This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I am convinced that the Sex Divide is the greatest political engine of today, and that a big chunk of the culture war is based on the existance of this divide, and the inability of society to understand that political differences between males and females have an enormous biological basis.
After I finally understood this concept, I began to "notice", being always passionate about politics and speaking about it, that the discourses and the nature of the topic I discussed with people were and are heavily genderized.
Having a political or cultural discussion with a female is, in general, radically different from having one with a male, not only regarding the topics of interests per se (males more interested in economics or raw politics, female more interested in immigration, equality or similar topics), but also regarding "how" to approach a discussion.
I feel way more free talking with males, because I always had the impression, confirmed 95% of the times, that I can be more open and direct with what I felt without receiving a backslash, that can be personal (simply the person screaming at you or hating you) or social (person beginning to talk with other people in your social network) (NB: I am not American and I do not live in a very polarized society). Apart from the political extremists and activists that you can meet, the following things happened often:
Me and the other male have a disagreement, that can be harsh or about an hot topic, but that resolve itself in a shake of hand.
We disagree on a lot of topic, but also agree on other ones, making the discussion constructive in itself.
I discover that the other male have a lot of, uh, hidden opinions that he does not reveal in his network, often because of female backslash.
In general, I love to talk about politics or culture with other middle or low class males, because I always "received" something in exchange after the discussion, something that can be a new reflection on a topic, an earnest discovering of new knowledge, or simply understanding more some concepts.
Meanwhile, apart from a selected group of very close female friends and a selected other few, almost all the discussion with females ended with a disaster. In spite of me trying to move in a different manner, being more gentle and less direct, and understanding that I need to adapt to other people when I talk about something, the discussions simply does not start well and end well. What happens is:
We have a disagreement, and at this point the discussion or close itself ("It is useless to continue, why we should?") or degenerate in a very uncomfortable discussion where the woman put herself as an emotional victim of what we are talking about.
If the discussion does not degenerate but continues, it is always redirected to morality or feeling or about a generic "natural law". At this point if I try to redirect the discussion negating the opposing point (I do not agree with your morality or I do not care about this morality) it simply degenerate again in a morality context, where your worth as individual is put on a public pedestal.
The result of all of this, after years of experience... is that I do not talk about these kind of topics with women anymore, apart from a selected few. When I have this kind of conversation I always strive for earning something, that can be knowledge, human connection or shared experiences. Why doing these with women, when the things that you can earn are statistically negative?
Adding to what I said, I also need to mention that, after lowering down the kind of topics and approaches that I have with women, both my dating life and romantic life radically improved. I do not know if it is a coincidence or not.
You see the dynamic in any online forum that is still pseudonymous (such as this one). Even though we can all guess based on general demographic surveys that 85% of the forum, at least, is male, one can't confirm the gender of any particular poster beyond their own representations.
As soon as you enable users to present as a particular gender (all the moreso if you let them add photos) that all goes out the window.
On a side note, this is also tying into my experience of becoming quietly convinced that the inability of society to 'rein in' female sexuality in a healthy way contributes to almost every form of social dysfunction we observe.
Note I'm not saying this is the ONLY condition for dysfunction (plenty of dysfunctional societies which heavily police female sexuality, cf. Iran) but just a seemingly major factor that contributes to dysfunction in the long run.
But as soon as you start letting attractive people leverage their attractiveness to gain popularity, you necessarily compromise the basic factor that allows people to engage in conversation on a 'neutral' playing field. That invites all the rest of the problems inherent to human social group dynamics.
Just say no.
Isn't it mostly men doing the rioting, heroin, shooting, looting... did I miss any?
Do you think men are more or less likely to go out rioting, shooting, or looting if they have a wife and/or kids to come home to?
Do you think men are more or less aggressive and/or desperate when they can reasonably expect that they will be able to find a long-term partner and 'settle down' with them in the near future?
Do you think that the current environment of hypercompetition in the dating market makes men more or less altruistic and conscientious?
Is that what 'control of female sexuality' looks like? Isn't tying a man down and having kids controlling male sexuality?
I guess my point here is that I don't see this idea of rampant promiscuity ruining the dating market any more believable than a claim that men spending all of their time watching Minecraft streams ruining the dating market, and I definitely don't see 'dating is hard' being the main cause behind recent unraveling of the social contract.
I doubt that it has a large scale net effect.
You might notice the term I used was rein in, not 'control.'
So yes, promoting the idea that both women and men should try to partner up monogamously is reining in female sexuality, in a world where they otherwise have virtually limitless partners to choose from.
It's likely a series of feedback loops that all play into each other. I said as much: "Note I'm not saying this is the ONLY condition for dysfunction (plenty of dysfunctional societies which heavily police female sexuality, cf. Iran) but just a seemingly major factor that contributes to dysfunction in the long run."
But I suspect that its similar to the obesity epidemic. Despite the prevalence of technology and prosperity making our lives easier, lots of people have worse health and less fulfilling lives than before.
So, too, is the 'ease' of connecting with potential partners causing some people to see worse outcomes. I think the evidence is clear that women are asymetrically able to exploit their sexuality for personal gain in this environment.
Hence, you'll see outsized effects by focusing on female sexuality as a causal factor.
Interesting.
Pick a source you find reliable and tell me if you still believe that after reviewing it:
https://news.unt.edu/news-releases/men-have-highest-risk-low-self-esteem-while-using-tinder-unt-study-finds
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201810/are-dating-apps-damaging-our-mental-health
https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-020-0373-1
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/cyber.2019.0561
https://nyctherapy.com/therapists-nyc-blog/how-dating-apps-can-impact-mental-health/
Synonymous.
Hell, that might be a bigger influence than anything else, because it's making a larger and larger fraction of people unattractive, but you're still striving for an attractive partner. Just not striving in a way that includes reducing calories.
I still don't understand how you're seeing a scenario where young women go after older men as entirely the fault of women or their sexuality and not a mutual decision made by both men and women.
'Dating apps are bad for nental health' isn't automatically a support for the notion that unrestrained female sexuality is responsible for societal ills.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is.
The response to rioting, heroin, shooting, and looting from other men, on balance, tends to be quite punitive, ranging from social abandonment to imprisonment or lethal violence. Men are much more willing, on balance, to see wrongdoers come to a bad end, and this tends to put a cap on the consequences of such maladaptive behavior.
More options
Context Copy link
Pretty sure the anti-feminist case here manages to blame women for it in some roundabout way, just like the feminists will lay all the world's ills at the feet of the patriarchy. Let me try: Low-status men are dissolute and violent because women restrict access to sex and marriage in favor of building harems for a small number of high-status men. Isn't that a common argument?
My personal view differs somewhat: Both men and women are dissolute, but only men are violent because women are physically weak and vulnerable. The cause for the dissoluteness is classic civilizational decline - we morally decay because, at our peak, we could afford to, and it was pleasant to do so.
Not a particularly compelling one. I don't know any women who would settle for being part of a harem in favor of being married to a comparatively lower status man.
I think there's this imagination that all the instances of Man not having sex have been replaced 1:1 with woman having sex with Chad.
I think reality is more like: both the man and the woman in the equation are picking a more convenient way to pass the time and unwilling to make themselves uncomfortable to find a partner.
Your competition isn't Chad, it's Netflix.
Lemme help you out here:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-the-name-love/202006/why-sugar-daddy-relationships-are-the-rise
Do you ever wonder how Leonardo DiCaprio is able to just keep dating a series of young women? Why do they put up with being his arm candy for a few years rather than marrying a 'lower status' man?
Surely a factor. However, I don't think it obviates the fact that women can leverage their sexuality to their advantage from an early age.
Especially if women have virtually no obstacles to finding a partner of virtually any age or description if they so desire, whereas an average man is going to have to leap through a dozen hoops just to get considered.
Consider:
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/age-gap-dating
And when it comes to actual marriages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#Statistics
Approximately 8% of married couples feature a male who is 10+ years older than the female. For the reverse: 1.7%. A 4x disparity.
This really, REAAALLLY strongly implies that the group that is least able to find partners is young males, and possibly older females.
And that likely means a large disparity in who is having sex, with a certain subset of the population likely have none at all, despite wanting to.
Because Leo was in Titanic and gives them a ladyboner. I imagine that's also the reason Leo goes after a particular demographic-he finds them attractive. I assume that most of those partners will eventually end up married.
And yet they... don't. So either they have very particular preferences, they aren't motivated to call your bluff, or there are some obstacles that you don't see, such as social consequences.
Young men will eventually become old men, old women were once young women. Have people become less patient?
Many many do. This is why the term "Sugar Baby" is now mainstream. This is why Onlyfans is a multi-billion dollar company
And the larger point is they have this as an option.
Many men don't even have the option.
I already did this discussion here:
https://www.themotte.org/post/120/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/18954?context=8#context
But the point is, you're expecting young men, who are at their horniest and least capable of making good judgments at this age, to be able to wait a decade before they can have a chance at having a committed partner.
That is, you're saying that the very guys who need some kind of healthy outlet for their sexual and other impulses are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain a healthy outlet, and saying this won't show substantial behavioral effects?
In my experience the majority of young men don't profess a desire for a committed partner, young women do. Maybe that's changed since I was a young man.
Hyperbolic. Plenty of young men end up in relationships.
Also, while I agree that OnlyFans probably isn't a healthy outlet because of the parasocial aspect, there are plenty of others like pornhub, Literotica, HBO, and the power of imagination.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you’re right that women aren’t consciously joining “harems”, but the competition isn’t just Netflix, it’s Netflix+Tinder hookups when they get sufficiently lonely, as a replacement for relationships.
And who do they go for on tinder? The same guys as all the other single women. It’s not a “harem” because they don’t know or have a reason to care about other girls the guys might be getting with, but to lonely single men, the effect is the same.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why stop at attractiveness? We know tall men do better - this is plainly unfair leveraging of a physical trait that compromises neutrality. Intelligence, also, does away with neutral playing field.
Bring in the world of Harrison Bergeron? Or is it only female sexuality that needs to be controlled? Ah, the poor, poor men who only want to sit around discussing Aristotle, were it not for the brazen hussies enticing them to indulge in base sensuality by flashing their ankles at them!
It's funny how talk about "reigning in female sexuality" seems to boil down to "make sure attractive women will sleep with me when I want, and that I get a hot young wife when I'm finished sowing my wild oats". Genuinely reigned-in female sexuality, e.g. virginity until marriage, no unchaperoned contact, no dating or time spent together unless courting, needing to win the approval of the family before courting could start, and the older forms of controlling interaction between men and women would not suit men who talk about "women trading on their sexuality". Are you ready to be married at twenty to the only woman you will ever have sex with (unless she dies and you remarry), and start having kids that you will support?
I have no objection to rolling back the Sexual Revolution, but it needs to apply to men as well - it takes two to tango, after all.
Male sexuality is generally expressed in a different way than female sexuality, which implies different methods of constraining it.
Guys generally try to actively get laid and will spend copious amounts of time in the gym, then find a location where eligible women are located, then flirt as best they can, engage physically, and try to close the deal with whichever woman they find most responsive. The end goal of all that effort is to find one woman who he can get into bed.
If they are left completely unrestrained, they may just engage in straight up sexual assault. Policing that is relatively straightforward if we're willing to allow for trusted chaperones. Tricky, if we're not.
For females, literally all they need to do to leverage their sexuality is set up an instagram and show enough skin to tantalize thousands of men at once, whilst giving minimal attention to any of them in exchange. No physical contact required, minimal effort invested, and HUGE outsize effects are possible.
So we're dealing with a situation where social media has created a severe imbalance/asymetry in each gender's ability to use their sexuality to gain what they want.
This is mostly a consequence of how men are wired for sexual attraction vs. women. Men tend to respond to the simple visual stimulation. Women generally need more than that.
And obviously, clearly, without a doubt we condemn men who step out of line and cause discomfort, fear, or harm to women in the process of trying to get sex. As well we should.
But if you try to suggest that maybe, just MAYBE having millions of women posting thirst traps for the attention of tons of horny men is creating an unhealthy situation for both men AND women, and that this behavior is increasing mental distress for no real reason...
Well, that's just beyond the pale! How dare you! Women should be able to post whatever they want at any time and receive no judgment or criticism for it, ever.
Because, as stated, female sexuality is different than male sexuality.
It's not the men's sexuality that is growing unrestrained and is being amplified by current social media technology. So you see why I might focus on female sexuality as a larger contributing factor, no?
Holy cow I DARE you to show me where I implied that.
What does 'rolling back' the sexual revolution require of men, in this instance? What behavior do they engage in now that they need to stop?
"Oh dear, you'll have to be willing to settle down with a partner and provide them with support and affection for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, until death do you part."
Well, its not men initiating most divorces, so I SUGGEST that men, on average, will find this state of affairs quite acceptable.
So it implies that women are the ones who might have to be cajoled into getting with the program. And I use 'cajole' purposefully, to suggest it might have to be a social pressure/shame thing rather than a legal reform that achieves it.
More options
Context Copy link
I’m not the GP, but yes, of course. As you point out, restraining the sexuality of one sex implies restraining the sexuality of the other. I want a world where both sexes value chastity, understood in the classic sense of sexual virtue.
It’s great that so many denizens of the manosphere (or whatever it has turned into) have come to see the effects of feminine promiscuity. It means that they have found an important piece of the puzzle. It behooves those of us who see the other pieces to help them fit it together. And some of them do get there! The former pickup artist Roosh is a famous example.
I’m not old enough to remember the years before the pill. But it’s easy to see that the relationship between marriage, sex, and children was obvious then in a way it isn’t now. The relationship was important for more reasons than pregnancy, but pregnancy was a reason that any horny doofus could see.
I keep seeing Christian kids who should know better sacrificing their principles to their libidos and calling it nuance. It’s refreshing to see secular people who notice the burns on others. It raises my hopes that they will come to see how marrying the only woman you will ever sleep with at twenty could be a joy and a blessing.
I didn't realize Roosh was still kicking around. Always hilarious to see people follow a basic-ass secular "have my fun then settle down" path then call it conversion.
I certainly don’t know the man, and I haven’t read enough of his writing to draw broad conclusions. But I read one or two of his pieces after his conversion, and they sure pattern matched to “New Christian” for me.
I'm only familiar in a decade old memory way with his PUA blog circa like 2009-10 when I was a teenager and easily fascinated by that sort of thing. Among other things he wrote travel guides to getting laid as a sex tourist in different European countries.
But he was an early example of a PUA blogger you saw go from lighthearted "let's all have fun and get laid" vibes to weird misogyny and self hatred in real time.
Which, in charity, pattern matches with him being unhappy as a hedonist whoremonger and finding God, the prodigal son. He has, according to your link, taken his old books out of circulation.
But for me it also pattern matches with a guy fucking through his 20s and 30s, noticing his hairline is receding and his erections lack rigidity and girls look at him like he's their dad; then settling down, and rather than look at life as a graceful series of changes he says everything he spent 20 years advocating is 100% wrong and changes direction completely to Holy Roller. Not just maybe I overdid it a little, but the full mullah.
From teenage me to now, I've kinda resented born agains who have their fun then switch teams and tell you not to have yours.
Yeah, I can sympathize with that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, I don't think the view needs to be misogynistic. Both sexes are to blame somewhat for the dynamic as much as people can be blamed for doing anything that comes naturally. The internet was better when no one knew you were a dog.
I'm not really sure where you got that impression, the sexual revolution shot was fired from blue tribe and this critique was not. I have mixed feelings, I was brought up in a catholic household and nearly every catholic I grew up with would "yeschad.jpg" in response to the whole paragraph, although maybe some of the courtship formalities modernized. The sow your wild oats thing has never really appealed to me that much, I have somewhat libertarian social stances and wouldn't advocate for this being enforced despite recognizing everyone would probably be better off if it were.
More options
Context Copy link
This feels right to me, but I wonder if it has ever been examined in a way that controls for correlates of height. Height is likely correlated with good nutrition during childhood development, which one would expect in turn to correlate with all manner of endpoints, including many that constitute merit in a Western capitalist society. Apparently it is weakly correlated with intelligence, and my hunch is that you'd also find positive correlations with conscientiousness, extraversion, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
Spot on except for this. TradCaths, the most prominent voice for "reigning in female sexuality", repudiate such a lifestyle. Though let's me honest, they were very unlikely living such a life beforehand.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Depending on the specific object-level claims being made, I might agree with parts of this, but I'm going to push back slightly here.
I think there are a lot of ways that the sexual revolution screwed over both men and women.
Whatever other issues the paternalistic approach to women had in the past, it almost certainly limited the number of vectors of attack from men. If all coed college parties have chaperones, then the risk of a woman being raped on a college campus is almost certainly lower than the modern anarchy of college party culture. This is not to suggest that chaperoning was always successful at protecting the people involved, but my intuition is that when society put more of the burden on men to protect women from other men, women were safer in a number of contexts than they are now. Now, we give women all of the legal freedom of men, but they still take on most of the risks of sex and are thus more vulnerable than they were before.
There are no solutions, only trade offs.
I am sure there were trade offs we made when we decided that society should have the shape that it does today. Porn is freely made and shared online, porn-adjacent professions like Twitch pool streamers exist in "kid-friendly" spaces, and even though fewer people are having sex, the general attitude is a permissive one. All of these things come with trade offs for men and women. Men slowly learn the lesson to never give money to begging women - basically, reality slowly burns the simp out of them, but there are new foolish young men born every minute. Women learn that they have value in society and on the dating market, but that the value is of a very limited and proscribed sort.
However, I don't necessarily think that the trade offs we have made are more bad than good. Society certainly looks different than it did in the more paternalistic, puritan past. Rich people are more shielded from the consequences of sexual license and hedonism than the poor - as it has always been. But I think we should seriously consider whether making people more miserable in exchange for freedom is worth it. Certainly, a strict utilitarian might say "we crunched the numbers and traditionalism is the better overall system", but not everyone is a strict utilitarian and if we value human flourishing more than simple pleasure it might be the case that our system empowers more people to flourish, even as it factually causes more suffering than other ways of arranging society that make different trade-offs on the freedom-risk spectrum.
It seems almost axiomatic to me that women would be safer, ceteris paribus, if they have a male who has an extremely vested interest in her wellbeing in the vicinity to provide some physical security.
Husband, brother, father, whatever.
I think the 'tradeoff' in this case is mostly that having intimidating male relatives scares off some potential suitors who might be otherwise compatible. Note that this is, arguably, a factor that reigns in/polices MALE sexuality!
Right, and we're seeing some interesting tradeoffs result from new technology making life 'easier.'
We have more access to cheap, healthy food than ever before, and obesity has become more prevalent than ever before, with various implications for human health and flourishing. This seems like something worth noticing, commenting upon, discussing, and maybe 'fixing.'
We have way more access to safe, 'consequence free' (not counting the emotional component) and pleasure-oriented sex than ever before and yet many people seem less satisfied with their romantic relationships and there seems to be more intersex strife than ever before. This seems like something worth noticing, commenting upon, discussing, and maybe 'fixing.'
It's not inherently an argument that we must go back to traditional ways of doing things... but I think we shouldn't be afraid to say "hey we made some progress in many areas but there have been some unforeseen effects that have arisen." The default assumption should not be that all progress is inherently good.
Do we really? Then why is every generation having less of it, and people taking longer to lose their virginities? Why are the most developed countries the most sexless?
Yeah, this reminds me of an old joke which I will shamelessly steal:
Everyone loves the idea of being a free spirit. Free to do whatever you like. That's the image sold by the media too about the liberal world and many liberals value this image. The old suffocating religious strictures were supposed to dissolve and we'd all be having guilt-free sex.
But what we've actually learned is that the sexual marketplace is like the other one; inequity proliferates, except perhaps even worse because "redistribution" is practically much harder.
The average male especially would probably benefit more from having a long-term marriage, sex-wise, but everyone is fantasizing about "freedoms" most of them will never practically get to exercise that much.
More options
Context Copy link
Why are the people injecting chemical happiness into their arms so consistently among the least-happy people in society? Why has the invention and proliferation of cheap, ubiquitous chemical happiness coincided with a general decline in overall happiness?
The world wonders.
More options
Context Copy link
How do we know that there has been a general decline in overall happiness over the period you have in mind?
I could point to surveys of self-reported happiness, rates of substance abuse, mental illness, suicide, crime, divorce rates.... but generally, I'm skeptical that there's actually a way to determine the answer to this question in any sort of rigorous fashion. If you see it, you see it. If not, feel free to dismiss the above argument out of hand. After all, "I'm happy. I'm happy every day."
Yeah, I don't want to be annoying about asking for evidence about these things, but I haven't seen a partic vivid trajectory personally except for unhappiness having to do with recent Covid issues of course. I just don't attach much weight to this personal impression given that I am in a relatively well-off context.
I do think one can easily support claims about general unhappiness in terms of objective statistics for 'obviously bad things that make people unhappy', like poverty, drugs, crime, etc (although it is tricky with regard to people taking say, happiness drugs, as they could have been unhappy before and just not taken drugs, when there is a recent pervasive marketing of them). Maybe there are indicators one can find elsewhere in culture, media that more unhappy people are liable to consume to see their feelings reflected back at them.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the truly happy, CONTENT people are harder to detect because they're just out there enjoying life and not complaining.
But the rates of drug abuse, suicide, and all the other ills you mentioned are really hard to ignore as social red flags.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I didn't say otherwise, I am also asking these questions.
There's access in the sense that the tools and understanding and opportunities to engage in the casual sex with minimal risk are ubuiquitous. It is counter-intuitive that people wouldn't be exploiting this access.
But the apparent slump in younger people actually having sex is one of those weird side effects I'm curious about.
Isn't this just young males having less of it and females having equal or more than before while sharing an ever decreasing number of "desirable" partners?. I think this is the case at least in the US dating Market.
I've seen statistics that reflect young people of both sexes having less sex, though if I recall correctly it is the males who report having less sex than they would like to have.
https://www.aei.org/articles/more-faith-less-sex-why-are-so-many-unmarried-young-adults-not-having-sex/
https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/variables/5057/vshow
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link