People aren't aware of it because that's not true (at least not to that extent). Here's the raw data: https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jaman...

See tables 1, 5, 9, and 10. I'm not going to do all the math here, but point is the majority of both men and women are in stable monogamous relationships. That's true even for the unmarried population.

Now you might be talking about trends in the minority of the population that doesn't want a stable relationship, but that's a very different statement.

It's absolutely true in the context of the report in the OP.

> If I said the above out in the open I would lose my job

Erm no, not quite. Maybe this part:

> the sexual revolution was never about free love or sexual freedom, it was about womens rights to sleep with the few men they are all attracted to

Women should not have their rights limited because some men feel that they are obligated to have sex with them.

If the result of such equality is that people are forming relationships less often than before, then the problem lies in the behaviors of both men AND women, not in the decision to allow women bodily and sexual autonomy in the first place.

>Erm no, not quite. Maybe this part:

>> the sexual revolution was never about free love or sexual freedom, it was about womens rights to sleep with the few men they are all attracted to

Although his phrasing is a little clumsy, it represents the truth of the report above. Within the singles market, a majority of young men are disenfranchised and alienated and lonely because a majority of women are chasing after a minority of men.

Why should he lose his job for stating an uncomfortable truth?

What's new is women can do this without settling down or having children, casually IOW.

Monogamy is better for raising children and for societal stability, but monogamy seems alive and well, just most women have to lower their standards and settle for a regular guy as time runs out on their biological clock and their desirability drops with age. That's making a lot of sweeping generalizations bordering on the offensive, but seems necessary to talk about society in general. Obviously individual motivations and paths in life vary widely.

I wonder what the societal implications are for having a majority of young men be very undesirable and a majority of women start on top of the world at 18 and steadily fall down from there and have to settle. It doesn't seem to be good for either gender.

I dont think we have seen the full impact of this yet. Online dating has been a major catalyst and made things alot worse. I think we are still 10-15, maybe 20 years off before we see people growing older and the toll this type of sexual marketplace takes on their relationships.

So maybe the effect won't be totally unknown, just a continuation of current trends - like later marriages, less children, and higher divorce rates.

Who knows what kind of war sexually exhausted man would impose?

I agree that there are larger societal changes at play, but saying this isn't strictly more free than before isn't painting the picture honestly.

If you read the work of earlier sexual reformers, particularly Wilhelm Reich, who wrote "Sexual Revolution" in the 1930s (yes, that one), then you instead find dreams of new ways of living together, with sexual freedom going hand-in-hand with the total abolition of the nuclear family, etc.

Instead, we've become more isolated in societal terms, and more dependent on commodifying ourselves and others (particular in terms of image) in order to attain our social and physical pleasures. It is the result of this shift--isolation and atomization, not freedom qua freedom--that we see the problems discussed here.

I generally agree with this, but then again, I'm also generally wary of taxation for the same reason: nobody should be required to give money to somebody else via the state.

Do they just hide from the data, are they not using dating sites etc?

The only thing she can do: find hot 10/10 model guys that jet around the world for their Gucci/Prada/Chanel model jobs, fuck with them and feel great for a short period of time.

I try to help her in the difficult times ofc, but it annoys me a lot how bad these guys behave.

Special, indeed.

Sort of. When you start with the preconception that men have the societal power (and that women must be monogomous/attached to only a single man), then yes monogomy has a purpose. It allows most men to have stable relationships. The alternative is classical polygamy (which might better be referred to as polygyny, or marriage where a man has multiple wives), women with many husbands are...rarer in history.

If you drop the restriction that women are attached only to a single man, a lot of the causes for unrest go away. And indeed at that point, there's actually no real hard-learned thing you're basing the restrictions on, because it's all predicated on women being attached to at most one man.

Not if the attachments become grouped such that some have many connections and many have none.

You can't also just call on a tuesday night a 3-5% woman and expect her to be on your doorsteps in 1 hour if you're feeling horney.

I don't think the real number is 3~5% though.

One thing I suspect is that there isn't much of a trend of people becoming more educated about sex, sexuality, and sexual psychology in today's hyper-aware world. If anything, it might be the opposite.

In all aspects of society.

This is the part of this whole theory that I don't really get -- why would these presumably superficial men bother sleeping with women "way below their league" when they could be sleeping with women in, or at least near, their "league" all the time? Is the novelty of a constant huge supply of new partners really that important vs. having a slightly smaller rotation of people in "your league"?

The 10% of men having most women matches does not mean all of those men in the 10% have it equally easy. Hence it is easier for an average 10%er to pick without putting work instead of fishing for slightly better women... Pareto?

> Is the novelty of a constant huge supply of new partners really that important vs. having a slightly smaller rotation of people in "your league"?

Yes, at least for many men. I recall having read a study or article at some point that claimed that sexual attractiveness is higher the first handful of encounters with a given partner.

Not all top 20% are equal. For the top 10% men, sometimes the woman doesn't matter at all. There is no need to even try to maintain a huge rotation.

Sometimes they're just busy with work and don't maintain rotations. Other times they were bored and the first willing girl on tinder is ok for the night.

Additionally, being above or below someone's "league" is a bit of an oversimplification, because there are multiple axes to attraction. It's quite possible to be physically yet not mentally attracted to someone, and thus authentically enjoy sexual encounters with people who you'd prefer not to date seriously, let alone marrying.

If you accept both of these situations, it's not difficult to imagine a world in which many women are having sex with men where there's mutual sexual attraction but no possibility for a relationship, because the man is only interested in sex. Of course this happens the other way too, although I'd guess much less often.

An ex of mine (who I'd remained friendly with) once showed me her Tinder messages and it was full of attractive, confident, successful men who clearly were only interested in sex with her, and who didn't mind being almost offensively direct, presumably because they all had lots of other options for sex.

Nerdier programmers should spend less time talking among themselves about Redis, NodeJS and Angular at those bars and more time talking to women that are there about something other than nerdy stuff. One would be amazed how far even cursory knowledge of different topics, current events, food, wine and general happenings in the city goes to establish that the biggest nerds are quirky rather than dull. Quirky people get laid. Dull people don't.