I read the chart as indicating a jump from ~15% to 28% of men 18-30 not having sex, and women from ~13% to 18%. So perhaps the simultaneous rise could be due to factors like less promiscuity overall or more selectivity, but I find that GP's reasoning is plausible for explaining why sexlessness in men rose higher and faster than that in women.
Your other comment in this overall thread gives me the impression that you actually disagree though, so I think I'm missing something and would appreciate more explanation.
Quoting from the "Age at first sex" section:
The median age at first sex declined among women born in the 1950s and 1960s, but beginning with women born in the 1970s, this trend halted at about 17.0 years of age, and the median age actually increased by almost a year among cohorts coming of age in the late 1990s. Accordingly, the “current” median age (i.e., the median for the most recent cohort for which a median can be calculated) at first sex is 17.8 for women.
A similar increase beginning with the 1982 birth cohort was seen for men (Figure 2), although median age at first sex was stable for those born between 1960 and 1985, at about 17.0. The “current” median age at first sex for men is 18.1.
So young people start having sex about a year later, men 0.1 years later than women. Not really a huge difference compared to the overall change.
If you think that women must have a lot more sex than men because they'd have an easy time finding a random man who'd sleep with them, you should consider that most women don't want to sleep with just any random man. Similarly, if men who're not having sex were fine with any random partner, they could just pay a prostitute. But clearly people have higher standards than that.
> for men is 18.1.
> men 0.1 years later than women.
18.1 - 17.8 = 0.3, not 0.1
I don't think though it can be inferred from here that women hook up with the top 10/15% of men.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-ame...
It dances around the point but the GP's logic seems plausible, if exaggerated. If the increase in sexlessness among young men is ~twice that of the increase of sexlessness in young women over the same timeframe, it is quite plausible that the same men are having sex with more women.
I was bullied in elementary school which gave me a high sensitivity to social rejection. I was really afraid of dying alone in high school. Although I was not treated cruelly as a teen I heard a lot of "be yourself", "be a decent person", "it will get better in the sweet bye and bye".
That was the beginning of seven years of despair which still affect me decades later. In particular, a lot of guys seem to focus on "being a decent person" and find that what they get is a lot of listening to women complain about their bad boyfriends. (I didn't particularly fall for that --it but I have a tenant who tells me all sorts of things that women told him that he shouldn't be repeating to me.)
I think a lot of men are in situations where they see no path forward. The blackpill incel stuff is poison but I know I felt absolutely alone (couldn't get any recognition from adults and teens that I had a problem) when I was a teenager and if Wheat Waffles had been around back then I probably would have thought "here is a movement of people like me, for the first time I feel like somebody hears me"
(My son had a friend fall under Wheat's spell and he disconnected from my son Scientology-style because my son was taller than him and was concerned my son would "heightmog" him.)
Listen or not you're going to hear more and more from people who steal the vocabulary and discursive techniques of the incels.
If people pay attention they might discover the magic keys to solving problems like "blacks vs the police", "residential segregation of racial minorities", "women getting paid less than men" and "i can't afford healthcare" that never go away -- all of them have a structure similar to the incel problem in that people are making a demand which could seem reasonable in the abstract that becomes unreasonable or unsatisfiable when you expect that some particular person in some particular situation do something for you.
It just is more likely for a man to only have 1-2 partners before settling down with one. While a female may have had 2-10x that number by the time they settle down.
Its that 1/8 of men that have many partners, while 4/8 woman have many partners.
A man can be a sl*t too.
But you'll find that these days a young man is more likely to want to start a family than a young woman. And this has been proven over and over again by studies.
Do you really think that this matters in a discussion? An argument is either valid or not. It doesn't matter if it's used in a currently ostracized community or by people having unhealthy views.
See this article [0] discussing a study, and specifically this quote in it which I think reconciles both your point and the GP's:
> Most women and men reported at least weekly sex, and most people reported having one sexual partner in the prior year. In the most recent surveys, men age 18 to 44 were more likely to have had no partners in the past year (16 percent) compared to women (12 percent). Men also were more likely to have had three or more partners in the past year (15 percent) compared to women (7 percent).
[0]: https://news.iu.edu/stories/2020/06/iub/releases/15-sexual-i...
Men:women are born at 107:100. There are about 7% more men than women in the world at birth. This only evens out by age 40. This is due to suicide rates among men being wildly higher.
Most men and women are monogamous - but many people date. A few men sleep with many women. Many men never see a date or any sex. 25% of men will be childless. 15% of women will be childless. It should get kinda obvious how this works even with a monogamous society. Women can get sex when they want and not commit to someone even in a monogamous society. The attractive men can choose to be non-committal and sleep with many women. Eventually - many women will commit to a man but it will be to a man who had very few partners whereas the woman might've slept with many of the men who get to sleep with many women.
Basically - the idea is that a small subset of men are sleeping with all the women. The women might settle down eventually but they will inevitably settle down with a man who did not have many sexual partners.
107:100 is either the high end of the range or outside of the range, depending on which estimate you look at. 105:100 seems to be closer to mid-range. [0]
> This only evens out by age 40.
Globally, it's actually closer to 50. [1] In particular countries this varies a lot from the global average, and, yes, the US is around 40. [2]
> This is due to suicide rates among men being wildly higher.
No, it's not. Boys have significantly higher infant mortality and males have higher rates of violent (even excluding suicide) and accidental death at all age ranges. Suicide isn't the main differentiating factor.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio
[1] https://statisticstimes.com/demographics/world-sex-ratio.php
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the...
Research into “accidental deaths” a bit more. You’ll find it’s not that “accidental.” A lot of things get ruled as an accidental deaths when they’re not. This is due to the US trying to save face. Work in the military enough and you’ll see what I mean.
And yes - seems closer to 105:100. Just ignore under age 5 age count if you’re bothered by increased infant mortality. You’ll find it’s still 105:100…
I've read 18 but I forget the source.
[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/quillette/status/1105679979256389...
You are forgetting the 4th dimension.
Now, I view it as a conspiracy theory that's meant to make young guys paranoid. And of course, many of those who come up with these theories, have books and courses to sell to those who believe them.
Edit: found it; institute of family studies 2022 of no sex in the past 5 years for under 35 year olds.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-faith-less-sex-why-are-so-ma...
The rest either are financial loosers or work/family becomes their life. Do nothing more than work all day to bring home the big bucks, and spend the rest of their night with their kids and wife.
If you've ever read articles about Tinder and the whole random hookup culture, you'd know it is largely driven by a small % of men and a wider range of woman that are not looking for a relationship at all. And a large % of Men that fail to attract anything.
I found my soulmate early in life and have kids. Work is my life. I find this whole idea of not enough sex stupid. The real goal is and always has been making money. Jerk off and go back to grinding. Retire at 50. Have mid day sex then. Otherwise jerk off and stick to having sex at night before bed.
It checks all the boxes for a redpill/incel nonsense.
Which is why articles like this always single out young males. Its not that they are unwilling to have sex. They simply just want to have a relationship with a single person.
Women, on average, are doing perfectly fine in the sexual marketplace, along with the top 10-15% of men.
edit: The above was my reflexive response to the headline. Now that I've actually read the article, I have to say that the article is very good and quite comprehensive, but it seems that it merely dances around the above issue in the "Tinder Mirage" subsection, but doesn't actually directly confront it. An unfortunate oversight.