U.S.A. fact of the day

18-30 year olds are nearly *twice* as likely to report past-year celibacy as 50-somethings, which is frankly amazing

That is Christopher Ingram, original source (of great interest) here, via Megan McArdle.


Feminism will lead to the extinction of mankind. God Emperor Trump will save Western civilization from these politically correct harpies and feminazis. #buildthatwall #maga2020 #aocsucks

Incels have demanded government fund prostitutes for them. I was disappointed to see this left out of God Emperor Trump's budget. We can't let feminism and scaremongering about deficits cause us to miss this opportunity to take down feminism and solidify the incel voting base at the same time. #aocsucks. #MAGA2024!

That's not really a serious demand tho; prostitutes aren't really very expensive and if "incels" really wanted they could just save up and go (these people aren't particularly poor on the whole).

All the signs are that they basically don't really want to and do want a "normal" romantic relationship without much ability how to get there (caveat; these people do not really congregate on websites that I read, so my read is necessarily informed by the likes of this - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-44143003).

It's basically just a troll to radical feminists who claim simultaneously both that the state should wipe out all inequalities in personal experience from gender (e.g. dedicated sanitary pad funding from the government and the like), and that sex work should be outlawed by the state. It combines a proposition that they love with one they hate (and which strongly divides liberals - pro-sex work - from radical feminists - anti-sex work), both targeted to the benefit of a group that they largely are dismissive and contemptuous towards (young men, whose tears many of them seem proudly proclaim on social media to drink).

This was a joke. Of course it's not a serious demand because it's completely ridiculous.

Why would anyone report celibacy??? Because they need attention. It is a desperate call for help.

Many of them probably would benefit from counseling ans/or medication. Mental health services are now a standard part of insurance thanks to the ACA.

Anti-Trump troll posts a comment, and Jan jumps all over it as if it were serious.

What are the odds Jan is also MAGA dude?


This is revealed preference in action and a great win for human dignity and liberty.

If over 30% of men are Dalits/untouchable to women, so be it.

If women choose a future where 30-50% of men are celibate, then, well, consumer is Queen and the Producer should adapt. That’s much closer to a state of nature. Just get rid of welfare and Medicaid so I don’t have to pay for it.

What we need is a cultural destruction of legal marriage, and to get rid of child support and government support. Then let the chips fall where they may.

Is that really what "we" "need"?

A whole generation of incels. WW3 should not be too far behind.

China, with maybe 60 million too many men over 18, <55, is rapidly moving to be prepared for some kind of war.
China needs women. Millions of Chinese men have no women to form families with -- so why not "go to war"?

The US marriage rate has been hitting record lows recently:


Marriage is typically how most people have had sex regularly, so it's no surprise that as marriage has declined, sex had as well.

US fertility rates have also been collapsing to record lows, for the same reason:


> Marriage is typically how most people have had sex regularly

Somebody tell this to my wife.

She's having too much sex outside of marriage?

I can confirm this is the case.

'which is frankly amazing'

No it isn't - want to guess what thing did not the basis on those older than 50 when it came to sex?

Hint - acquiring it was fatal, and did not involve either the Internet nor feminism. One could further argue that the introduction of effective birth control led to a large, and atypical, increase in sexual activity among younger people 40 years ago. Obviously, the effects of birth control are complex, but in the U.S., there has been a generation long effort to convince young people that birth control is not to be trusted, in contrast to the generation before them.

Yes, sex is rapidly declining because some gay dudes and intravenous drug users are HIV positive.

You’re an imbecile.

'that's mostly for black people'

You really, really don't want to go there. Let us just same that it is better left unexplored in all of its various perspectives, such as how black men were called 'boy' in the past (it is still used, of course, just not in public like in the past) to how easy it was to get a lynch mob together to defend a white woman's virtue. Or today's seeming fascination among some Americans apparently seized with a number of fairly bizarre perspectives concerning black men. I guess it is an improvement that they are watching such porn and making comments at places like this instead of flaying, hanging, or burning black men to death. Still extremely distorted, but at least less directly violent.

Small steps in America, always the smallest steps.

This is not quite the full story. Sexual activity is in decline for young men, but not for young women.

Read the article. It is in decline for both young men and women, the decline for men is bigger.

Social media makes impossible to brag because false assertions will be debunked in 5 minutes by friends. So, the survey results may reflect the truth.

PS. the suburbs, low population density is not optimal for casual encounters.

Maybe b/c less alcohol is involved? I would suggest that they are optimal if something other than casual is what you're looking for.

It's a good point that it could just be that people are answering the surveys more truthfully.

It might be worth looking at some ethnic structure in this, since there is an ethnic change between cohorts, and to give us a better understanding of how this fits with cultural patterns.

If I recall from previous similar data on this same pattern, don't think they showed less decline in African-Americans.

Interesting question, what % of 18-30 YO are from cultures ultra-hostile to premarital sex, arranged marriages, honor killings and the like?

The guys from cultures with arranged marriages are basically handicapped for talking to women because they never do ti. Oneself grabs a beer, tries, faces rejection, and keeps trying.

I've mellowed out on this being an area of too much concern (whatever, if everyone still feels like they have a good life), but I'm still shocked at, among establishment voices, how much this tends to be blamed on young men changing in some bad way. "They spend too much time on computer games, or hobbies, or porn. They have too high expectations. They have poor social skills".

Virtually never see any admission that it could well be changes in behaviour among women that drive this phenomenon, particularly that young might be "worse" in some way seems something they are particularly averse to (while for young men its open season to decry them on a ranges of basis). There's no particular reason why "the decline of young women" should be off the table, but seems like for some reason it is.

It seems that with increased education and therefore ability to make ends meet themselves, women just don't need to settle for crap partners as much as they did in the past.

So, sure, women's preferences are driving some of this, but I wouldn't frame that as "the decline of young women" or that they are somehow "worse."

Eh, that's another explanation that basically says that any decline in men and women mating up is due to men's deficiencies, once again.

Seems no one will ever entertain that change is ever due to women's deficiencies. It's just assumed that if a young man does not have a relationship, there's something wrong with him, while if a woman doesn't she's a strong women exercising a fine sense of self worth by avoiding "crap" men; she's never considered to be "crap", much less are the class of women who choose not to mate considered "crap".

1) I think there is less pressure for women to marry "equal" partners. If you consider the men around you that are about as desirable "trash", then you are going to be out of reach for those you can have and those you want will be out of reach to you.

2) There is a theoretical pairing between higher earning blue collar men and medium earning white collar women that could more easily happen in the past. Now, there is too much of a cultural gap. These men certainly aren't "trash", but the women can't take the status hit of dating outside their class (which is more than income). Meanwhile, the men often find such women insufferable and not worth their time.

Good post. I think blue collar men often earning even more than the white collar women are also spatially distant as well, not just culturally.

But whew, that cultural gap. Single blue collar white men are among the most reliably Republican, while single white collar white women most reliably Democrat. It wouldn't take long for them to come to verbal blows over that first date dinner.

3) Below middle income, it seems the state is a better partner then a husband.

About 4 million people are collecting TANF among the 90 million or so who might be classified as 'below middle income'. So, no, the state's not a partner for many people.

You could add in Disability and SSI, but the total population awarded all three programs (22 million) still amounts to only a quarter of the lower income population, and the people awarded benefits de novo are seldom young adults or late adolescents.

Social Security Disability's primary beneficiary population is predominantly composed (70%) of people over 45, and most live in one or two person households. The average monthly benefit award in 2016 was $1,400, which is less than you could earn in food service.

For SSI, you have to be old or adjudicated disabled to receive an award, north of 1/3 of new awards are to people not of working age and nearly 40% of the beneficiary census is of people not of working age. The average monthly benefit is $450.

Neither of these programs substitutes for 'having a partner'.

You're not explaining what women are doing wrong. What's the decline that is specific to young women (and not to both sexes of younger generations? Give us something to work with beyond "I don't like their preferences."

BTW, I also am not totally convinced that this is some catastrophe. But you can't simultaneously say that this isn't a problem and also that it's probably actually women's fault.

Well what are you suggesting that young men are doing wrong to be "crap partners"?

Women do the majority of housework and childcare, are the primary caregivers of aging parents, have much lower rates of criminality and incarceration, have relatively increasing levels of educational attainment, have been less affected by the opioid epidemic, have lower rates of alcohol problems, are less frequently the perpetrators of sexual assault and partner abuse, etc.

Well, you can argue for the crapness of men in general sense on that basis, I suppose

(Which is a pretty value laden position. For a few: helicopter parenting (excess childcare activities) for'ex, isn't necessarily a good. Choosing criminal careers is possibly balanced out at the other end with other kinds of activities that males prefer which often more useful and risky than women - the military, the police, etc.- and that a good sized subset of women seem to be supportive of criminal males - there don't seem to be many less Scumbag Stacies who like male criminals than Scumbag Steves who are male criminals. Women do more education but tend to have fewer intellectual interests in surveys of such. And so on. But this is all tangential!)

But is there any sign that men who meet those conditions have suddenly been stigmatized on the mating market, or that older stigmatize males for any of this less? Since 2008. Is there actually any sign that males with drug problems, or violence issues suddenly are having a harder time finding mates and that this can explain recent cultural change? None of the "incels" who report being mateless seem to particularly have any of these issues at a greater clip than their more sexed male counterparts; the structure of matelessness doesn't seem to really make with any substantive male "crappiness".

Things which males tend in the past to have done more than women, and which females today tend to be more convergent on with males*, can hardly explain a sudden cultural change post-2008, nor has young female earning / education changed that much since 2008 (so they can't "afford" to not have a partner any more or less than in pre-2008 past).

*Drug abuse issues are pretty narrow on opiods and prescriptions particularly relative to illicit drugs - the opiod epidemic is actually a relatively female convergence on a more long standing male problem, as much as it directly makes things worse all round - alcohol and smoking problems.

What I listed are not really value laden issues. Nearly universally considered good/not good. Nobody said anything about helicopter parenting.

The point is that women are increasingly economically empowered to not have to deal with bad partners because they don't require the same financial support. This tracks educational attainment.

*Look at almost any of the substance abuse metrics and they are disproportionately male problems.

I'm still wondering what exactly your hypothesis is for how this is women's fault.

"Nearly universally considered good/not good."

Hilarious. You might as well just say, "I refuse to recognize my biases, but please continue to converse with me as though I am unbiased."

A lot of 'childcare' is a physical expression of the mother's anxiety and in fact harmful to the child. Caregiving for elderly parents is value added? Please. It's end stage co-dependence. And all that education is bullshit.

"all that education is bullshit."


All the heavy gains from opening up access to education were fully realized by the 80's. Now, the marginal growth in education is inverting, gain-wise.

We don't need to encourage that woman PhD geologist to get an education, she's on that track. Those chreodes are dug. Steady as she goes. But we sure do like to push education still. It's become a national habit. So you get some marginally educatable person getting some kind of credential to do a job that doesn't really require the education she didn't really get anyway. Because 'education', rah rah!

I didn't think that needed explicating, that most MR commenters had that hypothesis on background by now.

"What's the decline that is specific to young women (and not to both sexes of younger generations?"

Have you seen all the single mothers out there? Or the women who brag about how many men they've sucked off? Or all the tattoos, blue hair, and mannish attitudes?

I know, I know, men's preferences are evil while women's are their sacred right, I'm projecting my anxieties, blah blah blah. Most men aren't going to say out loud what I just wrote, but they will be unlikely to break their back to impress Princess Ewat Liopel.

Jan: I'm still wondering what exactly your hypothesis is for how this is women's fault.

Well, I guess I'm saying here that I acknowledge that a greater % men could be considered "crap" partners by your metrics. Though I find these a pretty incomplete and biased sampling of what would make a "crap" partner, and includes a lot of female activity which is frankly mostly self centered or superfluous consumption, like excessive housework or child rearing activities, mostly for the purposes of self satisfaction and intra-sex competitive signalling.

But rather than go down that tangent, I'm shifting back to the original data that we're looking to explain, and the recent post-2008 age specific shift in 18-30 year old distribution. Can any of the things you suggest actually explain that shift?

Is there any evidence that this is because younger women are avoiding "crap partners", by your definition, more? If anything you'd think if the thesis was that money=independent=avoiding "crap partners", older women would be avoiding old men who drink and gamble no less than young men, and that the stressors of men providing less caregiving and housekeeping activity would matter more for old age ranges (do women in their twenties really care that young men aren't going to put much effort in to look after their mom when she's old, when mom is like 50?). So we'd see the "avoiding crap partners" effect hitting 40 something and 50 something men, not young men, so much.

If there even any evidence that young men who are "crap partners" by your definition (indulge in risky and anti-social behaviours, like to drink and take drugs and have a good time, don't care much about looking after their parents) are the ones losing out in sexual relationships in this bracket?

In my zip code, women do the majority of the housework, but they are not the same women who live in and own the houses.

Where the situation of paid help from south of the border does not prevail, I'd agree that women continue to do the majority of (a shrinking amount of) housework (based on a quickly-averted glance inside people's houses nowadays).

Then are women doing an especially poor job of raising their boys, or is there a difference between the sexes, and moreover an underlying difference in quality?

Why is it okay to say that about men, but not about blacks, when both are true?

Where do I join "Misogyny Nation?"

"Women do the majority of housework and childcare, are the primary caregivers of aging parents, have much lower rates of criminality and incarceration, have relatively increasing levels of educational attainment, have been less affected by the opioid epidemic, have lower rates of alcohol problems, are less frequently the perpetrators of sexual assault and partner abuse, etc."

And men do the majority of work, particularly physically strenuous and unsafe work, but no doubt that doesn't count. And whereas women's greater educational achievement is to their credit, men's higher income is to their fault. In any case, antisocial behaviors have a high correlation with success with women, so your whole thesis falls to the ground:

"In high school each extra IQ point above average increases chances of male virginity by about 3%. 35% of MIT grad students have never had sex, compared to only 20% of average nineteen year old men. Compared with virgins, men with more sexual experience are likely to drink more alcohol, attend church less, and have a criminal history. A Dr. Beaver (nominative determinism again!) was able to predict number of sexual partners pretty well using a scale with such delightful items as “have you been in a gang”, “have you used a weapon in a fight”, et cetera. An analysis of the psychometric Big Five consistently find that high levels of disagreeableness predict high sexual success in both men and women.

If you’re smart, don’t drink much, stay out of fights, display a friendly personality, and have no criminal history – then you are the population most at risk of being miserable and alone. “At risk” doesn’t mean “for sure”, any more than every single smoker gets lung cancer and every single nonsmoker lives to a ripe old age"


About 4% of the adult male population is incarcerated, on probation, or parole at any one time, so that's not preventing coupling in the broad mass of the population. (While we're at it, a great many of those guys have no trouble attracting women).

As we speak, 53% of the working population is male. The median age of the working population is 42. In 1995, at the beginning of the working life of that worker of median age, 54% of the working population was male. The composition thereof hasn't changed. The employment to population ratio as we speak is 0.60, almost precisely the median of the last generation. During the post-war period, it's never been higher than 0.64.

Men constitute a majority of the working population in every age group bar one: workers under 20, where females have a slender advantage. The employment-to-population ratio between the ages of 25 and 55 varies little from age to age. For men it's around 0.87 and for women about 0.73. Working men generally have more taxing schedules than working women as well. No clue why you're complaining about domestic tasks being performed by women. This is the division of labor people have decided works for them.

You have a remarkably impoverished imagination if you don't understand how women could be crap partners. You might just ask any of the three young men in our family (born between 1978 and 1989) who were hit with divorce suits a propos of nothing-in-particular. All three were gainfully employed with satisfactory jobs, all were willing to have children, none had any issues with liquor or street drugs, and all of them have sanguine temperaments. And they're all divorced; two of them were cuckolded 'ere their wives hit the road. Two of the three were primary earners. The third was in professional school conjoined to working a thirty-hour schedule.

The women who divorced your relatives aren't crap partners, they are not partners. They have free will and chose to cease partnering with your relatives. Calling that choice bad partnering is denial. They may be excellent partners in their new unions.

Jesus. Having a job does not entitle you to a wife.

And no one is entitled to a job,(at least in the American system) but a firm that fires its workers for no reason wouldn't be one I'd want to work for. Similarly, I wouldn't want to marry a woman who'd divorce me for no reason. But clearly there are many idiotic men out there, willing to look past red flags if it means a chance at the pussy.

Well, as Rilke said, "Surely, life is right." and Chesterton reminds us that just because you don't know why that fence is there, doesn't mean the fence is there for 'no reason'.

Divorce is expensive and disruptive. To assume women do it for 'no reason' is willfully simple, it is placing the onus for one's own ignorance on another, about as impotent, churlish and stupid as one can get. Ironically, that right there is a reason for a woman to divorce such a man.

Marriage is an investment. You wouldn't want to marry a woman without great assurances of little risk? OK, you must settle for some risk at the very least (that's life) and low returns in that case.

Firms don't fire people for no reason. This is an economics blog, I shouldn't have to say that.

Divorce is expensive and disruptive. To assume women do it for 'no reason' is willfully simple,

Actually, it's informed by social research. A comfortable majority of divorce suits are launched without anything resembling grounds. As was the case with each of these young women.

Didn't pick you for a devotee of the sociology profession.

"A Caning for Mercatus Employees"

No fair, that was supposed to be prior's next handle!

'is due to men's deficiencies, once again'

No, unless you consider women being less economically dependent on a man to somehow be only about men, and not women.

'that change is ever due to women's deficiencies'

Women growing more economically independent is clearly not a deficiency, it is something that those interested in increased liberty for everyone would be applauding. You know, like libertarians.

What is "crap partners" and this falling unequally on men if not the suggestion that they are deficient?

Not speaking for Jan, but when people are in an economically weak position, they have little choice but to settle for crap - crap housing, crap cars, crap clothing, crap food, etc.

Two generations ago, women were in an economically weak position - today they aren't. This means that women are able, through their own efforts, to avoid the sort of crap that comes from being in a weak economic position.

This would not seem to be about men at all, but only about a group of people previously in an economically weak position no longer being in such a position. Again, not speaking for Jan, but the relation between having to put up with crap when economically weaker applies to many things, not just men and their putative and irrelevant deficiencies.

That women have grown equal to men in earning potential is to be applauded, and says nothing about men at all. Unless one is nostalgic for that older system, of course.

Yes! Of course penises have nothing to do with vaginas. How could we be so foolish as to think otherwise? And of course a level playing field doesn't disadvantage anyone, just ask DJTrump. Personally, I'm for reparations. Not for slavery, nor for the European annihilation of native americans, but for the pain and emotional suffering due to the fact that men are unable to give birth. It's just not fair and men should be compensated for their pain. It's long been a taboo subject. Motherhood is necessary for a society. I wonder how low the birthrate could go before we require women to conceive? Right now, we don't even offer much (imho) in the way of carrots, but if (once implemented) that approach doesn't work might we institute a draft? National security, clearly.

Great one Li! You cannot call a society and culture successful if it dies out because of below-replacement procreation levels. That's where we are now. And where are the "carrots" to have children?

American incels are getting funnier and funnier.

Yes, but why is it usually framed as positive when women’s expectations rise but negative when men’s expectations rise?

Such is life in Trump's America.

Safe, legal, and rare. Maybe it's the Tim Tebow effect - waiting until marriage. Maybe it's not safe - STDs are at record levels. Maybe there are better alternatives - pornography is widely available and free. Maybe leggings are a turn off - exposing lots of fat asses. Maybe sex is more of a bother than it's worth - the age of reason. Here is a psychologiist's 7 reasons (why 7?): https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201811/7-reasons-why-young-people-are-having-less-sex

In which Rayward dates himself; leggings are extremely popular among ogling youth, fat asses are celebrated by millennials

They can have 'em.

More like incels / volcels really ;)

The decrease is much smaller for women. Reduced expectations of marriage lead to greater expression of hypergamy in women. All The Good Men are now players who date multiple women, leaving the other 80% of men playing Fortnite.

Maybe it's that many men are life losers and Fortnite playas, rather than reduced expectations of marriage, that cause the women not to want to have sex with them.

It's not just men who are life losers, in this environment.

Absolutely. But compared to women, the trend seems to be going the wrong way for men.

This trend is not necessarily natural, women by far outnumber men in bureaucratic government jobs, and given the theoretical decrease in need for such jobs with computers, but actual increase, one might conclude these are make work positions for preferred races and gender.

"one might conclude these are make work positions for preferred races and gender."

Yeah, as everyone knows, there are not White male bureaucrats. "Immigants. I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them."

"Yeah, as everyone knows, there are not White male bureaucrats."

Hard not to notice that African-Americans, especially AA women, are over-represented at my local DMV or Construction Permit Office, etc.

"make work positions"

This, everywhere you turn. It was a luxury, an accident of history. But let's go on being complacent about it, class.

@Jan Why does it have to be a rhetorical battle to pin the blame on one gender over another? These theories aren't mutually exclusive, they are complementary.

Manichaeism: never dies, it must appeal to people on some deep level? Men are base and material, while women are airy spirits of light? Waiting for the pop evolutionary psychology or neurology book to explain this, but then I guess those books tend to explain things that aren't wholly rational, or are outmoded but still powerful, while this is just truth manifest.

Video games and porn are a good substitute for sex. From a utilitarian perspective, that’s a good thing. Sex can be great but it’s often pretty mediocre and requires a lot of effort and risk. Of course, people are hard-wired to crave it so I can totally sympathize with the incels out there, but it is not so interesting after you’ve had a bit of experience. Back when people were poor and had no other entertainment options, sure they had more sex. Now people have way more other options so they choose less (just like how fertility is lower among richer people and countries who can afford other things to do in their life).

Russ Roberts' recent podcast with Daniel Hamermesh included an interesting look at how people's use of time changes as they get richer, in part because their time becomes more valuable.

If by mediocre you mean disgusting, I concur.

Sex with an incel sure sounds disgusting.

I don't think you're correct about sex, in fact I think you're 100% dead wrong about it. But I think your beliefs are prevalent, and I think those beliefs are the reason that young people don't have more sex.

Put another way, the D&D nerds in my high school class all thought it was better to stay home and listen to Rush and play D&D than it was to go outside and make out with somebody. Invariably, though, as soon as they each found someone interesting to make out with, they stopped playing so much D&D.

If sex isn't better than video games for you, then you're either not having sex with the right person or you're not very good at having sex.

This is just a wild conjecture, but I wonder if the increased use of ADHD medicine is playing a part.


And decline in physical activity, it affects the hormone ecosystem. Sex itself is physical activity, so there's a Matthew Effect.


Increased medications. Deceased physical activity. Testosterone, sperm counts, and physical strength at generational lows.

Obesity, diabetes at highs.

Estrogen, especially, in the environment. Making less masculine men.
Culture support for gay men, so they are out of the hetero-sex market.
And obesity is, for most folks, NOT sexy.

What will the celibacy numbers be when there is 3D immersive video virtual reality.

Will a married couple invite a 3D immersive video reality equipment into the bedroom to have threesome?

What will the Pope say about this?

Will this solve Donald's problem? Would he invite a virtual Shawn Hannity?

VR? How about a (silicone rubber) (sex) partner who actually listens to you? In 10 years, isn't it possible that most of the sex economy will have gone robotic (in Wealthy nations)? (Currently, I don't think we understand a lot of what sexual congress transfers from partner to partner, so 10 years is probably 'optimistic') But having a partner that is always responsive? (for a monthly subscription). How many women (girls and boys, mostly) will THAT put out of work?

Brave New World.

Will people choose their silicone partner on the basis of the partner's political beliefs?

Does it come with a MAGA hat?

Having met a number of the American young what's amazing about this in the slightest?

Can you explain more on how your interactions with the American young got you this perspective?

Another observation: women are more attractive today. Or rather, they have access to ways to make themselves more attractive, ranging from make-up tutorials on Youtube to plastic surgery.

Something I’ve noticed since I started teaching History at my Pacific Northwest University a dozen years: the young are not getting any lighter, quite the opposite. (Watch a film from the 50s or 60s or 70s: even the extras are slender. The same slenderness/thinness relative to our day and age can be noted in the last century’s crowd shots, beach photos, and documentaries.) Obesity isn’t the only cause but it cannot help. Add it up: empowered women, video gaming, crap men, being repeated told that men are crap, easy access to porn, loss of traditional values, diet.

What has changed recently, circa last 10-12 years? 2008 recession stress and anxiety, and a millennial cohort that has grown up with more video games than ever and is rarely without a phone and/or gadget.

I second that. I recently looked at my HS yearbook and we were all much thinner, fitter, and stronger. We walked more. We played sports and games more. Young women dress more provocatively, but they are much fatter, and that is a big turnoff.

One of my sons has a beautiful young gilrfriend ( he has good genes) and she is slender. They are both outliers.

Yes, and our music was better, too!

I suspect much of the cause is obesity and poor health among young people today. Young people today are not as slim as they were in, oh, 1979.

Another fact that ties into my previous point is that a full 75% of young people today are disqualified for military service. Some of this is due to criminal convictions and drug use. However, the vast majority of this is due to medical issues.

I think someone gave you some bum data.

I think someone gave you some bum data.


Or maybe because the military has higher standards now due to wars not being mass casualty affairs any more. I’d bet 90% of the people deemed unfit for military service today would have been considered fit in 1945 Germany or Soviet Union.

The military does have higher standards today. But the reasoning is slightly complex. The wars we thought we were going to fight - say, if the Soviets invaded Europe - would have meant not that many fit young infantry needed but vast logistical tails who don't need to be so fit. This was true up to and including First Iraq, maybe later. Afghanistan has shown that this isn't a good assumption for all wars. Thus the required fitness standards have gone up. On paper they look much the same as they always did but the holding people to them is much stricter these days.

According to Alex Jones the entire Media Establishment has become a worldwide, tech-fortified celebration of mass psychosis (or of discrete mass psychoses).

His point could be valid at least as long as metaphor is permitted to contest reality with mere logic.

Can his point be dismissed if in fact Jones is himself personally psychotic? Wouldn't imputation of psychosis to Jones, et al., merely confirm that psychosis-inducing content is spewed generously by our corrupt and corrupting Media Establishment, courtesy of our lying and spying Tech Sector?

In our present media environment, that is: have psychoses become rational responses to our tech-engineered Media Establishment and global Potemkin village?

Do our self-satisfied Cognitive Elites only defend and promote mass psychoses with their rational defenses of the rational lunacies foisted uncritically by our Media Establishment and our Tech Sector lunacies?

There are many explanations for this such as with modernity spreading over the last century, modernities population control through fertility management which includes late marriage and can include late start of sexual activity, has come to dominate.

Or the 18-30 year olds are more civilized than the older generation who are still slaves to their animal nature.

Or a lot of past sex was due to the high threshold costs of other activities which are now lower so it is easier to keep oneself occupied with more preferred activities.

I saw a joke the other day: "What did your parents do before we had the internet, cell phones and social media." "I asked my 10 brothers and sisters, they don't know either."

Having beaten back the last of the ancien regime, religious control, modern young people see no reason to rebel against the sexual controls that imposed especially on women. This in spite of the demands for a return of tribalism by a minority of Status university students.

Similar many young women seem to have realize that feminism's outcome, if not intent, is to promote promiscuity to the detriment of young women but benefit of men, young and old.

I am in my early 50s, still in touch with many of my classmates from high school. I could tell you that their exploits have increased a bunch in the past couple of years (girlfriends, etc.). Many of them have gotten divorced and are having a lot more relations than before...

"frankly amazing". You must mean totes amazeballs.

There is more easy sex available to young males than in the history of mankind.

Bumble, tinder etc, it’s like free sex with beautiful young women right at your finger tips...

But these guys aren’t going for it. Why???

The only thing that I can think of is that pornographers-internet addiction is simply keeping so many young men out of the dating pool.

Men might be more interested in online dating but they might not be qualified. Women judge men less attractive ( 60-80% of men are judged unattractive by women) than men judge women (~50% unattractive). Perhaps it is true that 80% of the women are having sex with 20% of the men (on Tinder).

These are indeed good times for younger women: they are more educated and access to better jobs than men, they can select attractive partners for casual sex via tinder, and are more financially independent. In that universe, most men are useless.

The latest big issue on tinder is height verification for males. Women like tall (6ft) men.

Just because there are a lot of people using apps doesn't mean there are a lot of successful hookups. There is a huge signal-to-noise problem for a start.

Not at all amazing to me as a millennial male. Boomers read about "hook-up culture" and assume it's something we all partake in, like their (I'm sure also flawed) vision of a hippie love-in. In reality the bottom 80% of men rarely get let in that club. Basically, if you want to know if your 20-something nephew is an incel, apply the following algorithm:

-Does he look like a model? -> No.

-Is he rich? -> No.

-Is he in a relationship? -> Maybe.

No to all three questions? -> Yes.

That third question doing all the work. Yes if you are broke and not good looking, you won't be scoring a lot of quickie hookups. But you can find a girl on your level and have a relationship and get laid plenty. Most incels are guys who rate about a 4 thinking they should be banging 8s and 9s.

Perhaps young men aren't fools after all. There are lot more choices for what you can do with your time these days that are far less expensive (in more ways than money). Sex really isn't worth it. I'm a bit jealous.

Why are you jealous, you aren't allowed to do those other choices?

Comments for this post are closed