[SlickyBoy]

The NYT thinks they've hit on something - Americans having less sex than they once did.

Quote:

It used to be that, along with certain tax benefits, one advantage to being married was having more sex than singletons. (EDIT: I don't know how far back they had to go for this gem, but since the introduction of birth control and concomitant attitudes towards sex, this is a dubious assertion)

That benefit is steadily diminishing, according to a new study released Tuesday. Overall, American adults are having less sex than they did a quarter century ago, with married people showing the most dramatic decline of all. (EDIT: I assume they mean sex with each other, and not extramarital activities)

The paper, published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, showed a drop across gender, race, region, education level, and work status. One factor is the higher percentage now of unpartnered people, who tend to have less sex than partnered ones. But a major driver is a steady fall in the rate of sexual activity for people who are married or living with partners, which reduces what had been known as the “marriage advantage.”

Using 1989-2014 data from the General Social Survey, the study found that American adults have sex seven to nine fewer times per year than in the 1990s. Back then, the average person had sex 60 to 62 times a year, but in the early 2000s the frequency began to slip, and by 2014 it had declined to less than 53 times a year.

When looking only at married people, the drop was even sharper – from around 73 times a year in 1990 to around 55 in 2014 – bringing their frequency of sexual activity below that of never-married people. People in that group have sex an average of 59 times a year.

At the same time, Americans overall became less coupled. In 1986, 66 percent of American adults were living with a partner; by 2014 only 59 percent were, according to GSS data. People who are not in couples, including those who have been married in the past, tend to have sex half as frequently as people who are, the study said.

The report did not list causes for the decline, but cited possible factors including increased access to entertainment and social media; a decline in happiness among people 30 and over; higher incidence of depression; and use of anti-depressants associated with sexual dysfunction.

“Are they less happy and thus having less sex or are they having less sex and therefore less happy? It’s probably some of both,” said Jean Twenge, the lead author, who teaches psychology at San Diego State University and wrote Generation Me, a book about millennials. “We do know that sexual frequency is linked to marital satisfaction, so overall if you have fewer people having sex you could have people who are less happy and less satisfied with that relationship.”

The ubiquity of electronic distraction does not help, she added. “People aren’t looking around saying, ‘Hey, it’s ten o’clock, what are we going to do?’”

A major detractor to American’s sex lives has been the rising necessity of the two-income family, said Pepper Schwartz, a sociology professor at the University of Washington. “I would say the number one cause for a lack of sex is fatigue,” she said. “You have many more women and men working to create a two-income family to stay middle class or above…People’s minds are occupied with things other than the physical connection, and that has increased in modern life, and especially from the 80s and 90s and forward.” (EDIT: Perhaps. But if a solid 10 jumped into the sack next to me after I just ran a marathon, I dunno - I think I could muster the energy).

Unsurprisingly, the study found a steady decline in frequency of sexual activity as people age, from over 80 times a year for people in their 20s to about 60 times a year by 45 and 20 times a year by 65. But when comparing the same time period in the lives of each generation, the group having sex most often were those born in the 1930s, while those having the least sex were born in the 1990s.

The decline in sexual activity was sharpest among people in their 50s, people with a college degree, people with school-age children, people in the South, and those who do not watch pornography. It was less pronounced among younger people, men, non-whites, people with children under 6, people in the West and those who had watched a pornographic movie in the past year. (EDIT: True. The actual study said, curiously enough, that it did NOT have to do with increased pornography use.)

As more people put off parenthood until later, the combination of middle age and childrearing may create a ”perfect storm” of sexual infrequency, the study said. (EDIT: And having to romp with your post-wall, former carousel-riding, flabby titted bride in the middle of it all - yeah, not surprised sex is on the decline.)

And working parents who spend less time with their children during the week tend to make up for it on weekends, eating into time which would normally go to the couple, Schwartz said.

“What you need for a sex life is energy, focus, and time and the right mood,” she said. “If I’ve just run a marathon, is the first thing I want to do have sex? Probably not.” (EDIT:Yeah, well, that all depends, lady. See my comment above.)

This study left out the homosexual couples, who are probably carrying on just with as much promiscuity as they did while single. Nor did it mention the deregulation of the sexual marketplace, which I think is a big driver.

If 20% of the men are having sex with 80% of the eligible women and infidelity is generally on the rise, there's no reason to suspect this isn't influencing at least a few of these "sexless" marriages.

[Sam Malone]

"Author" Tara Bahrampour

[rainy]

Progressives and feminists don't exist in reality, they exist in their little emotional bubbles. Hence why they never understand a concept as simple as, consequence.

The progressive and feminist movement tells you fat is beautiful, women can be men, massacring your beauty is encouraged and projecting a true feminine style makes you a lesser woman. They'll try to have you believe that

this



and this



is the new beautiful, rather than

this



or this



previously. Natural beauty, skinny, celebrating their feminism with true elegance.

Now, modern feminists can tell other women that fat is beautiful, that being manly women is empowering, that they can dress and act like slobs and men will still respect/love them for it, but the reality is men do not like that, never have, never will.

So the consequence of their actions which they're too incompetent to see is that in all their pushing of the above, men no longer want to fuck them. They dug their own miserable grave. They don't understand the basic reality that a woman can convince another woman that fat is beautiful but you cannot convince a man that fat is beautiful.

Sure, weak-minded beta men are a problem, as is porn everywhere. That contributes to the lack of sex and lack of thirst. But modern feminism and the crap they've pushed for years is a major reason why so many women are no longer happy and no longer getting the pipe laid to them by strong, successful alphas.

[Feldeinsamkeit]

One thing which would be interesting - but would certainly never see the light of day in a study like this - would be to break down the statistics for men in terms of how many guys are effectively shut out of the dating market altogether in many Western nations, above all in the Anglosphere. Given albeit anecdotal evidence, but lots of it from multiple sources, I would say that this constitutes a significant percentage of men in the West, given how the deregulation of the sexual market place has created a winner-takes-all situation where not 20%, but nearer 5% of the guys, monopolize the pussy.

So, there's a much bigger story to this than simply exhausted housewifes who can't be bothered putting out to their husbands of an evening. Turning to the flipside of the coin, what about the alpha widows, for example, who rode the carousel in their 20s and who now aren't prepared to settle even for decently-off betas in their 30s and who would rather share their home with a litter of piss-stained cats than entertain a man as a live-in partner? I know from several social circles that there's a fair number of women like this, who will never find a "good man" given the mismatch between their former carousel-riding days hogging the alpha limelight and the reality of their post-wall SMV devaluation - it's a gulf that can and will never be filled with such women and the number of them is surely to continue growing. Needless to say, the author of this study isn't going to be in any hurry to include such metrics in it, even though they would genuinely throw light on what is going on here.

[SlickyBoy]

According to what they found, porn wasn't the problem. That was mildly surprising. But there is limited information on the population sample surveyed. There's also no way to tell if the married people in the survey were counting extramarital adventures, P4P, or whatever else might be substituting for are more frequent sex life.

[Kid Twist]

(03-07-2017 06:15 PM)Feldeinsamkeit Wrote:  

One thing which would be interesting - but would certainly never see the light of day in a study like this - would be to break down the statistics for men in terms of how many guys are effectively shut out of the dating market altogether in many Western nations, above all in the Anglosphere. Given albeit anecdotal evidence, but lots of it from multiple sources, I would say that this constitutes a significant percentage of men in the West, given how the deregulation of the sexual market place has created a winner-takes-all situation where not 20%, but nearer 5% of the guys, monopolize the pussy.

So, there's a much bigger story to this than simply exhausted housewifes who can't be bothered putting out to their husbands of an evening. Turning to the flipside of the coin, what about the alpha widows, for example, who rode the carousel in their 20s and who now aren't prepared to settle even for decently-off betas in their 30s and who would rather share their home with a litter of piss-stained cats than entertain a man as a live-in partner? I know from several social circles that there's a fair number of women like this, who will never find a "good man" given the mismatch between their former carousel-riding days hogging the alpha limelight and the reality of their post-wall SMV devaluation - it's a gulf that can and will never be filled with such women and the number of them is surely to continue growing. Needless to say, the author of this study isn't going to be in any hurry to include such metrics in it, even though they would genuinely throw light on what is going on here.

I'm interested in how you would measure the sex in this study [quantity], over what time periods, would you look at absolute number of encounters or how many encounters with different partners, etc.

Obviously, delaying adolescence and increasing separation from families (your own family and then your would be family if you got married) has led to the cock carousel blowout then 30+ arid spell for women, and increasing the Pareto rule for men in 20s to 30s.

As a related aside, what do you think is more counterproductive for women?

The comparisons made and referred to while they age and "look back" thinking they can actually get that alpha again, OR

Social media and the grass is greener phenomenon, constant distraction or hookup and delayed families as opposed to healthy relationships

[Steve McQueen]

(03-07-2017 06:15 PM)Feldeinsamkeit Wrote:  

One thing which would be interesting - but would certainly never see the light of day in a study like this - would be to break down the statistics for men in terms of how many guys are effectively shut out of the dating market altogether in many Western nations, above all in the Anglosphere. Given albeit anecdotal evidence, but lots of it from multiple sources, I would say that this constitutes a significant percentage of men in the West, given how the deregulation of the sexual market place has created a winner-takes-all situation where not 20%, but nearer 5% of the guys, monopolize the pussy.

So, there's a much bigger story to this than simply exhausted housewifes who can't be bothered putting out to their husbands of an evening. Turning to the flipside of the coin, what about the alpha widows, for example, who rode the carousel in their 20s and who now aren't prepared to settle even for decently-off betas in their 30s and who would rather share their home with a litter of piss-stained cats than entertain a man as a live-in partner? I know from several social circles that there's a fair number of women like this, who will never find a "good man" given the mismatch between their former carousel-riding days hogging the alpha limelight and the reality of their post-wall SMV devaluation - it's a gulf that can and will never be filled with such women and the number of them is surely to continue growing. Needless to say, the author of this study isn't going to be in any hurry to include such metrics in it, even though they would genuinely throw light on what is going on here.

Exactly, women are increasingly refusing to lower their standards and the delusion doesnt really hit home until close to 40 now, very late in the day to start a family.

[Lucky]

More information on this from a survey on sexual frequency:

Quote:

American adults had sex about nine fewer times per year in the early 2010s compared to the late 1990s in data from the nationally representative General Social Survey, N = 26,620, 1989–2014. This was partially due to the higher percentage of unpartnered individuals, who have sex less frequently on average. Sexual frequency declined among the partnered (married or living together) but stayed steady among the unpartnered, reducing the marital/partnered advantage for sexual frequency. Declines in sexual frequency were similar across gender, race, region, educational level, and work status and were largest among those in their 50s, those with school-age children, and those who did not watch pornography. In analyses separating the effects of age, time period, and cohort, the decline was primarily due to birth cohort (year of birth, also known as generation). With age and time period controlled, those born in the 1930s (Silent generation) had sex the most often, whereas those born in the 1990s (Millennials and iGen) had sex the least often. The decline was not linked to longer working hours or increased pornography use. Age had a strong effect on sexual frequency: Americans in their 20s had sex an average of about 80 times per year, compared to about 20 times per year for those in their 60s. The results suggest that Americans are having sex less frequently due to two primary factors: An increasing number of individuals without a steady or marital partner and a decline in sexual frequency among those with partners.

The last bolded last part falls somewhere between "no duh" and "no shit." Still, it is interesting that fewer people are entering relationships. Also, that even those within relationships aren't fucking as much as earlier generations.

Why?

[Jim Johnson]

Porn is a big culprit. A guy jerking off to porn will shut himself into his own world, and become less attractive to women. Their doughy build and pasty white face show. Their lack of adventurous stories show, their inability to socialize shows. Women are creeped out by it.

[Jim Johnson]

(03-07-2017 05:55 PM)rainy Wrote:  

Progressives and feminists don't exist in reality, they exist in their little emotional bubbles. Hence why they never understand a concept as simple as, consequence.

The progressive and feminist movement tells you fat is beautiful, women can be men, massacring your beauty is encouraged and projecting a true feminine style makes you a lesser woman. They'll try to have you believe that

this



and this



is the new beautiful, rather than

this



or this



previously. Natural beauty, skinny, celebrating their feminism with true elegance.

Now, modern feminists can tell other women that fat is beautiful, that being manly women is empowering, that they can dress and act like slobs and men will still respect/love them for it, but the reality is men do not like that, never have, never will.

So the consequence of their actions which they're too incompetent to see is that in all their pushing of the above, men no longer want to fuck them. They dug their own miserable grave. They don't understand the basic reality that a woman can convince another woman that fat is beautiful but you cannot convince a man that fat is beautiful.

Sure, weak-minded beta men are a problem, as is porn everywhere. That contributes to the lack of sex and lack of thirst. But modern feminism and the crap they've pushed for years is a major reason why so many women are no longer happy and no longer getting the pipe laid to them by strong, successful alphas.

I agree, for the most horrendous feminists. But, a guys thirst is real. 99% of women in their 20's are perfectly capable of getting sex anytime they want. All they need to do is show some sluttiness, and betas will be lining up to plow some fat rolls. The bottleneck lies on the men, the thirsty simps who bought into this feminist tripe. They are the ones who cannot get the sex they want, they have been duped into believing that if they act how a woman tells them to, they will become attractive. Reality is, acting how a woman tells you to is the opposite of masculinity, and not attractive to women.

[cascadecombo]

I feel like I have seen posts like this before here.

[SlickyBoy]

(03-08-2017 08:33 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

As a related aside, what do you think is more counterproductive for women?

The comparisons made and referred to while they age and "look back" thinking they can actually get that alpha again, OR

Social media and the grass is greener phenomenon, constant distraction or hookup and delayed families as opposed to healthy relationships

They kind of sound like the same thing, but the first one is inherently flawed, so maybe a bit worse. The premise can't ever "get" the alpha once they've blown their prime years riding the carousel. Sure, MILFs will gloat that they can get with the younger Chad Thundercocks once in a while. Alas, they confuse their (steadily decreasing) ability to occasionally "get with" the alpha boys to being able to "get" the alpha boy for the long term.

It takes a special kind of beta douchebag to stomach the idea of staying with an old lady well past her SMV, and even those are rare - recently elected French politicians notwithstanding.

[Rawmeo]

Can't remember where I read that, but 10% of men get 90% of all sex in the world.

[TigOlBitties]

I've heard 20% of men get 80% of the sex, but your number might be more accurate.

[kaotic]

Both stats are wrong.

I get all the sex in the world.

[SlickyBoy]

(05-11-2017 02:35 PM)Rawmeo Wrote:  

Can't remember where I read that, but 10% of men get 90% of all sex in the world.

it's 20/80 (usually 80/20)- more or less the Pareto principle mentioned earlier.

What you're referring to is the deregulation of the sexual marketplace. A confluence of circumstances: economic, technological and social, are creating an environment where the old rules simply no longer apply.

[Excelsior]

(03-10-2017 09:55 PM)Lucky Wrote:  

More information on this from a survey on sexual frequency:

Quote:

American adults had sex about nine fewer times per year in the early 2010s compared to the late 1990s in data from the nationally representative General Social Survey, N = 26,620, 1989–2014. This was partially due to the higher percentage of unpartnered individuals, who have sex less frequently on average. Sexual frequency declined among the partnered (married or living together) but stayed steady among the unpartnered, reducing the marital/partnered advantage for sexual frequency. Declines in sexual frequency were similar across gender, race, region, educational level, and work status and were largest among those in their 50s, those with school-age children, and those who did not watch pornography. In analyses separating the effects of age, time period, and cohort, the decline was primarily due to birth cohort (year of birth, also known as generation). With age and time period controlled, those born in the 1930s (Silent generation) had sex the most often, whereas those born in the 1990s (Millennials and iGen) had sex the least often. The decline was not linked to longer working hours or increased pornography use. Age had a strong effect on sexual frequency: Americans in their 20s had sex an average of about 80 times per year, compared to about 20 times per year for those in their 60s. The results suggest that Americans are having sex less frequently due to two primary factors: An increasing number of individuals without a steady or marital partner and a decline in sexual frequency among those with partners.

The last bolded last part falls somewhere between "no duh" and "no shit." Still, it is interesting that fewer people are entering relationships. Also, that even those within relationships aren't fucking as much as earlier generations.

Why?

A partial explanation may be tied to an increasingly transactional nature in relationships, which has risen in response to a society in which it has become a lot harder to climb the economic ladder than it once was.

I wrote a long post outlining this theory here:

thread-60260...pid1477031

Read the post for full details, but the basic gist of it is that women who want a middle class lifestyle today as millenials or "iGen" have a much harder hill to climb than their mothers and grandmothers did. This difficulty is leading to the rise of Sugar Babies and sites like Seeking Arrangement, as well as a greater focus on money in general in relationships and more value for "beta bucks". I think cash matters more in the dating market than it once did.

I would theorize that this may play a role in the nature of some of the relationships mentioned here, especially in major urban areas that are expensive.
In a world where its become harder to get to the middle class and student loans enhance the burden, there are a lot of relationships in cities like NYC, DC, and Boston that are as much about financial convenience as they are about attraction.

On your own as a recently graduated yuppie from [insert decent but very expensive private university here] with a bunch of loans and just a $55k salary, the cost of living in a place like NYC might seem daunting.
But if you can find a boyfriend who also makes $55k, suddenly you both have enough spending power to maybe build some comfort. You can leave your roommates behind (good for convenience and space) and live in a decent apartment with more to yourself, and you'll have more spending power for luxuries like travel and all that. You'll save a lot more money too, on average, and maybe if you're both careful you'll be able to find a house some day.

There are a good number of relationships that are perpetuated primarily by this: each partner knows that if there's a breakup, there are serious financial consequences that they may not be able to mitigate (might be tough to find a roommate short notice if your friend group isn't available, parents may not live nearby, etc). Many stick it out because of this risk - it's almost like how a married couple decides to tough it out because of the kids, the house, or the financial cost of divorce. These young couples will live together, maybe get a dog (they definitely will try to avoid having kids), do all the anniversary stuff and visit each other's parents, etc. As I said earlier, they effectively become a married couple. I call these "Millenial Marriages".

There are a lot of millenials highly dependent on these kinds of relationships, and they aren't always the most loving since the practicality is such a big factor in their perpetuation. It is likely that a good number of these relationships have the kind of sexual frequency you see in many long-lasted marriages as well - couple times a week, BJ here and there, etc. Just as is the case in many marriages, these "millenial marriages" may see big decreases in sexual frequency as the relationship ages. My theory is that the prevalence of these relationships has played a role in decreasing sexual frequency. Lots of millenials (mostly white, college educated ones) are getting married without getting married and dealing with many of the dynamics common to married couples earlier in their lives (financial stress, cohabitation, etc).

That's just some speculation on my part, though, I can't prove any of this. Just my two cents based on some observation and a bit of reading.

[SlickyBoy]

I remember that earlier thread, good one. While it's definitely true that young women today have a much narrower path to finding Mr. Right and getting the house, kids, white picket fence, etc., they usually still fuck it up using any alternate paths.

The current economy and social realities may help them rationalize soft prostitution ("sugar daddy" dating) but profits from selling ass are used for their own narcissism and hedonism - not finding Mr. Right. Sure, some get it right and either save their money from whoring (doubtful) or social climb into the right setups (Tiger Woods's ex wife isn't doing too badly in spite of everything), but most never plan. Instead they ride the carousel and wind up being used up thirtysomethings with bullshit careers and calloused wombs, desperately looking to hook a schmuck before they hit 35 or even 40. After being with Chad Thundercock whenever they wanted through their 20s, they won't ever find the same level of thrills with Benny the Beta even into middle age.

I think there's always been periods of economic uncertainty where people in relationships stayed together out of necessity rather than true desire, but those periods have typically been temporary. Once things bounced back, people went their separate ways. However, the confluence of social, technological, demographic and economic circumstances facing the West nowadays is like no other in recent memory. It may indicate this down period could last a lot longer than usual and get a lot more grim as the gulfs widen.

[Diogenes]

(05-12-2017 03:37 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

There are a good number of relationships that are perpetuated primarily by this: each partner knows that if there's a breakup, there are serious financial consequences that they may not be able to mitigate (might be tough to find a roommate short notice if your friend group isn't available, parents may not live nearby, etc). Many stick it out because of this risk - it's almost like how a married couple decides to tough it out because of the kids, the house, or the financial cost of divorce. These young couples will live together, maybe get a dog (they definitely will try to avoid having kids), do all the anniversary stuff and visit each other's parents, etc. As I said earlier, they effectively become a married couple. I call these "Millenial Marriages".

There are a lot of millenials highly dependent on these kinds of relationships, and they aren't always the most loving since the practicality is such a big factor in their perpetuation. It is likely that a good number of these relationships have the kind of sexual frequency you see in many long-lasted marriages as well - couple times a week, BJ here and there, etc. Just as is the case in many marriages, these "millenial marriages" may see big decreases in sexual frequency as the relationship ages. My theory is that the prevalence of these relationships has played a role in decreasing sexual frequency. Lots of millenials (mostly white, college educated ones) are getting married without getting married and dealing with many of the dynamics common to married couples earlier in their lives (financial stress, cohabitation, etc).

That's just some speculation on my part, though, I can't prove any of this. Just my two cents based on some observation and a bit of reading.

What usury has joined together let no man put asunder.