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 was intrigued, so I clicked through. This statistic appears to be derived from randomly-chosen men's self-reports of the number of their sexual partners on the GSS. It also appears that the sexual-behavior portions of this survey are entirely self-administered.
So I guess if you believe guys are always scrupulously honest about their sex histories, and there's no way that 10% of men, filling out a survey in the privacy of their own home, would ever vastly over-report their number of partners for the lulz?
I can totally believe that 10% of men have wildly disproportionate sex partners. Note that that is not the same as wildly disproportionate amount of sex; by the sex partner metric, a one night stand counts just as much as a 50 year sexual relationship. I think men having a lop sided partner-count distribution isn't indicative of most men not having sex.
More options
Context Copy link
Oh so we'd expect most surveys on the topic to be an over-report on the men's side.
Okay.
Interesting that young men are claiming fewer sex partners and less sex, recently.
What changed? Why'd they suddenly stop overreporting?
By your logic, the sex recession among men is EVEN WORSE THAN IT SEEMS from this data.
(women remain more steady on this, btw)
I have yet to see a SINGLE data point that goes against the "lots of women are actually hooking up with relatively small portion of men" talking point. And the dating apps seem to have exacerbated it.
China saw it as such a huge problem so they've taken drastic action.
Yeah I've discussed this before too.
I've analysed this NSFG data myself and found different results for past-year sexlessness and virginity in the 2022-23 wave. Lyman Stone, the author of that article, has admitted there was some kind of coding mistake made. You'll notice the same widening gap doesn't appear for the 'past 3 months' measure. The sample was also smaller than usual due to being limited to offline respondents in the post-COVID survey for consistency with prior waves, so the sex gap wouldn't likely be statistically significant. I'll also note that this gap only beginning to emerge post-COVID doesn't seem consistent with the narrative that the sexual revolution or dating apps enabled this dynamic. The small gap that does exist can be explained by age gaps in relationships as well as a slight male surplus among young adults.
Data showing similar sex partner distributions for men and women isn't sensational and lacks the same emotional pull or viral potential. Hopefully with how pervasive this narrative has become this data will slowly begin to get more attention.
The idea that dating apps are facilitating sexual inequality hinges on women swiping right on fewer profiles and fewer of men's swipes resulting in matches. What this doesn't take into account is 1. the skewed sex ratio on dating apps, and 2. how the swipes are distributed. However, a lower rate of right-swipes doesn't seem to mean that these swipes are more concentrated on the most desirable profiles, and matches actually tend to be very close in terms of within-sex desirability. Moreover, looking at actual outcomes like dates and sexual encounters, we see no population-level sex imbalance, and sexual partner data post-dating apps don't show increasing concentration among the most promiscuous men, nor do we see the expected divergence in heterosexual men and women's STD rates.
I appreciate that you're bringing some actual data and nuance.
But its still slamming headfirst into the reports that half of young men just... aren't dating.
And that the average # of sexual partners reported by females (prior to marriage) has climbed over decades... even as marriage rates fall. Women are clearly having more sex with a variety of men.
This can still all track if the average man is having more sex than they used to. But that doesn't appear in any data, although we can see signs that some small subset of men are getting laid a ton. Women are not having sex with a random selection of the male population. There's a lot of overlap in who they're having sex with.
Whether this rises to an 80/20 ratio is debatable, but I don't think you can look at one of those guys in the 50% of non-daters and say with a straight face "statistically, you're having sex somewhat regularly."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That does not follow. For example, there could be an overreporting recession, rather than a sex recession.
If there's any reasonable explanation for why it would be relegated entirely amongst young males, I'd be interested to hear it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, I'm not disputing that everybody's having less sex lately. Everyone's very lazy and anxious, young people seem pretty undersocialized, AI will feed your delusions, videogames are more entertaining and porn's more extreme than ever, and dating-app interactions seem custom-designed to drive everybody into celibacy.
I'm mostly disputing the Chads-and-sluts narrative, because every time I look into cited evidence for this it seems to be built around long screeds and BS evopsych rationalizations, propped up by just the flimsiest social science imaginable.
Yes, and you've got an actual piece of research saying that 10% of the promiscuous men are accounting for 60% of the sexual encounters women have.
You've also got the data that shows fewer young men are having, young women are reporting about the same amount.
And the additional factor of women having more sex partners on average than years past.
So whomst are the young women having sex with.
Then of course you can watch a Clavicular stream and see that exact dynamic play out in real time.
I dunno what type of evidence you would find convincing, but it is likely available.
The reason people keep questioning your numbers is that the math doesn't math. At least not without some creative explanation of what "the sexual encounters women have" means.
So let's say we've got a group of 100 sexually active men and 100 sexually active women and assume we have normalized all other factors (they are all in the same age range, social class, all straight, etc.) so we have a hypothetical dating pool of 200 people.
According to your interpretation of the research, 10 of those men are fucking 60 of the women. Or they are fucking almost all the women, who are also giving sloppy seconds to some of the other 90 men. And the other 40 women are, what, being shared by the 90 lesser men? Do you see how this doesn't add up? Do you really think the 10% most attractive/desirable men routinely have harems? Sure, a young guy with options probably sleeps around, and so do women with options, but... most people neither want to be part of a harem nor necessarily be permanently spinning plates.
The research shows the most desirable men sleep around a lot more than the less desirable men, which is hardly a new phenomenon. And it shows women, given options, are pickier than when they didn't have options. It does not show that the most desirable men are hoarding all the women.
Likewise your figure that "80% of men are unacceptable to women" does not fit real-world observations. Are 80% of adult men today incels? Really? Are 80% of young men not dating or having sex at all?
If you give a woman a lineup of 100 male profiles, and she only checks 20 of them as attractive enough to date, it does not follow that the other 80 men will never find a woman.
You point to real problems but you abuse statistics to make an exaggerated point.
I think ironically you also ignore a factor that would also explain a lot of male datelessness: a lot of women are just... not desirable nowadays. Obesity is a big part of it. Outside of danker corners of the Internet, there isn't a lot of straightforward discussion about the fact that a lot of women are fat nowadays and most men don't want fat women. Then add the shrill brand of feminism that even among straight girls (whether or not they call themselves "bi") sneers at the idea of pleasing men in any way, and it's not surprising that the dating landscape has narrowed for men. And in ways they find socially unacceptable to state out loud.
"I'd rather jerk it to AI porn than settle for a septum-pierced landwhale who hates me" is also a problem, but it's not actually a problem of female pickiness!
As an aside, Amaden, the main points brought up by the crowd that believe in 80/20 (some form of the false notion that 80% of the women sleep with 20% of the men) have been extensively studied and refuted by one Maximus.
What both him and I have found, after looking closely at the research, is that about 20% of the men have 80% of the female sex partner count, but, likewise, about 25% of the women have 80% of the male sex partner count.
There is no polygyny. It’s just that the most promiscuous men tend to attract the promiscuous women.
On a personal note, I know I have a lot of recovery, because I’m no longer attracting only ultra promiscuous women. They’re still around in my life, as platonic friends, but that as far as it goes now that I have a very good girlfriend.
More options
Context Copy link
Not quite.
There's some subset of women who aren't having sexual encounters at all.
Of the women having sexual encounters, this implies that about 60% of those encounters are with a particular subset of men.
And then we ALSO have data that women are on average having more sexual encounters than ever.
So contingent on the amount of women actually having sex (somewhere around 80% of young women, based on self reports) the vast majority of their sex is with a small cohort of men.
And the contingent of men having sex is decreasing fairly quickly. Suggesting that the % of men on the receiving end of these sexual encounters is getting even more exclusive.
The only sane interpretation is that women are having more sex, on average, with a smaller pool of guys.
Which is, ONCE AGAIN, backed up by data from Dating apps.
A small % of guys are even matching with women, let alone having sex with them.
Am I the only one that uses google anymore?
Half of Young men just aren't dating.
Around 45% have never asked a woman out at all.
That's 50% out of the pool already. Do you think a guy who turns 25 with minimal/zero dating experience is likely to turn that around and have success with women by age 30?
As of 2023, 60% of young men reported they were single. That number. 34% of young women reported being single. WHO ARE THE WOMEN DATING if not those young men?
As of 2026, around 34% of young men report being in a 'serious' relationship.. Situation is not really improving.
So we're hovering somewhere around 70% of young dudes who are not currently on trajectory to get married.
You tell me why that would be, if men actually want to get married. What's the holdup, why can't they attract a partner?
There's little reason to think that'll improve.
And you can hear women tell you the exact same thing straight from their mouth.
"If your standards don't eliminate most, they're not high enough."
"I'd rather die alone... ...than know that I didn't get it all."
This is being openly stated, in publicly viewable forums, young women TELLING YOU DIRECTLY that most men aren't sufficient for them. THEY'RE NOT HIDING IT.
Why would that be? What possible explanation is there other than... some large % of men (60%? 70%? 80%?) don't rise to their notice.
I've discussed each of these individual points before, of course. Its getting very rote to have this discussion when the data still says the same thing, and all the new data just reinforces the existing point.
My precise position is that about 50% of men are invisible to women, with an additional 30% that only become visible on occasion once acknowledged.
Maximus goes in to it with some detail
The most likely explanations:
More options
Context Copy link
You really have to click through and look at the methodology itself, not just copy-paste whatever clickbait summary it's posted with. Best I can tell, you are misreading this survey in a way that actually reverses its findings.
Here are the actual questions and responses from the Pew survey. Notice how "dating casually" in this survey falls in the singledom region! The figure in the article also confirms: "single" as a category refers to respondents who are not married, living with a partner or in a committed romantic relationship.
So for this survey, all your Chads playing the field are showing up in the same 60% as the incels. Given that respondents aged 18-29 get binned separately from respondents aged 30-49, it's plausible the entire story with any disparities is just the completely unremarkable fact that women date men a few years older, so many of the committed partners of mid-20s women are showing up in the 30-49 age bracket (25% not married or LTR).
They asked additionally about people's relationship goals, seemingly using a single question: "Are you looking looking (for committed romantic relationship, casual dates or either one)?" Answering "yes" to this could match either the Chad seeking more flings or the incel seeking to lose his v-card, and answering "no" could equally well mean "I've given up" or "Nah, I'm cool with hookups, no relationship." So again, AFAICT this study gives zero way of differentiating between incel and Chad; the questions route them into the same buckets.
(Lastly, 39% of women aged 65+ are not married or in LTR, versus 25% of men in that bracket, but I notice you don't express the same concern about those ladies' lonely fate. Why is that?)
Seriously, all survey-based social science is terrible, but it becomes 1000x more terrible if you start with a preconceived conclusion and just Google around for supporting headlines. Consider all the much-hyped survey-based studies claiming to show that Republicans are inherently stupider and less empathic than Democrats. Do you accept these summaries uncritically because Science! No? Then should you also exercise some critical scrutiny about studies like these? [edited for clarity]
More options
Context Copy link
It's like a combination of several factors, the largest being the Dave Chappelle skit about 'I don't have a girlfriend, but there's some women'd be upset to hear that'.
Mitch Hedburg line, I believe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can you just give a direct link to the academic paper from that first posted link? I've heard concerning things about the safety of archive.is lately. As to the "actual piece of research" about the 10%/60%, well, I also could butcher a rabbit and read its entrails and get back to you, but bad methodology yields bad conclusions, full stop.
Clavicular is practically a child, with what seems to be a serious abuse history leading to addiction problems and terrible body dysmorphia? I think the dude needs an intervention more than anything else. I have no idea who donates to him and no intention of trying to find out, but I'd imagine there's a fair proportion of gay men and Russian bots in there. What is his relevance to the claim that women are sluts who only sleep with Chads?
If there is some pristine piece of data out there that doesn't rely on self-reports and somehow peers into people's sex lives directly to make conclusions about the rates of pairings I'd love to see it.
I've sure looked.
But when all the extant stats point approximately in the same direction, I feel pretty confident drawing the most obvious conclusion.
Especially when you account for dating app disparities too.
Do you think there's any downstream effect of some small % of men getting the highest % of matches on such apps? Would that increase or decrease the amount of sex partners they'd have?
It's crazy to me that people keep citing this. As far as I can see, this dataset indicates literally only obvious things that everybody agrees are true:
It only suggests "80% of women are sleeping with with a few looksmaxxing Chads" if you assume that this data is somehow representative of men/women overall (clearly false, it's self-selected and doesn't even encompass all Tinder users!). And that a person's profile pic is identical with their fuckability; and that swiping someone is equivalent to having sex, or at least wanting to have sex with them. Neither of which is remotely true for women.
More options
Context Copy link
It's a real pity we can't see current dating app data. Just for science I'm sure theres all sorts of interesting things that could be noticed.
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