Changing your "not sexually active" situation will take putting yourself out there a lot, lowering your standards (you can raise them later), being open to meeting all sorts and getting rejected a lot. You'll certainly gain entertaining stories, and you'll probably meet some new friends, possibly one or more lovers and one of them may become a romantic partner if that's what you're after. Please be good to the people you meet while you're doing this. And along the way you'll develop a tolerance to rejection, which is a somewhere between life hack and superpower.
All that that may be overwhelming though. The block you quoted is riddled with social anxieties. See if that's hold you back, and if so then get a professional to help you out.
Side note, now is a good time to prepare for this change, because the pandemic has put everyone into extended isolation all at once. So there's a lot of pent up desire for connection that will be getting released over the next year.
See also https://youtu.be/9mbp0DugfCA and https://youtu.be/ZOgvWIulxho for fun.
I'm rooting for you, fellow throwaway!
Thanks for sharing those videos, even though I was able to make that physique/style/life control transformation several times (get fit -> fall into a hole -> get fit again, rinse and repeat) during my 20s, this pandemic made me fall into a rut and I'm heavily struggling to stay on the right track that makes me climb up again. These videos are were another spark of motivation to try again.
As for the "not sexually active" situation, I've noticed the feeling of frustration has become more intense and had made me more sad about it lately. As an introvert, the co-workers social circle is usually one of the main ones, but unfortunately I'm working alone because it has many more pros (own schedule -> go to gym when it's deserted, beat traffic, do errands at times where there are less waiting times, etc). Old college friends are starting to get married and be more busy, so I've been seeing them less, so less opportunity to be introduced to new people. I've tried salsa classes before the pandemic but didn't workout for that matter (couples that are very private, people that leave once the class ends, tight groups of friends). I've also tried the Tinder way, and the closest I've ended with a woman from it, she ended up losing interest when the pandemic started. Now I'm seeing someone from Tinder, and even though it will probably stay at friendship I'm taking it.
I've been seeing a therapist since a couple years ago after I had my first panic attack, since then I've been using therapy for all my issues. However, even though I've been open about my sexual frustrations, I feel like my therapist ignores it and simply tries to work on my social aspect in general. My therapist is female and I wonder if having a male therapist it would be different, I've been wanting to try but I already invested many sessions with my current therapist.
Get a new therapist. At the very least try a few sessions with someone else. Yes, try a male therapist. Your rationalization of "already invested many sessions" is that of the sunk cost fallacy. You should be so confident that you're not wasting your time in therapy that you'd never think to ask internet strangers if you should switch. The worst that could happen is you waste a few hours trying out a new therapist or two. The best that could happen is that you actually find someone who isn't dismissive of a concern that's clearly animating you, about a very important part of human existence.
Things will get better soon.
And yes, I'd imagine that a more similarly gendered and oriented therapist would find it easier to relate to your concerns. But maybe just being direct with your current therapist would help. There may be a good reason she's redirecting you to more general social aspects, or maybe she's not trained to deal with male sexuality.
I do not want to participate in some mating ritual that involves two persons lying to each other in order to just relieve some sexual tension. In Romania I do not feel that generally girls are ok with no strings attached sex without this dishonest dance and even so, I couldn't probably get as attractive a girl as an escort. Maybe I could by investing a lot more time than I'm comfortable with just to satisfy a basic urge... but for 100$ I can have sex with girls of the same level of say Emma Stone that really know what they're doing.
So if I make even 25$/h that's 4h of work for 1 sex session, which will take place entirely when I feel the desire for it. To find a similar (looking) girl that will have sex "for free" will probably take more than 10x more time and even then the actual sex might not be as good. Even if it is as good it will happen when the stars align and we both want it at the same time.
I see a problem developing though where having so easily "hooked-up" with good looking women for money anywhere I am, even if I do get married at some point, I fear my urge to try someone new (and hence cheat on my partner) will be pretty strong after a while just because it's so easy and convenient to do so. I don't have a solution for this and this is also the reason I'm not able to get myself to commit to a serious relationship.
Not sure if you've thought of this or experienced this issue.
I think escorts are safer than casual sex, their job is at stake.
> FSWs were almost twice as likely to be diagnosed with chlamydia, and three times more likely to be diagnosed with gonorrhoea than other female attendees, adjusting for demographic factors.
The contamination is unlikely to come from raw food itself, chefs at restaurants are buying from the same retail channels as the rest of the people.
The source of contamination can be improper storage or handling, kitchen equipment, dishes and cutlery, people doing all the above. All these things are reused in restaurants.
> twice as likely to be diagnosed with chlamydia
See the table on page 347. For chlamydia, "period prevalence" figure is 10.1% for sex workers, 8.5% for other female attendees. That's 20% difference, not twice as likely.
Compensating for demographics factors is hard. You can surely compensate for the factor "young", can probably compensate for the factor "single", but how would you compensate for the factor "promiscuous", i.e. likely to go out and have casual sex? Because that's the demographic group people gonna sleep with, instead of sex workers.
I am the kind of person that will stick with anything if I love it. Even with escorts if I find one that I really like and she really stands out I will go see her exclusively until things change. I won't feel the need for variety just for the sake of it but I know not everyone feels this way.
I haven't tried this but there are people out there that build "harems" while being honest about it. If you truly can't live without variety and are confident in yourself you will find a girl that wants an open relationship or maybe you can find someone bisexual that can enjoy variety with you.
I have heard my share of sad stories from them and I don't revisit those. Regardless of my participation or not in this trade I know the trade will go on, there will always be men who seek this kind of service so I appease my conscience by treating the girls well and not revisiting those that don't seem to genuinely enjoy my company.
I simply can not believe one can act so well in front of me and on the side be forced to do this. I mean moaning is simple to fake but the 30 min of conversation of the 1h I pay for? Keeping a cheerful vibe while opressed is hard to do.
> I believe I have enough experience to tell if a girl is enjoying her time with me
Do consider that it is in the service provider’s interest to make you think this. When you are paying money for experience, you can’t use how the experience makes you feel to evaluate how the employees feel about it.
> If a girl gives signs that she doesn't enjoy [it, I] never visit her again.
Can’t you see how in this situation it would be in the sex worker’s interest to give signs she enjoys your thing? If she does not, she looses a customer.
I’m not saying that prostitution is wrong or that some sex workers don’t enjoy they job. It just might be the only realistic option for someone.
Some things that a country could do so that people have the option to not be a prostitute:
* food and housing for people who need it
* equal pay and career opportunity for men and women
* drug treatment programs that don’t put people in jail for addiction
See “Revolting Prostitutes” for more details
> Can’t you see how in this situation it would be in the sex worker’s interest to give signs she enjoys your thing? If she does not, she looses a customer.
You are speaking from theory and books. I speak from experience, I have been to a lot of girls that will tell you right quick that you are going too hard, won't like any position you want and are generally openly obnoxious to you so that you will leave as fast as possible. Usually you will find these after 23pm with low prices. I could write a small book on all types of sex workers I've encountered and very few of them are actually pleasant to be around. Now is that because they select their own customers just as the customers select them or because they're acting we will never know.
> It just might be the only realistic option for someone.
You are victimizing them because you haven't met them. I have yet to find a girl that is actually grateful as you would expect someone to be when they earn in 30 min what others work a whole day for. They could find a corporate job that easily pays 600-700 euros, live with a roommate and cook their own food like most other girls in Bucharest or have sex for 2h per day and make 4 times that. 99% of them, even the ones I carefully select are arrogant and spend money like there's no tomorrow living an expensive lifestyle. Can't really blame them because I am basically doing the same thing but to suggest these are hidden victims is really showing your lack of inexperience.
I'm not saying there aren't victims of abuse, what I'm saying is that it is hard to hide such abuse.
Men tend to make more money than women. If a woman has a child or children to care for, sex work or exotic dancing etc al may be her only really viable option.
I will add that like with any industry, insiders will know some tricks and may have been coached on how to handle certain things. In the book Mayflower Madame, the escorts were explicitly told to act excited if a guy splurged at dinner and bought an entire bottle of champagne and not act like this was an everyday occurrence for them even though it might be the second or third time that day.
Honestly I don't even know if there are any escorts like that in Romania. The few people that could afford them are relatively well known and going to dinner in an expensive restaurant would be seen by basically everybody which I assume is not desired by men of high status. They might book them at the hotel though and honestly for 1000$ a night or more I assume it is easy to act.
However I pay 70$-100$, you think a girl would care enough to act for such little money? Even though it's Romania, most people that make money easily learn to not give a crap about money and are not generally motivated by money.
Edit: also, I never tip, I only pay the advertised price.
A number of people on the leader board are millionaires. I have reason to believe their participation on HN is part of what makes them wealthy.
I was homeless for nearly six years and remain dirt poor and continue to get a lot of guff any time I try to talk about that, no matter the reason and no matter the framing.
I have six years of college. Etc.
While I was homeless, men sometimes offered me cash to sleep with them based solely on my looks and obvious poverty. But trying to network with business professionals on a platform that literally helps a lot of people become quite wealthy has done relatively little for my bottom line and I have been repeatedly told "Go get a real job" and this kind of crap.
You said you are paying four times your hourly wage and I imagine that $25/hour is fairly good money for Romania. It would be decent pay in the US where people are trying to advocate for a minimum wage of $15/hour.
I don't know what her cut is out of what you pay and I don't know how much of her time you are getting, but for a lot of women, that would be vastly better pay than they have any hope of making any other way and they will put up with it simply because the alternatives amount to starving to death and may be just as objectionable as sex work.
Lots of low paying jobs are unpleasant work, like cleaning toilets. Lots of low paying jobs subject you to abusive bosses and abusive customers. It's common knowledge that wait staff at restaurants are typically treated terribly.
> While I was homeless, men sometimes offered me cash to sleep with them based solely on my looks and obvious poverty.
The way I find girls is through a community forum which practices reviews. I very rarely visit a "new" girl which doesn't have good reviews from reputable members so while I am sorry to hear your experience, I have never offered money to a girl for sex out of the blue or because I felt she was vulnerable. I've only ever been to girls that explicitly advertise such services.
> Lots of low paying jobs are unpleasant work, like cleaning toilets. Lots of low paying jobs subject you to abusive bosses and abusive customers. It's common knowledge that wait staff at restaurants are typically treated terribly.
You assume I am going to girls that are generally treated terribly, have a pimp that takes all their money and are happy to act cheerful for 100$ per hour having sex with 20+ different men per week.
There's no need for her to act, there's plenty of demand for warm bodies without any need for good social skills. And I believe generally those girls that don't offer good GFE are probably forced into it. That would probably even be the majority of the market. I don't know, I haven't done any field research on this but I assume I only visit like 1-2% of girls and am very rarely dissapointed with a new girl because it's hard to fake honest signals.
However it is not hard to make a decent living as an independent girl. The good ones generally work from 10am to 22pm at most. They take good care of themselves, screen clients and build up private lists where they won't even take new clients. If she just wants to live a basic good life she could take 5 regular clients 2-3 times per month and make 1000-2000$ easily working at most 20h per month. That money could well pay for eating only takeout and have a very nice appartment in Bucharest.
I'm not making any of the assumptions you accuse me of. I'm just trying to say that the world of work and opportunities available to women are different than for men, so their logic for why they make certain choices may not be what a man would expect based on how he thinks about his choices in relation to how to earn a living.
I'm medically handicapped and for that reason I have been celibate for nearly 16 years. If I thought I could successfully become a sex worker or exotic dancer and make good money for a while to pay off my debts and pay cash for a house, I would likely do that. I have no moral objection to sex work and I've thought a great deal about it and a lot of marriages are thinly veiled sex-for-money deals, in essence.
I would rather get paid by the hour for sex than be some man's property pretending we "love" each other when we don't. I'm crystal clear on that detail.
I'm sorry if you feel uncomfortable with the idea that maybe some of these women don't really want to be doing this kind of work and feel like it's a big moral issue if they don't. But the simple reality is that, say, in Hollywood, women need to look good and be sexy to become successful. In contrast, men are deemed to be sexually attractive because they are successful.
When push comes to shove, women are expected to use their sexuality to some degree to open doors career-wise in a way men are generally not expected to do. This is rampant across multiple industries and it's something people mostly don't want to talk about and it's part of why you see so much sexual harassment of women on the job, etc.
I haven't caved to the pressure to go that route because I have a bigger personal demon looming over me that does such terrible things to a person it is classified as a dread disease.
But trying to get into that probably isn't clarifying anything. It's probably just opening up a giant can of worms pointlessly.
I think I will stop here, whether it served to clarify anything or not. Sometimes the least worst action is just "stop digging your grave deeper."
You have a good day.
> When push comes to shove, women are expected to use their sexuality to some degree to open doors career-wise in a way men are generally not expected to do
Men are generally not epected to use their sexuality because it doesn't work. If it worked I'm sure some % of men would use it. Proof : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26165800
I don't believe women are expected to use their sexuality. Women just have that tool available to them and some will choose to use it. Some men will only hire or promote those kinds of women and honestly I don't know if that's a good or bad thing, we could debate this for hours.
Funniest thing I’ve read today. Is that a normal thing you do? Just online or for the panhandler at the corner via mobile? How do you determine the saving throw? So many Q’s..
I absolutely agree that if they could, there are men who would.
I don't agree that women are not expected to use their sexuality. I'm not interested in debating it.
I've stated my opinion. Some folks here will recognize my handle and have some idea of who I am and yadda and others won't. It is inevitable that different people will perceive my opinions differently depending on how much and what they know about me (and no doubt other factors as well).
You have a good day.
Millions of retail workers would disagree. And acting isn't even the oldest profession.
You underestimate how horny some men are. One girl was telling me how it was 15 years ago.. men would line up in front of the apt building, go in, get a blowjob and a quick fuck for like 20min door-to-door, pay 25$ and leave. I don't know if she in particular didn't perform "girlfriend experience" type work or that's how they mostly were but trust me, there are more men who don't care about how happy the girl is and don't give a crap about her being cheerful or not.
I just believe that mouthwash and soap works. Been doing this for 5-6 years now and it only gets better as I get better at treating them better, being more relaxed which makes them more relaxed etc.
> Why is just jacking off not a better option than this?
Why are you watching videos in 720p+ instead of using magazines? It's just a higher resolution experience.
The other excuses don't really resonate with me. Roommates? We were having plenty of sex in college, text your roommate to go away for a bit. Parents? Idk I just used my car or wait for them to go to sleep. 17 - to early 20s just do what you can. I don't get the broke thing, college bars are cheap, or we just went to parks or whatever.
Last time I had a girlfriend I'd come off a 2 year spree of virtual homelessness and poverty. I was living with my parents (mom and dad, both separated) transiently. I was dirt poor, drugs problem, losing jobs etc... She was in college studying to become a nurse. It wasn't one of those asymmetrical relationships either. She wasn't on the goon squad.
Now that I have money, my own place, some direction and intention in my life... In most context where I have exposure there's some sort of hazard. Like trying to do anything at work when there might be a signal there seems like a terrible idea. Way too much potential for bad shit. At college, well shit I don't know if I'd be okay with dating anybody younger than 21, or a 21 year old for that matter (which is the rough majority). Even if we assume the age floor was 28 I still wouldn't dare approach anybody without evident interest, and networking at school is impossible because I'm swamped with work and work. I can get conversations started on Tinder, but they burn out fast and hard, no effort on the other end. I get a lot of matches, but I've only managed to finagle 2 dates out of what has to be hundreds of matches. I can't say how many I've actually opened, the odds look like shit regardless. Doesn't help that I live in an ultra-conservative rural cesspool where there's like... .5 degrees of separation.
And then what are you to take from all the man-bashing shit? All the vitriolic speech against white males? And so on and so forth.
I'll go to pornhub, thanks.
If you were an alpha male you'd never be paying attention to this in the first place. This is only a concern if you're reading memes spread by neurotic people on the internet.
Last month she started following a local me-too movement FB group that had women sharing about their past harassment experiences and calling out their aggressors, that ranged from total abuse of power, to sexual innuendos over IM.
Last couple of times we texted each other mostly consisted of her showing me past screenshots of chats where someone (from Tinder) would be sexually suggestive, nothing explicit, and would start to tell me how she didn't realize that she was being harassed and that she's being disgusted by them.
I don't mean to suggest that this is the only reason, I just think it contributes.
We're at a point in time where our society places a lot of value in sex and romance, but it's now easy to largely forego these things and dump your time into other things you're passionate about. It seems that when these discussions about the relative celibacy of young people come up, people talk a lot about how it must be because young people are facing effectively insurmountable struggles, and mostly ignore that it's possible that it's easier to focus on things other than sex now. That possibility runs contrary to how most of us were brought up, and it's why you're asking what we should do to "improve" these trends. Have we considered that there might be nothing to fix, and that the trend doesn't need to be stopped?
Well, HIV/AIDS seems relatively under control compared to when I was a young man, and there’s a vaccine for HPV, so get on out there, young blood!
Aversion to anonymous or even just casual sex for my generation (X) was from diseases. That seems like less of an issue now, but maybe the education system doesn’t want to let up on the risks yet, kind of like cities keeping us doing the recycling motions even when they’re throwing it in landfills - the behaviors are deemed valuable or the institutions just haven’t caught up to reality.
Probably your biggest issue as a generation is the freely available custom porn and social media alienating people from each other - there’s a lack of need to hook up and a self-inflicted lack of opportunity. Also, sensitivities to workplace hookups are a much bigger deal than they were even 15 years ago.
Research on satisfaction differences between relationship types is illuminating
We’ll sacrifice bad guys to the volcano gods for awhile, then the bubble will pop, the trend will fade and women (in the media) will be thirsting for men who aren’t wusses.
I don't really know how to change whole cultures though, other than to change the propaganda (messaging) or improve the support structures so people feel safe enough to experiment and have fun with life.
If we built our economies on the expectation of continued population growth, then that just means there was a MASSIVE lack of forethought. But that doesn't mean the solution is to start pumping out more kids. Instead we adapt how these structures work to accommodate the flat or lessened population numbers.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-23/econom...
> Every day I see attractive, intelligent, productive, highly empathetic couples justifying their decision to not have children ... The total fertility rate for North America is 1.7 [1]. Meanwhile, the total fertility rate for Sub-Saharan Africa is 4.7 [2].
HN requires I give the best interpretation here. It sounds like there's an observation bias: you see prime individuals not reproducing, but what about elsewhere? It certainly seems possible the same cohort in Saharan Africa are not making the same choice, given the higher birth rate.
> ...IQ is 50-70% heritable.
Alright, but IQ doesn't translate to attractiveness or productivity. My school's valedictorian went on to work an IT Support job. Should we be saddened if they don't reproduce?
Lastly, there are plenty of poor, intelligent people. Your comment sets up this narrative that intelligence is split by continent, and humanity will be worse off, since the smart continent has a lower reproductive rate. The facts don't support that. Most people alive today are the progeny of serfs of the Middle Ages. They were poor, but certainly not all were unintelligent.
Because not bringing them in is defeatism. Suicide in fact.
If you want to solve the problem, children are ones who can do it, and your task is to prepare them to do it.
If you flunk from this, you are the reason the world fails.
Yeah, but maybe not human children.
If anything we need more non human children on this planet, we are attempting to fish the oceans dry, there's less than 10% of old growth forests still in North America.
Almost every ecosystem on earth is severely degraded due to human activity. If aliens came to visit they might logically assume that humans are at war with nature.
We are living in a slow moving apocalypse and we don't even recognise that fact because we think that this is normal.
There is no such thing. We are the one, the unity. There is no border, no difference between "ecosystems" and "us". The whole biosphere is a single, very complex, but undivisable system. Get rid of any tiny single part, like a single human being and it responds.
In this light, I see the notions like childfree or extinction rebellion as cancer. People doing this do not even attempt to understand the real consequences of their actions.
And why would you want to bring children into the world? Because there is no guarantee those things will happen.
What if someone decided not to have children in the 1960’s because the Cold War was going to result in nuclear annihilation? They and their non-existent children missed out on decades of peace and prosperity.
And since you can't grow a baby in a vacuum, the data is inexorably tainted. Not to mention that it decorrelates once you move out of the range of people with serious cognitive deficits, at least in terms of monetary success, with outliers showing 140IQ and $30k income per annum. And in terms of productivity there's too many arguments to be made to even begin considering how lackluster that argument is. Like productivity being tied to income, and that income isn't correlated with IQ, thus IQ can't be determined to have a correlation with productivity, right?
>liberal free-market utopia We're a psuedo-fascist democracy. Since the first time the government elected to choose a company to even acknowledge we departed from the liberal ideal. Corporations being people? Big fascist move there. But yeah, you keep laboring under that impression.
>growth, innovation, future-oriented Maybe we've figured out, collectively, that shit is fucked. That the finite world can't provide each generation consecutively with the same allotment of resources and the tangible decline in quality of life that we're already suffering is enough to push most everyone out of the reproduction cycle, voluntarily or not. Maybe people are (literally) sick from the constant goading we receive from our "culture" which is little more than emotionally appealing marketing in the vast majority of cases. It's a dissatisfying and vacuous sphere of garbage.
To the point of innovation, we're hilariously stagnant in every aspect. Always have been.
Future orientation is what allowed the communist revolution to justify the killing of millions. Future orientation is what the Nazi party used to justify their actions. We need to look to the now.
"heritable" does not mean "genetic", please stop reading fake science and slatestarcodex comments. Children exist in the same environment and have the same nutrition as their parents.
Besides that, most published scientific results are false, so why are you believing anything about IQ when you haven't personally sat the people you're claiming are inferior down and had them take a test?
"Children exist in the same environment."
But I get it, you are only pro-science when you happen to agree with the conclusions already.
Nevertheless, what you cited and attacked is uncontroversial. IQ is heritable, whether it's due to genetics or prenatal nutrition or some combination. You then turned such a scientifically uncontroversial statement into an emotional straw-man attack.
> IQ is heritable, whether it's due to genetics or prenatal nutrition or some combination.
Yes, and I said it wasn't genetic. A "heritable" effect can only last one generation - all you have to do is invest in lead abatement.
In fact, even if it is genetic it can still be treated. Phenylketonurics have a "genetic condition that reduces intelligence" that affects them when they drink Coke, and the treatment is to not do that.
People who discuss this in SSC and marginalrevolution comments don't care about this - what they want is to have secret knowledge that society won't acknowledge that says they're morally superior to Mexicans so they can complain about immigration.
Right, but you said "Children exist in the same environment", which is present-tense. If you said "Children existed in the same environment", then it would've come across as you intended.
> I said it wasn't genetic
Source/rationale? That's a rather strong claim.
> even if it is genetic it can still be treated.
Potentially correct, but it doesn't mean it can be treated well given current knowledge. There's lots of genetic problems where our treatments currently suck, and you can't claim to know when/if those treatments will get better for some specific genetic problem.
> People who discuss this in SSC and marginalrevolution comments don't care about this
Who would argue against lead abatement resulting in higher IQ levels? Who would argue that prenatal nutrition isn't part of the picture? I mean sure, you can find one nutjob in the comments section anywhere. But that's hardly an argument against anything.
Hell, you do know that the cells in your own body don't all have the same genome, right?
Why do we need to? The data shows that sex, drug use, etc., actually peaked with baby boomers. They were peak frivolity. It’s only because they created all the media for decades that we think those were good things. Millennials are a more sober and serious generation for a more sober and serious time. No need to regress.
> At their peak in 1980 illegal drugs accounted for 5 % of total personal consumption expenditure in US. An astonishing figure corroborated by contemporary estimates that cocaine sales peaked at $35bn in 1980. Rachel Soloveichik @BEA_News
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-cocaine-prices-change-201...
Thinking about it more, I guess you need to clarify if a boomers today use more drugs or was drug use higher in the 60s,70s,80s then in 00s and 10s. Other stuff I searched suggested boomers in the 10s are hit hard by opioids
Drugs are increasingly unkind to the bod the older you get, so I’d imagine it’s the latter.
For the record, I paid about 125/g in the mid nineties. I’m sure someone’s made a chart of this somewhere. I remember High Times magazine or Cannabis Culture used to have a spot price table in most issues based on numbers submitted by their readership. Would make an interesting graph. I don’t tend to trust LE valuations of drug prices because their incentivized to inflate them on capture and deflate them on selling risk.
I mean, the US did embark on a multi-decade war. But is our time fundamentally more serious than what the Boomers went through?
Younger generations have to work 10X as hard for a chance at that kind of middle class lifestyle.
When it comes to where you live it's poor job prospects or unaffordable real estate: pick one. Everything goes up but wages. If you're not in the "professional class" by 30-40 years old you're in real trouble. There's an alternate path that involves living in low cost of living places and working your ass off while you live below your means, but that's not really easier just different.
Younger generations, especially those younger than GenX, know that you just can't fuck around... literally or metaphorically. The party's over.
Edit: Someone will comment that this was only true for white boomers. You're right. Now it's true for nobody.
(Pandemic lockdowns of course might get in the way, but I'm speaking generally when those restrictions aren't there)
Unless you're in the top 20% or so of attractiveness.
This stresses me out as a young and not sexually active millennial. What do we do as a society to improve some of these trends? Do we want to? What do I do as an individual to change my individual situation?