâ data specifically relevant?
At first I thought the data was about how more adults are comfortably LGBT. Why was the data restricted to only opposite sex sexual partners?
Cause theyâve been asking the same question forever and if they change it theyâll have to reset their trend line.
Why only opposite sex? Itâs so odd because I canât tell any useful information from this as I have no idea what percentage of these people might be gay or bisexual with same sex partners.
Static over time. About 3-5%.
In 2021 polls Iâm seeing 5.6% in America. I personally suspect this doesnât account for many who donât admit to being gay or might be bisexual. Regardless, itâs still just odd OPs poll was only for opposite sex related info.
Is this loneliness or gayness
From someone who fits into this category, loneliness. Iâm part of an organization of about 60 dudes, less than a quarter have gfâs. Maybe more are engaging in hookups, and some are gay. But most of us just keep our heads down and focus on our classes and work. Iâve seen men accused of sexual assault, get title IXâd out of the org, arrested for this, that, and the other. For most of us itâs just not worth it. My old gf and I never went that far in two years, she just said she wasnât ready yet, and I respected her. Consent is important and I wasnât about to force her into anything! But I do kind of feel like that 2.5 year relationship was wasted. But why put forth that much effort into anything? When she broke up with me, she even told me that she didnât have a reason. She just wanted to be single. So now, almost a year later, Iâm just sad and alone.
It's useless because it could mean that over the years:
1) we went lonely or
2) we went gay or
3) we became more open about saying we're gay or
4) a combination of any of the above.
They down voted gay Jesus because he told them the truth.
I doubt enough people went gay to make too large of a difference
LGB make up 17% of Gen z.
Hmm maybe it is important then
So basically women all banging Chad while Chad can't find Karen? Really sad graph
I had a girlfriend and after we broke up I just cbf, I donât see the point investing time in a relationship when itâs going to end. I instead just invested in myself (gym, knowledge, profession etc). And I found Iâm more satisfied without putting all that effort into women.
[deleted]
the actual number of LGBT people may not be higher, but the number comfortable with saying they're LGBT definitely is
Since overall the LGBT community is still a really small part of the overall population they AT BEST could explain 3% increase but not 20%.
This seems directly related to the quality and availability of internet pornz.
This doesnât turn upward until after 2008 and there was plenty of internet porn around by then.
There was but in the last ten years the Hub websites have made it easier to find studio porn than any other media on the internet, tv or movies or whatever
[deleted]
You donât need a house to bone in. I saw two homeless people having sex behind a dumpster once
[deleted]
Thatâs where creativity comes in my man. Itâs not that hard to hurdle those cock blocks. Where thereâs a will thereâs a way
Shared house? I've not lived at home for 8 years since I turned 18, fuck living at home even if it makes you poor I couldn't do it
You know that you can rent an apartment and still get it on right?
[deleted]
How is having roommates a hurdle? You get your own room if youre not paying out the ass for a college dorm
Correlation does not equal causation
Just a reminder
I canât believe I had to scroll this far down to see this answer. This has a TON to do with itâŠI would argue itâs the leading cause, in fact.
I would agree with you that porn is a part of this. Widespread availability and acceptance have been to men's detriment.
How so?
We are looking at a chart with an increasing number of men between the ages of 18 and 30 reporting having no sexual partners with the gap rising towards the end. With the rise of a generation raised with widespread access to porn, it seems intuitive that it has had an effect on men's ability to have sex with real live women. When your first exposure to sex is through pornography it sets a very unrealistic idea of what sex is supposed to be like and how you relate to women. Anecdotally, I can see how some men my age interact with me in a way that is very pornified.
I am not saying this is the only reason, but I think it is a contributing factor as to why the gap between men and women becomes increasingly pronounced and the total percentages rises as time goes on. I think it would be a bit naive to think that the mainstreaming of pornography would have no social consequences.
Other than an "intuitive", essemtialist argument, do you have anything to back up your position?
Most men are too busy. They donât have time finding a partner.
I'm here to support you in life and in your struggles, but a painting in a pastiche of blame without analysis isn't therapeutic for either of us.
You don't know me and you certainly aren't here to support me. You want to argue with me because you don't like my opinion. I stated why I think what I think. If you would like to explore the topic more there are plenty of sources out there about porn and its effects.
[deleted]
I'm actually quite well-read on trauma and its effect, but that isn't what we are talking about here. What you are doing is called concern trolling and really just deflecting that I said something you don't like and that you are not informed on so you want to debate the debate. As I said, there is plenty of peer-reviewed research on porn and its effects, but instead, you are here lecturing at me that I could only have this opinion because of trauma and not because there is a widespread cultural impact of pornography that I as an individual can also observe. If you were actually interested in the topic and exploring it you would, but you don't and I can't really help you.
[deleted]
Dafuq? Pompous troll get the fuck outta here.
But why should one view it in a negative light, on the other hand, because of the availability of porn, and it being the same equivalent as sex, men can fulfill there primal urge to procreate alot simpler, letting them focus on other things and achieve them, instead of always just focusing on procreation.
You can choose to view it that way if you want.
Not really. Internet porn was available easily in early 2000s without any hurdles. The spike here is 2018ish.
graphs sample is born in 1990>>puberty around 2000-05>>smart phones become ubiquitous 2010-15.
Porn has always been part of life in one form or another but the millennial and genZ generations are the first of their kind to come of age with it literally in their back pocket. No research has been done on the psycho/social effect that may have going forward. People casually dismissing this out of hand here are not thinking it through.
I didn't realize so many married young...
This has nothing to do with marriage. This is either just relationships or sex, it isn't that clear.
j/k if not obvious (evidently not obvious)
The question phrased it as a "sexual relationship".
Whatever that means precisely was up to the individual being surveyed.
Which means that my original statement is still correct. It could still either be sex or relationships. In fact itâs even less clear because respondents could have taken it either way.
Then that is a terrible polling question. Good polling questions leave out ambiguity.
How could you interpret this as anything other than just sex?
It feels scary, something large and fundamental is happening.
And birth rate was already dropping before that, looking at this stat it is only the beginning.
The birth rate dropping is a good thing. And why does it feel scary? People not wanting to fuck you isnât the end of the world, itâs not like you are owed sex
The birth rate dropping is a good thing. And why does it feel scary? People not wanting to fuck you isnât the end of the world, itâs not like you are owed sex
Birth rate dropping can be catastrophic, because the productive population will drop fast and the dependant population will increase (by ratio).
Less and less peoples have to support more and more dependant peoples, on a large scale it is an unavoidable slide into severe poverty for everyone.
I'm wondering how much is related to the internet making it easier for people to come out young. I came out as lesbian in the early years of the internet when there were a few resources but not the huge communities that now exist. I have to wonder if I'd had the support network, would I have slept with a guy in an attempt to force myself to be straight?
I'm wondering how much is related to the internet making it easier for people to come out young
Considering gays and lesbians represent about 3% of the population, it can't be more than 3%, so... not much related. It's pretty far from the 7% increase for women and 20% increase for men.
The same survey found a much higher number of 20-somethings with exclusively same-sex partners.
Bisexuals make up to roughly 20% of the population, so it's not that far-fetched to assume it's a factor.
Surveys on same-sex relations and same-sex attraction aren't all giving the same answer depending on the year and country, but they definitely all have something in common : bisexuals do not make up 20% of the population.
Most surveys give a result of around 10% of people having already had same-sex relations and around 5% of people being attracted to the same sex as theirs, and that's including gays and lesbians.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation
According to the LGBT+ Pride Global Survey 2021, roughly 19% of people globally report bisexuality to some degree, and 31% of Gen Z report bisexuality to some degree. https://www.ipsos.com/en/lgbt-pride-2021-global-survey-points-generation-gap-around-gender-identity-and-sexual-attraction
That's sad. Everyone needs and deserves sexual intimacy and connection.
[removed]
But itâs a two way street. Both individuals need each other. I donât see how gender plays a role here.
Women don't really have issues finding sexual intimacy. Tinder exists.
Thatâs not intimacy. Thatâs satisfying a biological need yes, but not intimacy and deeply connecting someone. Those are fun yes, but empty after.
Fair, but even still, there are tons of men on Tinder that want a loving relationship. They just tend to be less physically attractive. And the other problem is that lonely women refuse to date lonely men, because they find the loneliness itself unattractive. So even if you look good enough to land a first date, good luck meeting her standards.
Nobody deserves sexual intimacy, sure itâs good but what have you done to deserve it?
Deserve? Nothing. The need for sexual intimacy is biological and inherent. Itâs not something we take, but share with another person that feels and desires the same thing.
Asexuals and aromantics have entered the chat @ your biological reductionism.
The most worrying thing in this thread is the amount of people who feel they are entitled to love and sex.
If the young lonely men become violent when they do not get what they are not entitled to, then the young lonely men are the problem. Not the women. Not anyone else. Nobody is entitled to have sex or even be in a relationship. It's also not that necessary for everyone.
To argue otherwise is to excuse this rancid behavior.
Outliers aside, most humans have a biological need to share love and sexual intimacy with another person. You are also misconstruing the difference between deserve and entitlement. Everyone deserves to satisfy this biological need with another human as long as there is reciprocity. They are not entitled to take it. Love is not something you take or buy.
Yes, but that sentiment is not being shown in this thread. The current sentiment is just bitterness and entitlement.
Also, they're not really outliers. Not extreme anyway. When you're making statements about biology you must include us all. Asexuals and aromantics are up to 5% of the population - and growing.
Yeah, I see your POV. Lots of "neckbeards" and incels checking in. I did not know such a large percentage of people identify as asexual. My understanding was it was at 1% or less and that it was considered rare.
Like others have stated, it's rapidly growing as is LGBTQIA+ identification as a whole in the younger population.
The current estimate for asexuals is 1%, but that is rapidly ballooning into 5% (about the same as homosexual people). When you break it down into gender identity there's even more curious statistics, such as a large portion of these absorbing the others like asexuals being likely aromantic and agender (hi) in addition. Young folk are tired of the societal norms. Young folk who would previously never question heterosexuality are gaining the ability to. By all means it's still rare but there's still lots of mini fractures and pockets within the whole of "heterosexuality" as a whole even if they don't adopt the labels. Recall that this field is quite new as acceptance has been pushed down for the past few hundred years. Speaking as someone within the younger adult highly educated community, this is reflected within my peers for sure.
Some people just aren't really interested in sex. Especially not dangerous, casual sex. Some of these people still have a libido but they prefer masturbating. Frankly, it is healthier that way for the individual than it is to be violent towards other people. It is the societal norm of forced coupling that must die.
It's evolve or die time, and it seems a lot of (bitter) people would rather die. It's a transitory period for certain. Inceldom and other neckbeardy mentalities are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better. Luckily we have a large portion of people who are not okay with such an "uprising" to mediate things. You can't put a genie back in the bottle.
This is why we have academics that criticize "toxic masculinity" and such. It is not "masculinity" that is the problem but the dying patriarchal throes of it. This is hopefully its last breath. I'm grey romantic and ace and I refuse to date on principle because of the dangers of it. Frankly, why would I spend time around people who think they are entitled to my body and that they are superior to me? Why would any person do so? Is it really that shocking? It seems to me that people thinking they are entitled to sex and love are the problem. Heterosexual men often think that way because it was shoved down their throats. They need to be deprogrammed. It isn't exclusive to heterosexual men either but you see the statistics here.
Nobody wants to be around a violent, bitter person. This is a LONELINESS epidemic, that affects us all. This is not the fault of social media. This is not the fault of women. This is loneliness spurring mentally unwell behavior, and toxic masculinity that reinforces said unwell behavior that forces people further into the pipeline.
What have all the women who do nothing but exist and look pretty, and are inundated with options, done to deserve it? Why do men have to earn love and affection while women get it easily just for existing?
People who think this are just straight up mean.
You donât deserve human connection, bigot.
I may be dumb but it took me a long time and reading through a bunch of comments before I realized this graph was charting virgins over 18 and under 30. âZero opposite sex sexual partners=heterosexual virgins over 18 and under 30 from 1989-2018.â
More young people are identifying as LGBT than ever. That certainly doesn't mean they couldn't have had an opposite-sex sexual experience, but I would guess that detail could have at least a small effect on these statistics. Interesting nonetheless.
I mean the study specifies it does not include same sex. So LGBT people are automatically excluded from this and thus is taken out of the equation completely.
Well, LG people are presumably mostly excluded from it (although maybe not entirely), but BT people are still in
I mean not quite. They are being counted as "sexless" so it will skew stats a bit.
Not much in the end, as it overall a very small portion of the general population
Ah, I didn't see the comment stating that, only the info available on the graph.
[removed]
I wonder if people are down voting because they assume some trans-phobic slant to my comment. PFAS poisoning is literally a thing that affects one's reproductive development.
VERY rudimentary info For those who don't know their biology; everyone starts off female and those destined for dongs gradually develop them 4ish weeks (can't be bothered to look it up) into fetus development. PFAS and other chemicals can screw with the timeline of that process which has profound consequences for ones body later.
i.e. Males with severely inhibited testosterone levels do to underdeveloped testes etc.
I was going to come here to say this, itâs the safest itâs ever been to be out, why some queer people are excluded from this study are beyond me.
It's much easier to get sex as a gay guy than a straight guy.
We all know, the boys and the girls ain't doin it.
Why opposite sex partners and not just sexual partners? Surely if this is to attain a gauge of people in sexual relationships, it's skewing the data massively?
It could just be that all the recorded percentage were not heterosexual?
There's not an easy answer for this, but i think the rise of social media is partly to blame. That and the fact that people have become much more selective.
Hopefully because people are gay and not because theyâre lonely
There is always about 3-4% of the population that is only attracted to the same sex. You could only claim that less bisexual men are living strictly heterosexual lifes.
Why do you make it only âoppositeâ sex partners. That obviously skews the data and is a bit socially biased
When did this survey start and why is it impossible to change the questions years afterwards?
Percentage of homosexuals is low enough not to Makena significant difference to the results
Could not be more untrue. Gallup data estimates 6% of adults identify as gay and that doesnât take into account the massive amount of people that are still in the closet
Sure but I would consider that low compared to the 27% of men in that graph. Also doesn't come close to accounting for the different between men and women
So this measures adults not having sex and gay people in the same statistic?... Why?
This is a genuine problem. A small % of those young men will become radicalized into incels and we have seen how they are willing to commit terrible violence. We need to find ways to get people interacting better. I think that this is rooted in people spending all day on screens.
Average men is not enough for average women anymore when she can set up dates or more with guys through social media or online dating apps. Men become tthen either simps trying to be that guy friend or bitter. It's a vicious circle. Not focusing on women and nkt watch porn is a must. Man can get lust under control and it benefits him.
I think weâre turning Japanese⊠stagnation, isolation, suicide, decline.
So are they gay or virgins?
mostly virgins
Tbh this is not framed well. A person who is "under age 30" and who hasn't had sex since they turned 18 could be 18.2 years old and fit the parameters of this survey. Not having sex for a few months isn't very interesting.
Would have been a lot more meaningful if they polled 30-year olds, plus or minus a year to get more data, on whether they had had sex in the past 12 years.
I wish they would have separated individuals under 30 who report zero "opposite sex sexual partners" and "sexual partners." Like how much of this data reflects a cultural shift toward gender fluidity and acceptance of the LGBTQ community?
Agree, this graph isnt as insightful without that information and it's specific "opposite sex" distinction. No idea what it's trying to say.
So, most are either gay or celibate?
most are involuntary celibate if we are talking about men
thxs to internet and tinder like apps, where random not so good looking women overevaluate themselves and snob ramdom men from their league while trying to fish in the upper leagues where extremely good looking guy are going to use them as plan B or C or even D and throw them away... then they'll complain how men are all horrible people.
What if youâre gay?
Iâve had sexual partners, just none of the opposite sex.
Why are the men so much worse off, in the later years?
Social media and dating apps allow women to be more selective.
A 21yr old college male can offer a dinner and movie to a similarily aged female.
A 32yr old male can offer her a trip to the Bahamas or a weekend out on a yacht.
Which would you choose.
What 32 year olds have a yacht? Rich kid with a windfall?
So it's not only boomers fault now - it's also millenials'. Those damn millenials and their yachts!
Rich "guy" trolling for college girls.
Some people are saying loneliness, online, etc.
But its also gay acceptance so more gay people are just not having any experience w the opposite sex
Gay marriage legalized in 2013, when this graph coincidentally goes up
[removed]
So did monogamy stop being enforced in 2008?
First of all, you donât read from the bottom, you should read where the average starts to deviate. Tinder was created in 2012, looks like it tracks pretty well. Itâs the point where men and women stop tracking together and both numbers go way out of wack with the old baseline.
Sure, Iâm sympathetic to the view that online dating leaves many people feeling alienated. The medium through which you communicate will affect whatâs being communicated and the behaviors attached.
But if weâre talking about status, surely economic factors are going to be bigger drivers here. A digitally mediated âsexual marketplaceâ is just going to accelerate trends. Following the big financial crash, you have more kids living at home, inequality has increased, social mobility has slowed, and smartphones and social media exploded. Iâm a little older and the younger people I work with seem eminently more pragmatic and financially conscious in the way they go about structuring their lives compared to a lot of my own cohort, because they have to be.
Ironically some of the more traditional values that people like Peterson like so much, would emphasise status even more.
Yes, there's a lot baked into my very simple connection of Tinder to the trend. A market had to exist for Tinder to be popular, and it would accelerate the trend as youre saying.
Culturally enforced monogamy has nothing to do with enforcing it with law or anything like that, it just means stigmatizing non-monogamous behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf3Eub1Hvhs
A crisis happened and forced everyone to work, once people were getting out of it, tinder and its competitors started appearing in 2012, the moment people got the time to meet others they did vy an algorithm that basically made the most beatiful people have a line at their door to meet.
We did stop enforcing it with an iron fist way before that, but never gave a convenient way to bipass it until them
I'm astounded that people don't get this as well. I knew this and I don't even really pay attention to Peterson. Is someone who minored in sociology and majored in social work it was interesting to observe the contrasting opinions of both courses of study. Took a lot of gender studies classes where it was typically in very angry purple-haired lesbian preaching white males where the epitome of cultural destruction while in social work we focused on family systems theory and basically literature that proves exactly what Peterson talks about is true. I'm telling you gender studies programs with these very very very extreme individuals are going to be the downfall of society.
Lol the Jordan peterson fanbase makes up a lot of this statistic for men and Iâm not even making a joke
How is monogamy to be enforced? Is it pure monogamy, where you can only have a single sexual partner for your entire life and that's it. Is it serial monogamy, where you are only allowed to be romantically/sexually involved with one person at a time? Cause despite the fears of Peterson and his following, polyamory isn't really that prevelant right now.
Culturally enforced monogamy has nothing to do with physical force, its about making it the cultural norm. It doesn't mean you have to "Come out as poly" to be non-monogamous. Every man with 3 different baby-mommas and their counter-part are part of the counter culture trend, and the fact that i can say those nonsense words and you know what I am talking about is an indicator that the trend exists.
It already is a cultural norm
Dude why would both women and men be on the rise then? Also it takes a bit of audacity to think that everyone is entitled to a sexual relationship and even infringe others right to be in a kind of consensual relationship.
So he suggests that prevalence of polygamy, short term relationships etc. turns men violent (i found this suggestion a bit disturbing and misogynist but anyway) and harms the children. But i could not understand how the enforced monogamy he describes will solve this problem. Like, does he suggests adultery should be illegal and people should be intolerant about it? But not all adultery is "chads sleeping with women"
Culturally enforced monogamy has nothing to do with physical force, its about making it the cultural norm. It doesn't mean you have to "Come out as poly" to be non-monogamous. Every man with 3 different baby-mommas and their counter-part are part of the counter culture trend, and the fact that i can say those nonsense words and you know what I am talking about is an indicator that the trend exists.
You said these in another comment. Do you think such relationships are common at all? Legit asking because i don't quite know.
It's not that short term relationships directly turn men violent. It's that when all the partnering becomes concentrated at the top of a status structure, low class men will become violent to upend the status structure. Sexual reproduction is the number 1 thing on any biological organism's mind whether they like it or not. Part of being fulfilled is reproducing.
Enforced monogamy forces partnering structures to be more distributed. Are people with children from 2 different marriages or relationships common? normalized at the very least? yes. Should we shun single mothers? no, but we should shame deadbeat dads and women who cheat, etc. Glorifying single mother hood, in some ways, gets men off the hook for their part in all of it. Glorifying rap and hood culture and broken homes perpetuates it. In the past the same debate was framed as "the destruction of the nuclear family".
It's something that's been going on for more than 30 years. Just a week ago there was a mom on the front page of reddit in some tiktok video bragging about her 3 different baby daddies, and another man who was posted as sleeping with 3 generations of women from the same family. Even if the stories arent true, it's being shown to people and normalized. Even if most people don't like it, there is a trend of toxic positivity that tells people you can't judge others for how they live, even if its batshit insane. So many people are falling victim to it, and in the end we all suffer for it together. Being aware of it and understanding what it is actually going on is important. This graph shows that those tiktok trends are indicative of reality.
I think women have changed a lot but men have not. They haven't caught up with them. Maybe men focusing on their careers and not really caring about women (MGTOW) will become a thing just like women are doing right now.
Jordan Peterson should not be taken seriously about anything. That guy is a joke
Logical Fallacy #1: Ad Hominem
Jordan Peterson is a pseudointellectual who makes wild claims which misinterpret or ignore data. When you say "monogamy," do you mean you have a problem with polygamy or with people sleeping around? Because polygamy is quite uncommon in the US, and certainly doesn't account for this issue.
And there is no evidence that suggests people having more partners causes this either. I would imagine having sex with more people would decrease these numbers, actually...
Yes, JP is the pseudointellectual, you of course are the real deal.
You are of course ignoring my argument...
And yes, JP is a pseudointellectual. He makes all kinds of big claims about society and how it works, without providing much of any logical reasoning, and scarcely does he provide data which actually has proven causation, and not just correlation.
No offense, I definitley believe him over you. I mean, that much should be obvious no?
Or you can think for yourself and don't believe a random redditor or the lobster man that tells you to clean your room
True true
Find it weird how you say, "believe him" not agree with him.
Ignoring my opinion on the man, it's so culty the way people talk about him
Believe his credentials. And what he says, albeit not all, makes sense to me. I never understood how so many people hate him. And its not even the transgender bill thing he did, people legit hate himnfor saying stuff like be a better version of yourself.
I dislike him because if you actually look at what he says, he takes 2 minutes to say what could be said in 20s, because he has so much unneeded info in every sentence that means effectively nothing.
Because of that it just becomes exhausting listening to him, I dont need someone patting their own ego to show how smart they are, I would rather they get to the point.
Add to that his stalwart opinions on social change, where his opinions on multiple debates can be summed up as usually, it's worse in other countries so we should focus on them before bettering ourselves, it makes him come across as overly conservative, not in the political sense of the word.
I dislike him because if you actually look at what he says, he takes 2 minutes to say what could be said in 20s, because he has so much unneeded info in every sentence that means effectively nothing.
That... okay, some people like to be thorough with answering? I don't know I can't get behind that. Sometimes you can say stuff in 20 seconds, sometimes you have to elaborate. I just kind of appreaciate it if they go out their way to be precise in what they mean.
Because of that it just becomes exhausting listening to him, I dont need someone patting their own ego to show how smart they are, I would rather they get to the point.
Okay, I guess you see it as some sort of flex. I don't see it that way.
Add to that his stalwart opinions on social change, where his opinions on multiple debates can be summed up as usually, it's worse in other countries so we should focus on them before bettering ourselves, it makes him come across as overly conservative, not in the political sense of the word.
I mean, yeah, a lot of it can be interpreted as we have it better than others. People make that argument all the time, still holds true. The difference is what you take from that fact.
The fact that you won't mentally jump over the hurdle of putting non-monogamy and self-labeled polygamy into the same boat without requiring it to be spelled out shows you arent genuinely interested.
Is someone with 3 children from three different mothers but ZERO wives polygamous or non-monogamous? Is someone with 0 children and 2 wives both? Be better.
Is someone with 3 children from three different mothers but ZERO wives polygamous or non-monogamous? Is someone with 0 children and 2 wives both? Be better.
We can both play this game and create anecdotal scenarios. Point is, that JP claims these things are related, but that's all he does. His points rely on the listener using anecdotal evidence to back up HIS claim. That's (probably) why u/TheGoldenChampion referred to him as a pseudointellectual.
theyre not anecdotal scenarios theyre real anthropological scenarios and thats how you study society. You can't run controlled double blind studies on civilizations and social structures, thats how you get the stanford prison experiment. You know just enough to know nothing.
I don't know where you get your information but I can assure you you're more on point than many know. I'm an individual who was born with a disability and forced to live in communities where social structures were exactly as you described. Women with multiple kids that have never even met their dads more than once. It was so disturbing I decided to pack up and go to university to learn what in the hell is really going on.
anthropological scenarios
examples in the study of humans? how does that make any sense? You probably were trying, and failing, to say that the social sciences aren't based on empirical data. Which just isn't true for the most part.
Sociology can be real science, if you accept that society's ills are much more complex than "Hurr, durr, social degradation". That's why JP is a pseudoscientist. He has some good ideas, but he is a picture perfect example of a 21st century social media intellectual.
No, thatâs not what I was saying, but Iâm done talking to you. You wonât understand and itâs because you choose not to. I can barely comprehend what youâre trying to say other than that you believe youâre smarter than Jordan Peterson while adding nothing to the discussion.
It's clear from the conversation so far that "you don't understand it" is your way of saying "you don't just blindly nod along and want an actual conversation, so I'm bailing".
Facts don't care about your feelings-based pseudoscience.
If you donât get bitches just say that
It's so wild to head off the mischaracterization of incels, the people shown on this graph in large part, and have it done immediately in response as a weapon.
Wow your phrasing needs some work. I wouldn't expect anything more from someone who follows the dude who put himself in an induced coma in Russia and killed off half his brain.
The real issue is entitlement. The 27% and the 17% don't want to have sex with each other because they believe they should be sleeping with prom queens and chads.
Yes, no one wants to settle and find a partner, they believe they deserve to be the multi-partner chad youre talking about. That culture is encouraged.
[removed]
Childless unmarried women are the happiest demographic actually.
Thats according to a man who calls himself a happiness expert and why would he know hes a man! I'd rather trust a survey of over 500+ people: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/high-octane-women/201109/meet-the-least-happy-people-in-america
Depends on the location, not so much here.
So much everywhere
This guy has lots of sex and respects women
I'm just willing to state the obvious when I see a growing problem within our society. It is also just an opinion. If you don't value that opinion or what other people have to say then fine, say nothing. Its better than being sarcastic.
Itâs as if ~~Millennials~~ Gen Z now know the consequences of having sex as teens and raising their own kids, all while Baby Boomers have destroyed the financial futures of their own lives.
I'd bet if you expanded the criteria to zero 'long-term' opposite sex partners the proportion would be even higher. Plenty people my age hook up and whatever, but very few find themselves in good healthy relationships for more than say a month.
Too busy on social media I bet.
Well speaking purely at a personal level, I look at girls and I see the sharpie tattooed eyebrows, hot dog lips, dead straw hair and face/insta/whatever addiction and I think nah, someone will come along..
And people scoff when I say itâs easier for chicks to get laid.
If anyone looks at historical statistics, this is bad. When there are lonely unmarried makes(lots of them), collapse of society is right around tbe corner. Crime increases, sexual assault, rape and etc increases. The world is going to get a whole lot nastier in several years, there is very little reason to date. I was kids, but who can afford kids, otherwise it's just a waste of time I could be using to put into myself.
Tough to connect when everyone just staring at their phones
That's been said through history. Before phones it was television, before that radio, newspaper, books, chess
My mom grew up at the very end of the "books are bad for children" time. She had restricted book time. You just can not imagine that today, now it is seen as the greatest thing ever when a child would spend time with something as uninspiring and boring as a story book.
Not sure why it's limited to opposite sex sexual partners?
Without a frame of reference it could be (mis)interpreted a few ways.
Really needs something like excluding same sex attracted people from your sample, or extra lines for zero any sexual partners to get any meaning.
Really needs something like excluding same sex attracted people from your sample
that would only be a bit over 1% for each gender
Yeah I get that is probably irrelevant, but then don't be part of the dataset
I always thought it would be similar, quite shocked that men have higher rates, any factors that affect rates would love to know. Great infographic op!
Attractive men have lots of sex. Attractive and ugly women have medium amount of sex. Ugly men have no sex.
It's all prearranged marriges where I'm from, but we also have an unemployment crisis and abysmal freedom and human rights, no drugs no weed no alcohol no clubs. So it's impossible for me no matter how good looking, smart and kind I am. I need a job and a lot of money before I even get qualified to see a female. I feel worse than a cow eating, shitting and sleeping... at least animals can fuxk. The best I got was chatting with a girl online from another country. It was not a relationship we just talked we never even exchanged nudes or anything sexual. It's just very heartbreaking to age as a poor kissless hugless virgin.
curious to know how many are obese.
That is insane and very surprising.
Maybe people are becoming more honest? The internet has surfaced many things that used to be hidden, there is way less fear of being judged. For years I had that feeling of being the "village's only loser" , and now I see, now many good people living around me with the same goals and problems that I have.
I remember reading articles pre-OLD that talked about how college/uni educated women were facing a shortage of equally educated men due to more women being in college/uni than men.
How the turns tabled.
Iâm going to guess easy access to porn has something to do with it but idk
We had easy access to porn waaaay before 2008. I think porn consumption should more be seen as a symptom instead of cause.
So we're all getting gayer.
Half joke but this isn't a terribly useful visual on its own
Hopefully most of these people are gay and having lots of sex.
Hasn't the percentage of people participating in sexual activity decreased in the same amount of time?
Are all the people sexually active?
Thanks smart phones/ social media.
It says âopposite sexâ partners, so I wonder if the rise is at least partly because youth are now more comfortable coming out as gay and finding same sex partners earlier.
Thats how homosexuality works, yes.
How do we know people aren't just lying less on surveys now? Just random food for thought.
Iâm someone who enjoys face to face conversationâno thatâs not old fashionedâhaving to constantly be online posting shit so that ppl can like me is irritating. Even as an extrovert, making new friends isnât easy nowadays. I wonder if all the shit in social media has killed peoples trustworthiness of others. What people donât see is that viral shit is only part of a small percentage of posts. I want to believe that most people are fucking normal still but just not as friendly.
Video games. The answer is video games.
When living with your parents until 26 becomes normalized this will happen.
Result of people using mostly apps and sites to date. No body talks anymore.
Well, that explains the riots and looting.
It says zero OPPOSITE SEX sexual partners - so these numbers going up could mean that more people are free to be with people of the same sex, not just that there are more virgins.
like 3% of people are gay
This seems like a kinda useless sample. Since it specifically says opposite sex sexual partners, the graph could indicate an increase in loneliness among heterosexual people, OR an increase in the amount of gay/asexual people there are. Since there's no distinction between the two, it's pretty bad for drawing conclusions about anything.
Youâre saying homosexuality and asexuality came anywhere close to doubling for men? Seems unlikely to me, but if thatâs true then itâs evidence that sexuality can be nurtured.
I'm not saying that it implies anything specific. I'm saying the graph can't imply anything because it's too vague. If anything, it might imply both at the same time, but you can't verify that because of the way it's phrased.
but if that's true then it's evidence that sexuality can be nurtured.
Here is a graph showing the history of left handedness in America.
Excellent and relevant graph. I donât think it necessarily disproves that sexuality can be nurtured, but it does cast some doubt on my prior point.
Iâm gonna put in a bit of an edgy hot take here that a few percentage of this is the increased importance of consent. You have quite a bit less of frat dudes borderline forcing themselves on women so they can no longer be in that 27%.
Um....I don't think it's the frat bros lack of raping that is contributing to this.
It's people being given every excuse possible to lock themselves out from the world.
I think thatâs the primary factor yes. I guess I should rephrase the question.
I am curious to what extent the greater emphasis on consent and the backlash against rape culture has caused a certain reprehensible sub population to lose their virginity at a later age. My initial (I.e. no evidence) guess is that it might be 1-3%.
I was just curious what other peopleâs estimates might be for that number. Because, assuming that our efforts to increase awareness of sexual assault have had any impact, it should be a nonzero impact.
Lol, that shit is so seldom and infrequent that it would likely have zero impact on this data.
I know people these days like to pretend everyone is a sexual predator, but that's not the case at all.
I somewhat agree. Nowadays, it's rightfully a lot less common to have sex in alcohol and drug infused situations. 20+ years ago, that was basically the way most people got laid. Things like one night stands where the woman doesn't even remember what happened or who it was with, making it rape, were a lot more common and casual back then. "Frat dude" culture was also a problem too, a lot of dudes abusing their positions of power.
Don't like 20% of people under 30 today identify as LGBTQ?
I would expect a surge of happy, content, "out" lesbians and gay men to correlate directly with a rise in the number who have had zero opposite sex partners.
Oh but wait, I see it can't be due to that, it must be due to doom and awfulness.
Fucking internet.
recent surveys put the actual percentage of people who identify as LGBTQ around 5%, but in terms of who is actually gay, meaning they have relations w/same sex partners, the number is closer to 2%. queer/bisexual people skew the statistics by a large amount, so "LGBTQ" as a whole has no real meaning when it comes to how people actually choose partners, with like 99% of people who identified as bisexual ending up with an opposite sex spouse eventually. i expect we'll see the same trend with everyone and their dog identifying as "queer" these days. they'll grow out of it and marry the opposite sex just like every woman who identified as bisexual in the 00s did.
People under 30 is not the same as all people.
[removed]
[removed]
Looks worse than it is. It says opposite sex sexual partners. So this could say that 100 procent of these people are gay. Could also say that all those people are heterosexual and lonely⊠could also say those are all highly religious youth who wait till marriage and are in loving abstaining relationships.
And: all under 30, so people who are 19 are weight the same as people who are 29. Logic dictates one is more likely than the other to not have sex yet..
This data isnât beautiful.
What a weird data point. Could be the Gay Agenda finally getting their Gay Satellite launched to shower the youth in Gay Waves or just nobody getting laid.
Either way, let's legalize prostitution.
I see a lot of people argue that this just shows how lonely people are⊠but it may just as well show that people are more comfortable being Gay/lesbian. Or it could show people just being more careful in whom they choose to be their partner.
Something I'm interested in:
How many of the people tested were gay or Lesbian? That is quite an important question here, since it is only âopposite sex sexual partnersâ, but some of them could be gay/Lesbian and therefore not be interested in the opposite sex in the first place.
I myself am transgender, and I am engaged to my trans female partner. So no matter how you look at it, whether you want to tell me trans is just a confused gay male, or whether you're a reasonable human being. I have not had an opposite sex sexual partner since I was 18, and I am 22 now.
So this specific graph says nothing without additional data on reasoning, even if what I am trying to argue with is technically a minority, I would be interested in filtering it for people that are gay/lesbian and people that just don't want to have sexual partners, be it temporarily or permanently.
[deleted]
I would take that bet. The only thing I could find on it said Republicans actually get laid more.
I feel like thereâs a form of sexual repression among liberals that leads to them viewing sex more conservatively than Republicans. In high school there was a lot of cultural pressure to view any sexual encounter that happened outside of a committed relationship through the lens of âdid that guy just rape me?â But now that Iâm in my 30s and one night stands havenât gotten any better, I see thatâs just sex and whatâs changed is as Iâve gotten older I no longer have the societal pressure to see myself as a virgin getting deflowered. It feels like a lot of traditional anti-sex views just got updated for the liberal audience, and itâs actually less empowering for the women involved to be forced to see themselves as victims. Iâve felt a lot better after seeing that my own sexual desire got me into the situation and not that I was just an object to be âdamagedâ by a man.
[deleted]
Both are true... If you look at the total number of LGBT individuals today, it only covers a relatively small portion of the increase.
The source I used, the GSS, does include filters for sexual orientation, but there wasn't enough data to make much of a chart when including that question, which they only just recently added.
Virgins, itâs more virgins.
About 5% are gay so it means 22% are just virgins.
Damn, obesity and social media reflected in one graph
Can someone clarify if this is a count of Gays and Lesbians or a count of Celibates?
Because counting both together is kinda fucking nonsense.
It is both.
Y'all talking about loneliness and "we're so connected but so far apart :'( "
Bitch, everybody gay.
Everyone here seems to be focussing on the loneliness part, but strangely the first thing I thought about was the disparity between the sexes - what I take from this is that either: men in this period are becoming more gay, which I find hilarious; or a select amount of men are having substantially more sex than the average male, but with different women, more so than their female counterparts. Maybe a bit of both.
Edit: the stats may suggest more gay males, not females, whoops.
I bet thereâs not a single factor. Rather, a combination of things:
-Economic downturn for younger generations
-Availability of online porn (especially on smart phones)
-Uptick in LGBT acceptance
-Online dating
-Incel-type communities that encourage behavior repulsive to many women
-âMe Tooâ movement bringing dangerous behavior to light and women more empowered to say ânoâ
-Video games supplanting face-to-face interaction, especially for males
-Online dating
The only really relevant one.
-Incel-type communities that encourage behavior repulsive to many women
Incels are a consequence, not a cause.
I know it's tough for men on dating apps; they get rejected and ghosted a lot, a lot more than they did before the internet came into play. My baby brother has had to pay to boost his dating profile just to get seen. It's hard on him and it makes me sad. He's a great guy!
However, there have always been a subset of men who feel entitled to sex. The proliferation of internet forums where they can congregate has just provided echo chambers for them to recruit others who may be vulnerable to those ideas. That's been my observation, anyway. (Dating sites gained steam when I was in my mid to late 20's.)
Hostile behavior by that subset of men who, in the past, may have just been aggressive at a single bar, is now aimed at thousands of women on dating apps. A few creepy guys can send creepy messages to thousands of women very easily now. My younger female friends are barraged with everything from unsolicited dick pics, to downright scary threats of sexual violence. This isn't right, either.
When I was dating in my late teens, early 20's, we were cat called, harassed on the street or in a bar, at school or work, but it wasn't coming to us at this frequency, at any time of day, through our own phones.
Women have a lot more at stake when it comes to sex, so they're naturally going to be more selective, but the behavior of that subset of men may be making them even more careful. Incel communities are only making this worse.
Data also shows that rates of sexual encounters is correlated to someone's economic position. I mean, if they're just trying to survive, it only makes sense in a evolutionary context, that procreation wouldn't be as high of a priority in a resource-scarce situation.
However, there have always been a subset of men who feel entitled to sex
And? Why shouldn't men be entitled to having their basic needs met? The projection is quite something. Women are literally entitled to sex. ie they can get it whenever they want, with zero effort. But men are "entitled" because some of them want the same? Do you realise how insane that is?
The proliferation of internet forums where they can congregate has just provided echo chambers for them to recruit others who may be vulnerable to those ideas.
And?
I'm bored. You're just shifting male suffering into largely mythical female suffering. Which is what society inevitably does. Because men aren't allowed to be victims or have their needs attended to. And women have no responsibility or social contract to fulfil.
Women have a lot more at stake when it comes to sex
This is the opposite of the truth. Women have complete reproductive autonomy. Men do not. Men have much more at stake. Men risk parenthood every time they have sex. Women don't. Abortion and contraception have reversed nature's burden on women in this area. As well as laws, which dictate that men are responsible for the babies women choose to have.
I mean, if they're just trying to survive, it only makes sense in a evolutionary context, that procreation wouldn't be as high of a priority in a resource-scarce situation.
No it doesn't. Because economic deprivation usually correlates with more traditional gender roles. Female "emancipation" is, in large part, a consequence of wealth and "privilege", and a post-industrial society. Stereotypically "male" jobs are less necessary (although still very necessary) etc. More university education = more women earning more money etc. And women are incapable of, and don't want to do, laborious, physical jobs which are more prevalent in more impoverished areas.
More poverty = more babies. This is a standard, I believe, if you look at the data. Globally and in the west.
The main economic shift in the west has been women earning more money and men earning less, relatively. Which, obviously, makes it harder for men to get sex/relationships etc.
Look at it like this: what men have to offer in a relationship, in raw terms (money, protection, labour) is heavily commodified and redistributed by society. What women have to offer (sex, reproduction) is heavily protected. Women can access everything they need from a man without having to even speak to one. Namely via taxes, male labour and every job men do being supplied to them at reasonable cost, and welfare/services. What do men have left to trade with?
I work with some of those men.. fuckin weirdos lol
/r/dataisugly Years donât seem to line up with the grid lines. Super hard to read.
The hand should star counting as partner...
Were gay or bi people surveyed here? If so, that might skew the results just a tad
Wish the data wasnât limited to opposite-sex sex.
What the hell happened between 2008 and 2018?
iPhone came out in 2007. You can draw your own conclusions.
Facebook too
Ok well this says âzero OPPOSITE sexâ. So does this mean people are having less sex or more people are coming out as gay. Ahhh skewed and/or unclear data. My favorite kind.
Just because gay people were not coming out does not make them have straight sex. This is only something Bi people can do who heavily lean on one side but are still able to get a damn boner for the other sex.
One key word. âReportedâ
Are you really this smooth?
I'm curious what it is now in 2021, especially with the pandemic, I wouldnt be surprised if it shot up to 40% by now
This doesn't mean the person is a virgin or hasn't had sex.
Ugh so many good controversial jokes come to mind, but.. must... resist.
This is completely useless data. People answering yes could be asexual, gay, or lesbian OR they could be virgin by choice or not. There's not usefulness to this data.
What about same sex? Curious if some of those numbers are shifting over.
It looks like they're on strike against debt and family court judges and lawyers.
I posit wasting away on reddit and the likes is the primary cause
Thumbs up to people who think they can socialize on the internet.
You need to turn off this screen right now, find a flesh&blood individual and interact with him/her. That's socializing, not posting comments on a bulletin board or sending text messages to one another.
Anyways, good luck, you'll need it.
Is this meant to be a measurement that implies people are having less sex more people are homosexual? Or both?
Interesting! The consensus in the comments seems to be that online dating has affected the gap between men and women. I wonder if that is truly the dominant factor? Can there be a controlled study to identify why fewer men than women have had sex since recently?
Paradox of increased choices?
More information needed to address all these loneliness hypotheses: how many report zero opposite sex partners AND zero same sex partners? This could be a result of younger generations of homosexual experimenting less with opposite sex partners. Lots of assumptions of heterosexuality in these loneliness hypotheses.
This is interesting, but it is not "beautiful" data. It's a shitty line chart.
Is there an equal breakdown between 19 year olds and 30 year olds in the data set throughout the time frame? Having no sexual partners for 1 year is a lot different than 12 years
Correct me if im wrong, but is this not a bit of a gross oversimplification by combining homosexuals (or those in same sex relationships) and celibate folks together?
Uhhh.. are we proud of this or something?
[deleted]
I find nothing beautiful about this data. It's a very weird thing to check for and leaves uncertainty and ambiguity as to what the conclusion is.
I have to be honest, the title had me very confused. I thought it was a decreasing admission of homosexual behavior, which made zero sense.
So is this implying that the world is turning more gay? /s
Whatâs causing the cycle of increasing and decreasing values every few years before 2008? Is that just due to lack of data?
While there seems to be an upward trend for men, it would be interesting to get a few more data points to confirm if the increase in women is also a trend. Interesting how the increase seems larger for men, it's tempting to link that to the incel movement, though the direction of causality would be unclear and the link unproven. Obviously that doesn't justify incels either way though.
so basically what's left is the gays
There are some freaking old-fashioned attitudes in the comments here. Sounds like some terrible 1960's pop psychology crap.
I seems like the increase is about the time facebook starting gaining popularity and the smart phone was invented. Correlation is not causation, but I'd be curious to see what factors are causing the increase
Leaves me with more questions- whatâs the average age of participants, what portion of them are having same sex partners etc
Why is the blue line so saw-toothed on the left, then going steady on the right, while the red line does the opposite, starting fairly steady and then cycling up and down to the right?
It's not like those people don't want to, they just CAN'T
This coincides perfectly with the rise of Instagram and dating apps like Bumble. Think Iâm joking? This also coincides with the rise of Incels.
Kojima nailed it again with Death Stranding
âGeneral Social Surveyâ saysâŠ..!
Twist: weâre having more a lot more gay sex.
Question: how do we know this is showing a loneliness epidemic and not a significant rise in LGBT-ness?
Confusing data set. Doesnât specify whether population is sexually active with same sex (a reflection of finished pressure to be hetero) or asexual.
Honesty has gone up by 20%
well, this can't be good...for humanity...right?
What explains the large gap between men and women? 27% vs 17% is astonishing, there are more men than women under 30 but this difference isnt explained by that alone
Huh!?! What does the title mean? ELI5
Does this make any sense? I was expecting the data going up to the end because people had less time to have sex.
You guys are missing the Forrest for the trees... It's because there's a higher percentage of homosexuals. It says opposite sex. People are still having the same amount of sex, it's just a lot gayer now.
C'mon guys, we gotta get those numbers back to normal! Who wants to fuck?!?
This graph represents the beginning of sex concentration in men driven by dating apps. Greater access to more desirable men leads to less settling. Expect to hear about the sex 1% soon. /s
I'm interested to see the spread for the ages surveyed over time. This same trend could be observed if more younger people (closer to 18) were surveyed in the layer years.
18 and a day is technically in the params
Looks like the recession hit hard
Things are going well then
If there's anyone likely to lie about it it's probably young men so real number likely to be higher
The phrasing means society is either becoming lonely or gay.
Well at least the over population issue is getting addressed. If only the mental health issue were as easy
This is me 22 year old virgin I just don't go out much. No point the area I live is boring, just rows of houses the only thing to do is clubbing and since I don't drink and none of my friends like clubbing I've never been. I'm content though. Have 5 great friends I've known for almost a decade and a few others I talk too every now and then. A girlfriend would be nice but hey that's life I guess. Maybe I'll find someone in the future not too bothered about it right now.
This is super worrying. Is it representative?
I don't want to know 2019 to 2021
Whats going on? Youngs doesnt like to fuck nowadays or what?
Thanks to the real Chad's that do the work so the other men don't have to đ€Łđ
Not sure this is the right sub for this. It's literally just a graph.
Why did it decrease in the financial crisis?
During the financial crisis escorts in Greece literally fucked for a sandwich.
Damn looks like 2008 wasn't all bad lmao
Internet and social media did this.
It gets even more crazy if you realize that the theoretically possible increase is bounded by about 8%/year and we just did half of that
⊠in the US! Dont forget that this is not the whole world and over 50% of redditors are from non-US countries
Could this (partly) be due to a change in reporting? I think that people would be more honest about this now than ten years ago.
Could be. But i think the majority is still because of internet, social media, dating apps, gender debates...
Haha I thought they were having gay sex instead but after reading the comments it sounds like nobody is considering that option? đ€·ââïž
Social media has raised a generation of selfish narcissists.
Share and the upward trend made me think of stonks.
What happened in 2008 to make everyone fuck so much more?
Why is this chart limited to opposite sex encounters? Everyone is talking about how this chart illustrates 'loneliness', but another possible explanation is that a much higher percentage of people are homosexual today. Excluding homosexual partners from the data seems like an unnecessary distinction.
A. This survey is really old. You can not redefine old questions without invalidating all old data.
B. Homosexuality is steady throughout time, the only thing that may vary are bisexual people who are heavily leaning for the same sex but may previously still chosen a pure heterosexual sex life. Homosexuals, as people who are truly only able to have sexual intercourse with the same sex previously counted as "not having sex" and still count as "not having sex".
How are so few people in this thread commenting on the key term "opposite sex"? There's been a significant shift allowing LGBTQ people (specifically men for this graph) to have same-sex partners with less fear of backlash.
Just because they were not able to have same-sex partners without backlash does not mean they had intercourse with the other sex. That may be true for the few bisexuals who are heavily same sex leaning who are now allow themself to express that, not for homosexuals.
Sample size looks like 8 per gender or something??
Well at least the women are starting to catch up with us
I suspect itâs the abundance of free porn
Wow, they surveyed the entire Reddit community.
Interesting. Thereâs a spike with technology, but it only goes higher as gay relationships becomes more and more acceptable and legalized, which might be a confounding factor, especially for anyone who would have felt the need to try out straight relationships.
Does this graph control for sexuality?
Just out of curiosity. Regarding the wording, could this spike be assumed to correlate with the rise of the LGBT community? If so, the data could really reflect how men are ever more lonely and are more open sexually.
Womens graph is also showing change, but not nearly spiking as hard, which I find really interesting!
How is no one talking about how laughable that source is? Whatâs a "General Social Survey" supposed to be?
So women are more sexually active?
Incell đ€đ€ Queer Stat Bros
Oh this is about virgins I thought they were all gay
What about non-opposite sex sexual partners? This graph could just be saying that we're all getting gayer đ
Why is it cyclic, and more obviously so in the males?
Most people saying that we are more lonely in recent years. But I would say this is not the case. Sex is an important social status part of men, and most guys wouldn't openly admit to having zero experiences. Maybe what's changing is that people now are more open to speak up and admit what's the situation instead of lying.
I'm at this stage in my life, I'm 19 and I don't know if it's the pandemic or the depression but I have zero urge to go out and meet someone.
This actually makes me feel better
I think this just shows that maybe more people are opening up about their sexuality and are having sex with the same gender.
I read this data differently - it's showing opposite-sex sex, couldn't it mean more people are hooking up in same-sex couples?
Sooo.. People are getting more lonely and/or gay?
Does this mean that 27% percent of men either didn't have sex since 18 or didn't have sex with the opposite sex?
The fact that it can't be same sex makes the graph a bit hard to interpret. Do we see đłïžâđ or đŒ?
What area is this data about?
Is this graph measuring incels or gay people?
Would like to see some more equality on that graph.
LGBTQ. Itâs a lot more acceptable to be out especially as a young adult (18 year cut off). Could be also because of increasing ability to be out. Plus gender identity could factor in as well in reporting to a question phrased âopposite sexâ
SRSLY ... not everything is about LGBTQ. Yes it is a mistake that the question only includes sex with the opposing gender. However the increase of LGBTQ ppl was rather insignificant in comparison to the overall population you can read more here:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx
Majority of the LGBTQ ppl according to the mentioned website are identifying as BI so infarct they would still account in to this threads statistics.
Just as a estimate i would say that the increase of LGBTQ ppl makes up for 1-3% and infact i would even argue that the increase of bi ppl is PARTLY just a result of not being able to find a same sex partner ...
This issue is so much more complex. Stop slapping the LQGBT sticker on every topic.
This was acknowledged by the original poster as well. Sexuality affects who people sleep with which might affects reported rates of who people have sex with. Iâm sorry to be so bold to bring up sexuality in a chart discussing sexual behaviors and reported sexual contacts. Your LQBTQ phobia is going too far if youâre excluding it from a conversation about sex.
I dont have LGBTQ phobia. You know nothing about me or my sexual orientation. I am just saying that the increase of LGBTQ is rather insignificant in comparison to the overall population. And again, i am not denying that the data is flawed and that the increase of gay ppl in combination with the inaccurate question skewed the data but still this does only explains a 3% increase at best (u know ppl have been gay in 2008 already) but doesnt explain he 20% increase. You are missing the bigger picture which is a loneliness epidemic rolling over our society heavily impacting the sex live of young ppl.
Look at the suicide rates increasing similarly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States
Not saying there is a direct causality between both of the statistics but it shows there is something serious going on and not just ppl now suddently having the freedom to out themselves. Get some perspective srsly.
I was not saying that LGBTQ was the only factor. It is a single factor. You are right that the question is more complicated than just sexuality. As you acknowledged, sexuality is a component of the question. I felt it was short sighted to immediately discredit how sexual identity could not play a role in these statistics. Peopleâs behaviors are complex and there is not a single factor. However to completed discredit one is what I feel is lacking perspective. Nothing in my comment addressed loneliness nor did I say that it did not exist. I merely pointed out that sexuality could have impacted it. Your read was that LGBTQ was the only reason why. Multiple variables affect trends and human behavior is complex. Good points. Thanks for expanding your perspective ;)
Good to know I'm in the top 24% of something :)
What happened between then and now?
Mobile phones, dating apps, free porn, not having to put yourself out there or learn how to interact with another human being. The art of either gender making a fool out of themselves in the pursuit of a relationship and figuring out what they would or wouldn't like in a potential mate relegated to a swipe in either direction. Pile onto that lack of employment that pays a living wage, crushing student loan debt, shitty health care, and it's got all the ingredients for a person to essentially stay at home and self medicate if their not medicated already.
Women can choose now like in supermarket and of course they gonna choose top tier men. Moreover their libido is lower on average and even more suppressed by hormonal birth control.
Guess these guys didn't go to Catholic school
Not surprised. Dating the right person is hard
the fact that it only asks about opposite sex partners (not also same sex) makes the statistics here harder to decipher. many more people in the USA are coming out as gay and itâs more acceptable to be gay (depending on where you live) as the years go by. some of the people who answered that they had no opposite sex partners after age 18 (especially in recent years) may have had same sex partners and that is not recorded in this data.
So many wizards are graduating Hogwarts!
Wait what? This can't be true... Y'all need to get your shit together or this will end badly.
I'm just on that sigma grind
Potentially the most interesting part (to me) is that the number of sexual partners for the men who are having sex is going up.
The other potential inference is that more women are sleeping with women, but I would expect the ratio of gay women to change significantly.
Does this include people who have had zero sexual partners whatsoever, not just opposite sex?
Women actually half there count and men double theirs so this should look even more Disparaging
Idk, I kinda like it to be this way. Wish the numbers were more even between the sexes, but it's not so bad overall
I lost my V card at 29 thankfully.
The statistic is (albeit correct) slightly misleading, as people might interpret it as 27% of males (and 17% of all females) age 30 never had sex.
Note for example that someone who is 19 and never had sex is counted as well as someone who just turned 18 and had sex prior to his/her birthday.
A better question would be "Share of Persons age 30, who never had sex" (which would be much lower).
I like how it doesn't even touch 0%
I feel like there's a lot of missing context here. Asking people under age 30 if they've had a different-sex partner is extremely vague.
What's the age range? The region? I would hope all these people are heterosexual. Are there any religious factors affecting this? Are people who got married excluded? What's the sample size for both sexes?
This is really vague data
Reported: I'm in this photo and I don't like it.
Reported. Reason: "I am in this picture and I don't like it" /s
Does anyone know what happened in 2008 and lead to both males and females having more sex?
I thought it was when facebook was created so people would socialise way too much while trying to figure out how to use it, so they would go on dates really easy. (This happened, at least where i live.. it was too easy to hook up with someone)
But facebook was created earlier.
So what happened?
Have you sent the people under age 30? It's obvious why they aren't having sex..
They stopped age at 30 as the line pretty much goes straight up after thenâŠ
Sudden growth of gays or incels?
Does the disparity mean some lesbian action is taking place (hot, in which case,) or are there some men that are just Luckier than others?!
Does that mean theyâve had same sex partners or just no partners? Not very useful data
Where's the 17% women? Hit me up
I wonder what country/region this is? Would also be interesting to see this plotted with number of people who desire opposite sex sexual partners.
The two statistics are probably related.
As an example, imagine walking into a pub for drinks with a handful friends. One of your mates has a girlfriend who tags along and brings along a handful of her own female friends.
That situation has an infinitely higher chance of you getting to know someone who might eventually become your partner than walking into a pub by yourself as a guy.
This is emblematic of the broader isolation epidemic. A smaller group of friends leads to fewer opportunities to meet potential mates, which leads to fewer opportunities to make new friends, etc.
This only does opposite sex? I wonder if the decreasing stigma around being gay has any affect on this, even if its not the main cause
Why u gotta make it âoppositeâ sex partners..
Everyone is saying itâs loneliness but I just thought it was people being queer. lmao
Yeah lol, gay people exist and aren't scared of saying it now compared to 1970
Does asexuals play any role in this statistics?
Pornhub creation: may 25th 2007
I don't understand, how are 10 percent more women having sex than men? Is it because they are lying? Are 5 percent lesbians? How is there such a vast difference?
This explains all the guns.
Oh my, Just looking at all the sharp turns makes me anxious
Why is this only about "opposite sex" sexual partners?
The increase in people feeling safe identifying as gay probably impacts this a little.
And why is it only "since they turned 18"?
Weird data.
Why only count opposite sex partners though? This excludes a lot of people potentially.
As a gay man I thought this was showing the rise in homosexuality at first, not the decrease in people having sex
People are harping a lot on internet as being the main issue but imo its just a symptom. Its just one of many "conveniences" that people use as a shortcut to build relationships in an era of people detaching from each other because of the specialization in usage of leisure time and most importantly, the loss of the requirement to interact with another human to consume products.
The real issue relies, IMO, behind the isolation behind the comfort of having everything at the reach of a couple of clicks and/or a car drive away without getting to leave from the vehicle.
Before the amazons, the grubhubs, and the drive throughs etc people had to actually go out and get the stuff they wanted, on depending on the urban configuration that involved getting to interact with different people, some of which are acquaintances and friends from a community that survives and grows because of these sporadic interactions to begin with. This still happens a lot on small towns where distances are inherently shorter, and thus the entice of these "qol" conveniences are less.
This is why on my vacation in chicago one of the places that i enjoyed the most lied in suburbs like oak park where stores are more atomized and people actually have to move through sidewalks to get what they want, getting to meet people along their daily activities. Also unlike the main city, number of people is more "controlled" in the sense you dont feel like one more of the many ants in the field. There is a balance in the right amount of people in a place that promotes social interaction.
On the other hand the more stereotypical residential suburbs, those far away from the cities where there are these gorgeous sidewalks surrounded by green and neat houses but no one is fucking using them because they either move by car and worse, get all their needs from the rest of society by delivery looked like dystopic stuff you would read from Fahrenheit 451 or 1984.
We have to understand that some of our parents got to know each other in these fleeting and random encounters while living their daily lives. I realized this a lot once i finished my degree and found myself doing a lot of less activities and visiting places where peers my age tend to congregate. My social life took a massive hit and internet is just a "bandaid" but not the core issue on itself. It is something most people reach to once they get in a state where their social IRL interactions have diminished already. I know escapism is a thing too, kids that for example dont feel like they fit in their community and thus seek to escape from situations that put pressure or induce social anxiety to them. But this post is more about young adults as the statistic is more oriented to that
divide them up, break them down
Iâve pretty much become a born again virgin in the pandemic
There is no way this can be true. A 3 fold increase in ten years?!?!
Why only use opposite sexual partners, why not include same sex partners? Cause now you have to edit out people with same sex attraction and get a result that's not representative of everyone. Oh don't forget about asexuals/aromantics as well since they also make the the percentage look slightly worse.
Edit: Since this poll includes people that just turned 18 that makes the date ridiculous, since a higher younger percentage in the data automatically leads to a bigger outcome. Not to mention that counting people who just turned 18 the same way you do 30 year olds who haven't had sex since they were 18 is ridiculous. So the numbers are completely screwed. Also the numbers only apply to the US which definetly should be mentioned.
As a gay man, I definitely don't feel properly represented as a person in this chart.
My big problem in that data is where do these 83% of women find their 10% additional men to date among the 73% available? Is there men out there dating several women at once?
Maybe, and just maybe, a part of that is sexual education teaching teenagers that you are not obliged to have sex if you not want it, don't doing it just because everybody else is doing it.
I dont know if this is the right medium for it but what's the age distribution of this? If "individual under 30" includes, say, 21, then the 3 year period from 18 isn't that surprising. Would it be better to weight the time since age 18 among the sample and plot the percentage of time?
Apologies if I'm not being clear or have misinterpreted!
Have I missed something? Does it say anywhere that these people are virgins... Maybe they're having sex with the same sex?
I guess this includes virgins? I'd like to see this but as a share of non-virgin individuals.
27% of men under 30 are virgins, women most affected.
Imagine living in a modern society where this is a hot topic.
Wdym since they turned 18, that's kinda a weird thing to add to this
James May: Does this mean they don't come?
Wait, am I reading this wrong?
Does this mean more people arenât having sex or more people are having exclusively gay sex?
Seems arbitrary to specify opposite sex partners.
Is this within a house? A city? A country? The world?
Wonder if Mee Too had anything to do with it...
Are these individuals straight? Because it would be pretty awkward if they werenât.
Obesity rates and social media could be at work here. People can't get out of their phones long enough to interact with real people. Also people are just getting morbidly obese at an insane rate and early age.
I think theres still a similar amount of encounters, only that with the new technologies the bottom of the barrel is literally getting 0⊠(yes im there)
Hm, and this trend starts in 2008? Thanks, Obama.
At this rate we're going need to create AI virtual reality to teach us how to socialize again.
My head went a completely opposite directions. It was labeled opposite sex, Iâm assuming more people are comfortable with their sexuality and sleeping with the same sex.
This is not dataisbeautiful, this is just statistics.
Well, you canât fuck someone over your XBox headset or Discord. You have to actually, ya know, leave your house.
We have an entire generation of people who like to tell you how to live, and how you should act socially, while they have zero social skills and have no clue how the real world actually operates.
Though, Iâm sure some people will find a way to blame this on boomers or something.
Pretty reductive to assume every member of that generation is some kind of anti-social shut-in.
They obviously arenât all shut ins. But is it unfair to say that we have a much, much higher percentage of anti social people than ever before? Thatâs not at harsh to assume, is it? I think itâs pretty close to fact.
Yes, one could argue that it is unfair to state it as fact without providing any evidence to back up that claim. I could just as easily say you are wrong and todayâs youth are more socially versed than their parents because they are constantly interacting with somebody through their electronics in some way or another. But without being able to prove itâs true I shouldnât state it as an undeniable fact should i?
I guess weâre just unable to use common sense unless a fucking graph confirms what we believe?
Youâre arguing just to argue. You know thereâs validity to what Iâm saying.
Iâm arguing because you made the completely atrocious statement that an ENTIRE generation is incapable of social interaction or understanding the real world. Anybody with common sense knows thatâs completely incorrect.
I backed off of that immediately. And you should have been able to use enough common sense to know that I obviously didnât mean LITERALLY an entire generation.
Plus a lot of people displaying how thirsty they are how much they like to fuck, but would much rather just post online than actually meet someone in person
I mean, why meet someone when you can just dirty chat with them and take care of it yourself?
Because sex feels better, physically, but especially pyschologically. The gratification you get from realizing youre fucking the kind of guy youve been fantasizing about for years is beyond hot and exhilarating. Couple that with the fact you're giving that same amount of pleasure to the other guy and there's just nothing else on earth that comes close
Oh, obviously. I was being facetious.
I think this might reflect a change in honesty more than anything else.
âŠI assumed this was just about gay people
My god, these bitches gay.
They deserve a gold star
Sperm counts have also drastically dropped. Wonder if there's a relation.
Zero opposite sex sexual partners. Some of these guys are lonely but some of them just came out of the closet.
The rise of social isolationism
Thatâs the prime time to enjoy it too. I blame Puritan culture taking over feminism.
Damn, that's over 1 in 4 men. đ
In America? Worldwide? How many people got asked?... That's not a good statistic.
Make it under 40. And I'm in
Incel and femcel bull market
"there's some whores in the house..."
Weird, looks like financial collapse increases promiscuity. "Well, the banks just fucked us, why don't we just fuck each other?"
So from 19 to 29? Why this sample size?
Guess yall really did have the power of Jesus and anime in your side
It would be nice to see zero sexual partners overlayed with this data
I see the wealthy's plan of obliterating the peon population is well under way and turning out stunning results!
Maybe they won't need to use "plan B or C" if they can keep these kinds of numbers up.
(plans B & C entail mass extinction events, mostly centered around biological weapons)
Correlated with iphone launching.
We really were alot cooler a decade or so ago then these zoomer losers with the cat assholes in the ear.
You would think Tinder would have made that less. Now the opposite sex part of the question could that now be people are more easily openly gay? So they are still having sex just not traditionally?
Anyone else really curious to know what the chart would look like with the last two years added?
Hey I'm 23 and I haven't even hugged another woman !
;(
Let's combine them and make it zero đ
This doesnât help when everyone around you is married.
zero OPPOSITE sex sexual partners since they TURNED 18:
a) excludes homosexuals
b) doesn't necessarily mean virgin
but still alarming that the puritans are getting their hooks into people.
Is there a graph for zero sex partners in general? I'm curious if same gender sex has a similar trend.
And people wonder why there are so many incels.
The percent of redditor virgins is so much higher than that
I think the obvious conclusion is that Trump's election caused a dramatic decline in men getting laid.
Everyone is talking about loneliness..... but both my (same sex) husband and I would respond yes to this survey. As would most of our friends. I'd be interested to see those with no sexual partners, or, no relationships longer than 8 weeks, etc.
Pandemic isolated a lot of individuals from actually meeting randomly out in public but that doesnât account for all of the other years. Maybe harsh times in 2008-2015 with money being a problem in the Great Recession, people start to hold off on having children bc if the price of diapers and formula. Maybe all of the things mentioned in this thread have an overall influence. Correct me if Iâm wrong but I heard that these are some of the first years where humans numbers have come to an apex and are slowly in a decline as a whole.
Does the data make any distinction between say a 19 y/o and a 29 y/o? Pretty big difference
It's interesting how many top posts here imply that "zero opposite sex sexual partners since age 18" means that more people are lonely without providing other evidence. We don't know the age distribution of those who answered this survey (are these the full spectrum of adults from age 18 to 75+? Are these just college students?). While media and the internet play up the "hook-up culture", we've had decades (nay, centuries for some religions) of messaging that pre-marital sex is "bad". Anecdotally, I'd think that the rise of smart phones, social media, etc., has affected social relations between the sexes, but it's all but impossible to say much about that using this single survey (other than to allow one to state their preferred narrative).
The decline of the human race starts here.
Facebook IPO'd in 2012. Look at the graph again. Interesting!
The way they specify the titleâŠdid they make sure to ask the sample whether they were seeking opposite sex partners?
So thatâs the total percentage of gay/celibate/incel people?
This chart should be discrete points to reflect when they were sampled. It doesn't seem justified to assume continuity between points, as that neglects all the variables of death, birth, and immigration.
Y'all need to get laid more often.
Hmmm and this doesn't even take into account the last 2 years of lockdowns and social distancing...
Finally we are coming closer to gods light.
God's light is lonely
Told you Obama made us all gay... but NOOObody wanted to listen
/s
Opposite sexual partners huh.
I highly recommend watching Kurzgesagt's "Loneliness" video.
It really opened my eyes. I was always kind of shy and never had too many friends and wondered why I am so lonely. I realized it slowly kills you if you don't escape it and the statistics are absolutely horrible.
This is terribly terribly sad.
This statistic is like a prostitutes panties. Up down, up down, up down, up down.
The way this title is worded leaves room for the data to be skewed to show more "loneliness" if more people been having sexual partners of the same sex
Yeah but it says "opposite sex", so everything checks out.
Wonder if this is a case of people lying in the past?
Where did you get this data from?
I'm almost 40b and I've still has zero opposite sex sex partners. Sooo many same sex ones though
The x-axis needs as much action as some of the people surveyed.
So, for you guys who fall in the 27%, what's going on? Sex is amazing you should try it.
Women only want to fuck the most elite men. It's why "liberal" women are always caught dating conservative white men
Yea, but was that any different in 1989?
Yeah because back then without online dating avg women didn't have the same access to elite men that they do now.
Today even poor women with no connections can fuck rich guys that fly them out.
Just work on building a high enough net worth to get on seekingarrangements.com.
It looks like you are mixing in one bucket gays and virgins. That makes the data hard to interpret.
The Onion said boys were having sex even earlier! (According to boys)
https://youtu.be/q8NDCJY5DW4
Can confirm 2008 was a good year for me too
This is a poor representation of the data. There are 12 one year cohorts that make up the graph population. The numbers shake out so that approximately 1.5% of females and 2.25% of males are celibate by this definition. The variation could be cohort size? Measurement error?
Do these stats exclude gays and lesbians? Cause I've had zero sex with opposite gender. But i'm still having loads of sex. Some people in the comments think this means an increase in loneliness but it could also be an increase in reporting same sex relationships? Seems like a bad survey.
LGBT people are still a very marginal group of people. It still doesn't explain the huge disparity of men vs women having sex. The number of men that reported being virgins per the same survey has TRIPLED in the last 10 years.
5-10% of the population is not marginal and could skew the results. The virginity question might be a better approach to this sort of research but it is not great if you only define virginity as penis in vagina sex. Especially with the younger generations being more sexually fluid this survey seems badly constructed.
It doesn't explain why the number of men that reported being sexually inactive has TRIPLED in the last 10 years. People will rationalize anything before admitting that inceldom is a socioeconomic issue. What's happened in Japan is happening all over here now
I don't disagree that the problem needs to be investigated further but the methodology seems a bit wonky. We need better peer reviewed studies.
True, don't disagree at all. But it's pretty clear when you look at any stats on dating apps. When 10% of men are getting 90% of swipes, the outcomes of that become clear.
Did we just agree on reddit? This deserves celebration! Have a great one Palosi
It could be 19yos though. Show me over-30yos!
What does âunder 30â mean? They could be 19 or 20 then, right?
Wonder how pandemic affect this graph, and why only opposite sex?
Incel âmovementâ is self fulfilling prophecy.
Incel was always about being a social outcast especially relationship wise. It only later got coopted by media to be a distinctly pejorative term encompassing a group so broad it simply lost its meaning. Check out robot uprising or r9k uprising, id say that was the beginning of this social trend. And tbh it is worrying - people being unable to cultivate relations with others.
And the Republican Party freed the slaves, organizations change for sure. From the little research Iâve down, misogyny always seemed a key part as women are Big Bad Guy that keeps them outcasts. The camaraderie seemed out of necessity before lonely folks realized itâs easier to find community and masturbate than have to face the outside world. It is VERY concerning.
It's a socioeconomic consequence.
I agree, or at least think itâs a by product of our socioeconomic society/class system that leaves most underprivileged children to be raised by the internet âŠ.but could you elaborate for those folks that DO believe in capitalism?
Wouldnât this also apply to 18 and one day year olds? Weird sample
This is also the trend line of new reddit users
Huh, 18-30 it was hard to get any.. 30-42.. its pretty much a first date thing..
Now it makes sense why extreme right wing politics are on the rise
Lots of Wizards being made the next few years. Hogwarts is about to get super competitive to get admitted to
So what was before they turned 18?
Looks like about 2012 something (tinder) caused men to be bypassed for dating. The women's line is trending up, but is more closer to the historical average.
Seems to match the facts that dating apps are making us more selective, and that women are the most selective of the genders.
Can't wait till it's 100% ... end of mankind
i want to see percentage gaming often male vs female
I suspect the internet has a lot to do with this.
Or.... everything.....
Why does there seem to be a sawtooth pattern?
This seems to match up with the amount of 20+ creeps picking up female classmates in middleschool ~15 years ago...
Wtf is "general social survey"?
wow at first I thought this was a statistic about gay people only having sex with same gender and not trying other stuff etc, but I read some commends and realized how pornhub making so much money.
Looks like less men every year are lying about the amount of sex they've had since 1989.
Gay people: *cease existing *
Man, looks like 1990 was the time to be alive.
Thank goodness Iâm not alone âŠ
2008 is the year high speed internet started up maybe itâs pornography related
Correct me if Iâm wrong, but couldnât this also reflect higher/normalized instances of homosexuality ?
Anybody here stopped to consider this isn't a chart about virginity?
It's not but it's clear women are much more active in dating and sex regardless of their socioeconomic position
Social media plays a huge role in this Iâm sure. Using that instead of having real face to face interactions with people, as opposed to trying to gain the attention or approval from people you will never see, is a deteriorating skill amongst the newer generations.
Awh man, I wonder what percentage of these people want to find someone and what percentage donât? Also does this incorporate a control for LGBTQ+?
Most people don't want to be lonely losers.
I wonder if increased rates of obesity are a factor here.
Women are obese too and they are still having sex. The truth is the avg woman has inherent value while the avg guy is practically worthless. If you're a poor non white guy all you're seen at is as a work mule. There's a reason why 80% of the homeless are men.
Yes, but we knew that already, thatâs why the male number is going up so much faster. But both numbers are going up so there is something additional at play
Yeah. The socioeconomic conditions that lead to less sex do affect women to an extent, but affects men more
In former you haven't report it đ
2008, the rise of the fuckboy
Or people are gayer for longer
And keep in mind men are most likely to lie because of shame or whatever
All these people talking about virgins and being lonely and Iâm here like⊠yeah Iâve also have zero opposite sex sexual partners, but I sure as hell am not a virgin lol.
So gay men and women are a plot on this graph then?
Oh my god, they were roommates.
Could one reason be the popularity of video games? Looks like the percentage of males began to skyrocket right about when video games became mainstream.
If you're viewing this graph, you're one of them
2008? Wasnât that the year super smash bros brawl on the Nintendo wii released? Must be why.
Could this be driven by an increasing prevalence of openly gay individuals?
Might this be more clearly charting willingness to admit virginity more so than reflect sexual behavior? I.E. can we know the boys weren't lying back in the day?
2008, the economy was down and banging was up.
People in the comments are so fucking stupid i swear
"zero OPPOSITE SEX sexual partners since they turned 18"
Also everyone who's taking about how lonely we are, it become more accepted to have same sex partners aswell. Just saying
The fact that people here seems to completely forget that gay people exist is just LOL for me.
I had 0 opposite sex sexual partners since I turned 18, and guess what? I still had a lot of sex.
Lots of ugly non-fucking people out there.
Brutal, but true. Mostly men too.
Turns out that sitting in your basement playing online video games isnât going to get laid no matter how many times you Shout aggressive sexual threats at underage girls. Whoddathunk?
They should play more single player games, now that's a chick magnet.
how are over 20% of people virgins at 30 years old?
This is all individuals age 18-30. Currently ~4% of 30 year-olds are virgins. 18-30 was used to put emphasis on how this rise is occurring particularly among Gen-Z and young Millennials.
oh ok, thank you for clearing that up. how is sex defined here? penis in vagina or whatever the respondent wanted to define as sexual activity?
I can imagine it happening with people, who take their education way too seriously (think grinding degrees or barely hopping jobs into your late 20s), and forgetting that dating is a thing. When you begin dating that late, it takes years to learn all of the nuances of basic empathy/affection, and maybe work with sex therapists to sort out problems where one partner is experienced, and the other isn't. Then you'll eventually find someone willing to have sex with you. I work in software, and met a lot of guys like this.
Because finding someone is hard
Lots of male virgins out there. Lose the man boobs and grow a pair.
[deleted]
They explicitly exclude people who are gay from the data
That survey look bs. I m sure you can remove like 15% to have the correct figures.
What makes you say this? The GSS is pretty credible. The Library of Congress and Department of Defense both use it.
1 men out of 4 is a 30 year old virgin ? you believe that ? you think escort and hookers are having what kind of men for customers ?
1/4 men ages 18-30. The point is to emphasize how Gen-Z and young millennials have had an increasing rate of sexlessness.
Though, the data doesnât account for homosexuals.
"zero opposite sex partners" jfc they're desperate to skew their statistics aren't they?
This is just the way that the GSS phrased the survey questions/responses.
The meteoric rise in men not haveing sex since 2008 is due to the increased prevalence of online gaming and you cant convince me otherwise.
This is based off 15k interviews...
That's less than .001% of the population of USA.
15000/335000000=0.0000447761
I'm sorry that you're bad at statistics :\
I met my wife in 1989, sorry.
So they just had same sex partners instead?
No, the survey excludes gay people
30-40% of GenZ are also part of the LGBT community so there is that
That's an absolutely unrealistic stat.
Several studies claim this
You should recheck your stats.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx
We were told it was about 10% in the 80s but later studies knocked that back to like 3% for strictly gay people. 5.6% seems about accurate if you factor in bi and trans demographics.
15.9% of Genz identify as LGBT 5% have no opinion on it thatâs quite a bit regardless
People thinking this shows that now there are more virgins than before when it only shows the percentage of gay people
Back that up please.
If this were true then the number of men that reported no sexual partners wouldn't have TRIPLED in the last 10 years.
[deleted]
[deleted]
1989 to now.
Wdym, netflix has been my best wingman
This is because people think having a friend in a video game or social media is the same as in real life. Get out there people!! Talk to someone face to face.
Is this not a measure of how many homosexuals there are? It says 0 partners of the opposite sex, maybe Iâm interpreting this wrong but the numbers seem way too high
Is this not a measure of how many homosexuals there are?
You got it, man. 27% of men are gay today whereas 8% were gay ten years ago. At this rate every man in the world will be gay within 20 years. Someone must have dumped a truckload of poppers into the water supply or something. Crackerjack insight right there.
Thatâs encouraging. With people marrying later, hopefully this reflects increasing abstinence before marriage.
I think this reflects an inability to form connection due to the rise of social media. Religion is dying out, not many people wait until marriage anymore
You could well be right but even an improvement for the wrong reasons is beneficial to society. Perhaps itâs one of the few silver linings to social media!
I don't believe so. Look at places where sex before marriage is still frowned upon. The men are sexually frustrated and sexual assault is more common. People get married to people they don't love because of hormones and then are pressured into staying together.
That may be true but that doesnât negate the negative of pre-marital sex. It reflects a growing trend of the inability of people to exert self-control, something that has broader negative effects than just in the area of sex.
I'd argue against that. I think the way media sexualizes our surroundings and paints a false image of the world is a player in the encouragement of pre-marital sex, and while I agree that it's important to have limits when it comes to sex, as with anything else that feels good, I don't think the solution is waiting until you enter a life long commitment with someone
While you are certainly free to act as you wish, long history has shown that adherence to traditional morals would alleviate many if not all of the problems that come from behaviors such as pre-marital sex.
So is that 10% discrepancy at the very end saying 10% of men are incels?
Someone needs to post this on r/teenagers. The cognitive dissonance is laughable.
Yeah this should be normalized by the percentage that there's no sex at all.
This plot is essentially useless without knowing the relative basis.
This is very hard to believe.
This is a terrible graph, it needs to be broken out by age. 12 years is a huge age spread. Most of the no sex crowd is probably between 18-19, and LOTS of people go 1-2 years w/o a partner.
are we forgetting gay/lesbian/queer people exist?
Not every study needs to do checkboxing of who it includes.
Is there a particular reason this is limited to opposite sex sexual partners?
And this is why the MAGA white victimhood cult and other white supremacy/nationalist groups have been having a field day recruiting socially inept young white shut-in males for years online.
Really?
Youâre all just out there, not fucking?
I mean, yeah, gayness is a thing, but thereâs not that many of them.
Omg, we must correct this injustice with massive social intervention
[removed]
Because... Of an increase of people who claim they haven't had a sexual partner of the OPPOSITE sex since 18?
Misogynistic movements like MGTOW are partly responsible.
[deleted]
This is absolutely copium and a lie. You see it this way because you're a privileged woman. You don't realize that for a guy to meet the standard you just mentioned here he has to be socioeconomically advantaged. How are you supposed to have decent social skills if you have no money or position reinforcement whenever you do try to be social? The fact that you think that it's so easy shows how privileged you are. The reality is that as a woman you have the chance to select for what you want. And most women don't seem to choose actually nice men.
[deleted]
Cope. Like you're coping/ trying to rationalize your argument even though it's false. And yeah that practically happens to every woman.
Killing it dudes, letâs keep it up! Pump those numbers!
That graph has to be at least partially due to the rise in population of LGBTQ people right? I agree that loneliness is a big part of it, but the wording of the title threw me off.
While this is an interesting chart, it does specifically exclude same sex partners. It would be interesting to see a sexuality unbiased chart.
Perhaps a sizable portion of society is becoming comfortable with ânon-traditionalâviews on sexuality.
If they only polled heterosexuals, this is sad.
If they only polled homosexuals, this is thought provoking.
If they polled both, this is useless.
In terms of ânaturalâ pregnancy between a male and female (as opposed to IVF, adoption, etc), couples are advised to start trying prior to 32 if they want one child, or 27 if they want two. This advice relates to fertility, but it is interesting to think of this and see this chart in light of continued downward trends in many first-world populations.
People in first world countries have less children because it's too expensive not because of fertility issues.
And itâs very unusual for kids not to make it to adulthood so you donât have âsparesâ
And contraceptives are accessible.
This really needs to be broken down to same sex, opposite sex, and neither, also both would be interesting.
Can someone not stupid as fuck explain to me how the numbers are different if in a ânormalâ sexual relationship purely statistically speaking men and women need to bang eachother? Does this just mean 10% deviation comes from lesbians doing it vs gay men?
Nope, Attractive men have lots of sex. Attractive and ugly women have medium amount of sex. Ugly men have no sex.
Gay Men were not having sex with Woman in the past, they were just counting themself as virgins if they did not live openly.
Everyone's just getting more queer is how I'm reading this.
Non cishets represent! Aces represent!
Wow. Put down the device and go meet girls!
I feel this could be extremist making...
I feel like if this were the other way around people would be discussing the gendered nature of this issue. But because it disproportionately effects men in this case nobody cares
Hold onâŠisnât this graph showing the rise of homosexuality? It doesnât ask about zero partners, just zero opposite sex partners, are there just more young people coming out? At best this graph would show a mixture, not a clear picture.
Someone may already have said this but what if this is just a reflection of the fact that being gay isnât something people feel they have to hide anymore so they donât lie when asked this question. In the past, they may have lied for fear of raising suspicions. To me, a more revealing question would be how many people have reported no partners, not just opposite sex partners.
Ok this is a really wierd chart. So it's people who either are gay OR have never had sex? What a wierd pair to combine into one statistic.
Steve Jobs is responsible.
Three rules for finding sex: donât be a dick, keep trying, everyone shits.
"opposite sex sexual partners" what about same sex sexual partners... The data doesn't show much of anything.
I've known a whole bunch of young dudes who are afraid to eat shit and talk to girls at the bar. I grew up before dating appa and eating shit was a sport.
Shit, Incels are actually real?
Uhm, did they only asked straight people? Because asking gay people about the last time they had sex with the opposite gender might skew the results a bit
Edit: my bad, answer in OPs citation
Very sad but in the end everyone decides for themselves if they want to be socially active.
surely this is like in the last year or something...
This just in: gay people don't exist.
The sharp increase for men could be attributed a couple things. One, of course, is simply the lack of a sexual partner. The other, in my opinion, is the much higher acceptance rate of gay men.
As the data says, only opposite sex partners. Gay men have had a history of being with a woman to "keep up appearances", while women have generally had a larger acceptance of being gay for more years.
Iâd say the societal views of gay women vs gay men thing isnât necessarily from acceptance but rather more fetishization, which would still lead to the result you mentioned. Just thought it was important to distinguish acceptance from fetishization.
Otherwise I totally agree with everything youâve said. Although, many women also get into relationship with men to keep up heterosexual appearances (I know I did that once when I was 18).
That is a good point about the distinction. Thank you.
Apart from straight people being lonelier this graph could also account for an increase of people with same sex partners.
Why is this entire feed talking about virgins when most of that number is probably just gay
Its only opposite sex, a part of the increase could be explained by the better acceptance of homosexuals maybe
Why does everyone assume this is due to people being virgins rather than people feeling more free to admit theyâre gay?
What about the gays though?
What portion of these people are gay?
What about same sex sexual partners?
Is this tracking loneliness, or the open acceptance of queer relationships?
Yall are goofin with this, what is the point of specifying same sex and then extrapolating across all society
Sex only counts if itâs with the opposite gender after all
[deleted]
The graph would represent both.
Wait, is this measuring lesbian and gay relationships or celibacy? The question combines two things
I wonder how this would change if it included same sex partners
Yooo who else not a virgin but still a proud member of this dataset?!
I'm curious as to why its specifically opposite sex sexual partners?
I canât tell if thereâs more gays or more virgins since 2008.
I think it is worth noting that the caveat in this statistic is "opposite sex." There may be some correlation between this and people who are exclusively with same sex partners.
Why do they specify opposite sex
So humanity is getting gayer? Or..?
Lots of comments are saying they're statistics and alone, meanwhile I'm thinking I'm a statistic in this graph and I'm just gay as fuck.
Would this include both people in same-sex relationships as well as those who identify as heterosexual but have been single since 18?
I wonder what percentage identify as asexual like me.
It says opposite sex sexual partners. It could also mean that there are more people who are having same sex partners instead.
Why the distinction of opposite sex partners?
Maybe more are turning gay
I feel like the increase is probably just gay people rather than lonely people.
Does this exclude LGBTQIA people? I could see this skewing the interpretation of the results.
One might interpret an increase in loneliness after 18 while the reality is an increase in gay acceptance and expression because of the phrasing âopposite sex partnersâ
Why only opposite sex though? Is this measuring virginity rates or just straight people rates?
Can't tell if it's virgins or gay people
Everyone who is talking about loneliness: uhhh I think this is actually a graph about gayness. read the title again
More for the rest of us woohoo!
Thank you for your Original Content, /u/TheGoldenChampion!
Here is some important information about this post:
View the author's citations
View other OC posts by this author
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
Join the Discord Community
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? Remix this visual with the data in the author's citation.
^^I'm open source | How I work
When you look at this and thought they were all just gay not single .....awkward
That's exactly what I thought! Is this a survey of only 100% straight people?
This is a key question. In many countries larger strides toward social acceptance of homosexuality has occurred in the past decade then ever before.