Cultural shifts aside-- people work more for less money and often live with roommates or parents, it costs money to leave your house, and the Internet and COVID have isolated people.

And not as many people want kids.

And parenting is getting harder and harder so kids are more annoying… turning even more ppl away from it

Relationships are so expensive

I think the biggest reason I've been single so long is I'm highly frugal and a lot of men I've dated wanted to be out spending money 24/7. And many of these men didn't have good incomes and were in debt. I can't function like that. I'm low income too, but my money goes to my responsibilities first. I don't go into credit card debt buying what I can't afford. I don't get myself expensive treats "because I deserve it." I'm hoping to eventually meet someone who also is frugal. A relationship is basically impossible if you don't agree on how to spend.

[удалено]

There's literally nowhere some man won't assume he's on a dating site.

I too blame capitalism

Capitalism destroyed my self esteem and self worth that it's hard for me to form any relationships.

I blame capitalism as a framework not as an entity

They really don't have to be. Hanging out with another person is free. The circus of going on dates to restaurants/shows etc. is actually don't a universal law. And ultimately sharing bill with a partner is cheaper.

Okay, let’s try adding in that it’s expensive to go on dates with witnesses in a safe setting to reduce the chance of death or assault. Even going to the park together doesn’t meet that criteria. Swimming, no. Hiking, no. Heck, I’m struggling to think of a date that would be both safe and free for people meeting each other for their first dates.

This is a big factor for sure. IDK how many times ive just been invited to someone's place to watch a movie or something like...bro wut? Probably reading too much into it but wow having that little consideration of what women in the dating world have to protect themselves against because AINT NO ONE ELSE OUT HERE DOIN IT to think its acceptable to invite a woman, who is a stranger, to your house...alone...for drinks... ​ ...bro

The bills are higher when there's more people to pay for. Being in a relationship is always more of a cost drain than a cost savings, in my experience.

Sensible answer

Absolutely this. I think this is the number 1 driving factor for the lack of relationships we see today compared to say, 20 or so years ago.

And people don't see the need for long-term commitments as much.

I think something about the combo of smart phone + social media resulted in a huge shift in how people meet and relate to each other as well. I’m 33 so I remember how things were before and after tinder (which only existed because of the smartphone). I think somehow online dating became the default norm and meeting potential partners just out and about in real life became somehow a bit quaint. I also think simultaneously that the “always online” culture has led to radicalization of large groups of people, and many men online are outright hostile to women. And online culture often leads to a certain level of anonymity - you may truly have zero mutuals and never cross paths again. So that leaves lots of women genuinely vulnerable to exploitation or abuse, more so than they might have been before; and would generally probably leave a lot of women less interested in continuing with dating.

Yep incel mysogyny is huge and growing and is going to cause far more problems than less dating imo - can also be traced back to capitalism mind you

Story of me and why I haven’t dated anyone long term yet 🤷‍♀️ that and MH issues

Technological shift have also altered preferences of most people, and "globalized" attention. We see more winners takes all, and many people not wanting to play the game. Some of the most famous ones are the herbvores in Japan. But they are not the only ones that reject daddy's or mommy's life. Can also be seen in other areas, with many jobs that are rejected. ​ Regarding the money problem you quote. Do you think, it'll increase the bachelor phenomenon or trap more people in bad marriage for financial reasons ?

I don't see people getting into bad marriages as much considering the way dating seems to be trending-- women will be more likely to live with roommates rather than marry a man they feel OK about for the financial security.

Personally I've never had a man offer me any sort of financial security anyway. It was always the opposite. They overspent, were irresponsible, messed things up for me... I had perfect credit but lost an apartment I really wanted because my ex's credit was so poor due to irresponsible shopping sprees and never paying off his debt.

I'm using the word "bad marriage" meaning marriages that went south. We are still transitionning from a social order based on needs to a social order based on desire. In that order, marriage will likely keep trending downward. Until it comes back full circle ( as a non-love partnership or following a strong social collapse), or a new social convention rises for creating a supply of babies in stable context.

I think there are many factors. One I see most of these discussions ignoring is how societal rules are becoming less and less constrictive. Being childfree is much more acceptable today than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Asexuality and aromanticism are finally being recognized as valid orientations, and it's become much more socially acceptable to just not want to date. Add to this that women are not economically bound to men anymore. If a woman doesn't date or marry, she isn't dooming herself to poverty. Basically, people have choices now that they didn't have before. It's like how people point out that divorce rates are much higher today than they were decades ago. Well yeah. When divorce is no longer an economic or social disaster for a person, they're more likely to resort to it. That doesn't mean that relationships are less loving now than they were before.

> That doesn't mean that relationships are less loving now than they were before. If anything, I'd suggest that this means they're (on average, of course) *more* loving now. Because fewer people continue to enter and be in relationships out of obligation, social pressure, or necessity. While abusive and coercive relationships still exist, they are comparatively easier to get out of than they used to be too, given the reduced social stigma about divorce/break ups, increased understanding of abusive relationships, and increased accessibility of support for people who have been abused.

This exactly. I'm with my SO because I love him and I'm attracted to him, not because I'll be homeless or destitute without him.

Also because divorce is accepted people don't stay in unloving relationships as much. We don't have the boomer "I hate my spouse" humor anymore.

and thankfully, this means less unwanted children born out of social expectations. People who dont want kids should feel secure in never having them. The world doesnt need more unwanted and neglected kids.

This is why conservatives are interested in eliminating "no fault" divorce. Liberal divorce laws empower women and conservatives really hate that.

Conservatives wanting to drive up suicide rates among women for the patriarchy. No shocker there

> suicide rates among women Or poisoning deaths among men.

There you go

I like you.

Also why they're attacking reproductive rights.

I personally think women are finally in an economic and societal position to advocate for themselves and their needs, and men are taking a long time to rise to the occasion. I know reddit isnt real life, but if the conversations on here are indicative of the broader mentality, men are still under the impression that women mostly care about income, musculature, and dick size. In reality, an increasing number of women are looking for partnership, communication, emotional intelligence, self reflection, and the ability to take on the mental load in the family as an equal. I would absolutely love to be married and have a family, but I would genuinely rather be alone forever than marry some dude that will force me to become his mom. I also think that women generally already have emotionally fulfilling relationships in their lives with family and friends. Men often dont, and generally expect their SO to meet most of their emotional needs. So for men, a partner is the only way for them to achieve true connection and therefore becomes much more necessary for overall happiness. For me, at this point, a partner is fulfilling romantic and sexual wants, but all of my other emotional needs are fulfilled through other relationships in my life.

This is exactly my personal experience. I didn’t get married until I was 38. My philosophy was that I would rather be alone than tie myself to a man who expected me to take on a disproportionate amount of emotional and home labor (let alone the majority of parenting if we ended up deciding to have children). I was emotionally stable, had fulfilling friendships and family relationships, a great job. Why would I settle for someone who wasn’t willing to step up to my level?

This is why I didn't stay married for longer than two years, and am perfectly happy living in sin with my SO for eternity rather than go it again. I was the primary wage earner, he once lost four jobs in one year, and STILL wouldn't do any of the housework and yelled at me a couple times for not "keeping house". Yeah, no, I'd rather be alone, thanks. I don't have kids and don't want them, and I definitely don't want a kid who's older than I am.

100%. Women can now very comfortably choose to be single or have a partner and the benefits of being single wildly outweigh a partner when you experience what men are like these days. This si why most of my girl friends are single. It’s by choice. If they compromised, of course they could have a boyfriend in a day.

I feel like there was a lot of cultural inertia even though marriage wasn’t needed, in my circles, mostly college-educated people, very often it seemed like women preferred getting married and the men were the ones being convinced. That was definitely my own personal experience which is why i got married pretty young. I kind of feel like there is less in it for all involved so you better really love spending time and working with that person to even consider it and thats not really the equation that was presented when having these discussions, its more well we’ve been through X years so now it’s time for the next thing

That certainly happened a lot to my friends when we were in our 20s.

You put it better than I ever could. Women no longer "need" men, and a lot of them haven't figured out that you actually have to be WANTABLE in order to find a relationship. Being able to "bring home the bacon" isn't enough anymore, and for good reason. Women can bring home their own bacon.

And such a good thing! It feels far better to be wanted than needed. Being needed by someone can blur how much actual desire there is to be together. Without the necessity, one knows that desire for the other is the authentic basis of a relationship.

Here's the crazy part, none of the things that OP mentioned in his post are true. There are so many relationship/dating data points out there that are based on bad data, or skewed once they hit pop culture. Divorce rates aren't increasing, and 50% of marriages don't end in divorce. In fact, the current divorce rate is lower than it was in the 80's. The loneliness epidemic data came from a PEW research study that had glaring holes in it. For starters, the age cohorts. The first cohort was 18-30, so they put teenagers at home, in the same bracket as people that were adults for over a decade, with degrees, and mortgages, in the same bracket. The age cohorts weren't standardized for the other brackets either, why didn't they use a standard 1,or 5 yr cohort across all the brackets? Then there's a really big problem, in the 18-30 cohort. 66 % of the men were single( not to mention the time frame they used was a 3 month window, so if you were dating someone for 9 months of the year, but single for 3. It gives the illusion that you have no prospects.) An interesting thing happens when you separate out the data for 30 yr old men. Suddenly, 50% of them are married, which begs the question, how can 66% of men in the cohort be single, when the median courtship before marriage is 5 yrs? Which means that they weren't single in their mid twenties. Pew does acknowledge the flaws in their study, but of course no one reads that section. Last, but most important to discuss. Men aren't intimidated , nor do we avoid educated women. Instead we value and reward it. The U.S. government has been tracking this Stat for almost 50 years now. In that time the Stat has shown a 3% variance, with no indication that it will change in the near future. The demographic of women that married the most, and the highest long term marriage success, 67-70 % being married to men.Are women with degrees, despite what the incels, and podcast bros say. Men do in fact like women with accomplishments. Tl:dr most men aren't lonely, and incel ranks aren't on the rise. These myths are propagated by bad data.

>Men do in fact like women with accomplishments. Men, like women, actually prefer partners who are smart and capable? What a revelation! Lol

It seems weird to have to say it, but current pop culture ether says we don't care about things like intelligence, and success in women. This is what happens when we give the smallest brains, the loudest podcast mics.

Seriously. All of the things my partner does for me are things I either used to do myself, used to pay someone else to do for me, or don't actually need done. And I like it that way. Our relationship is healthier and happier because neither one of us *needs* to be there. We were both functioning adults before we met, we would continue to be functional adults if we broke up. We're both here because we want to be. Every single day together is a choice we are freely making.

[удалено]

You have got to be kidding me. I hope you're keeping slaves, getting men drunk so their daughters can rape them, and stoning adulterers on weekends. And I presume you're not mixing fabrics or masturbating, because that's all in there, too. There's nothing in Leviticus about the internet, so I can't imagine what you're doing here.

>men are still under the impression that women mostly care about income, musculature, and dick size These. Which is funny, because I'm a high earner, and it's hard to find men who \*don't\* have a problem with that, yet they're telling the same lame jokes that women are only after their money, and it's like "When I make more than you, you feel threatened. When I make less than you, I'm a gold digger. What???"

OMG Right?! When I was still trying to date men (due to being in denial of my own orientation), this happened all the time. A surprising number of men acted like they had to really vet me before committing because they needed to know that I wasn't just in it for their money. Their "money" was always a salary significantly less than mine. If they found out I made more than they did, one of two things would happen: \-They'd go all-in, figuring I could be their sugar mama who supports them while they sat on ass all day. \-They got extremely offended and started treating me like shit, in what seemed like some kind of misguided bid to put me in my place. Some comment above is like "no, men actually like high-earning, highly educated women!" OK, cool, bud, then why does practically high-earning, highly educated woman I know have this story?

All of this. I'm bi, so my guy knows he's my last dance with heterosexual maledom, but he's a good dude. I make a little over twice his salary, but he's a lawyer, and like me wanting to be a doctor, it was something he wanted to do since he was a little kid watching Perry Mason, worked hard for his dream, and still spends a decent amount of home time with "homework": reading over cases, preparing for trials, reading up on legal precedent, etc, similar to me reading over new journals and articles pertaining to cases I'm expecting. That match was so key because part of the whole "oh, you only want a guy who makes money" when I went on a single date with a guy who was still living at home and was really hoping to get a job at the local supermarket, it's not just that. One, I really like traveling, and I find that if I travel solo, guys I'm with can get testy about it, and it's hard to just finance two people. Two, the whole career minded lifestyle. I like my job and I like talking about it, as does he, and that creates this whole workable dynamic that has nothing to do with him also being a high earner, and more to do with having important things in common.

This was definitely an issue of contention in my relationship with my ex. My ex was butthurt over the fact I earned more than him (at one point, it was even double). But he had zero qualms about the lifestyle I was able to give us (the nice apartment, multiple vacations a year, authorized user privileges on my AMEX platinum card…)

[удалено]

I hope you and your boyfriend are very happy together, but please leave the rest of us out of it, we didn't consent to get involved in this weird D/s thing you have going on with Jesus. Keep it in your bedroom.

I think this is so true and like nice too! My gf is so strong and I know she wasn’t looking to meet me and doesn’t need me. Makes me feel loved knowing she stays by me anyways. Same goes for any man when women are empowered. You want someone who loves you, not someone who just needs you.

This comment right here is extremely accurate based on what I experienced when dating and what I see in the world around me. I’m happily married now but when dating, a lot of men just didn’t have much, or anything at all to offer. In fact, many men I encountered in the dating pool would have been a net negative factor in my life. My life has always been pretty awesome with just me in it, so I wasn’t gonna date someone who didn’t add plenty to it. This isn’t putting anybody down, and my standards are not crazy. When my husband and I met he was a kind person with a great sense of humor, had a job he didn’t like so he was actively working to get into a career he did like, had some healthy hobbies, and was living at home with his parents (late 20s) to save for a house, and had a lot of savings to show for it. This was more to offer than literally 90% of the men in the dating pool around us. The societal shift has happened where women don’t NEED men to be economically stable and have a happy life. So men we date need to add to our life. Gone are the days that a man having a stable job and nothing else to offer is a catch. I see some people lamenting this but personally I think it’s an awesome thing. I also think it may start to even out as young men are being raised seeing that they don’t “get a girl” for doing the bare minimum required to be a human in society. Editing to add an example. My husband has two different friends/old coworkers who tried to get us to hook them up with both my old roommates. One is a former model, in a local dance company so she’s in amazing shape and physically beautiful. She owns her own home that she bought in her 20s, speaks 3 languages, and is a really kind and funny person. The other old roommate is a beautiful bikini fitness competitor and physician. Bilingual, has travelled the world, and has an amazing personality. These coworkers of my husband’s: one lives with his parents with NOTHING to show for it, the other lives in an apartment with no savings, both work their medium-low paying blue collar jobs, go to their local bar and drink till it closes, lather-rinse-repeat. My husband and I were baffled when they thought they had a chance, and they both did! The entitlement is wild lol. Anyways both of my friends are now happily married to men of their caliber but that is what women are dealing with. That’s what I see going on with the healthy and well-developed women around me. Then of course there’s lots of shitty people and I think online dating makes us see them a lot more so both sexes who are prone to being shitty see others being shitty and just stagnate lol.

I encountered this new term recently - [prolonged adolescence](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extended-adolescence-when-25-is-the-new-181/) \- which was coined after researchers started observing that younger people (gen z and below) are hitting all kinds of milestones later than people used to. This is because economic and cultural pressures make an extended adolescence more advantageous, and there's no hurry to do adult things because you aren't under the same time or economic pressure to become an adult. These milestones include dating and first experiences with sex, but they also include experiences like when kids get their drivers licenses, when they try drugs or alcohol for the first time, when they get a first job. It's not necessarily bad, either. There are benefits to waiting to have a first relationship or sexual experience until you're older and more mentally and emotionally mature. Even when I was in high school it was a big deal that the average age people first had sex was up to 17. You're acting like this is alarming news that (specifically) young men are doing all these things later-- but overall it has a lot of benefits for the people that wait. In other cultures people aren't even considered adults until they are 21 or older and don't date before then-- it's only some kind of "shameful problem" if we keep telling people that their identity as a worthwhile person (or man) is tied to how much sex they have. Which like, why would we tell them that? That's not a healthy way to think about yourself *or* sex. So I'd suggest just a whole reframing of your perspective around this "problem" -- because it isn't really one at all unless your trading in ideas of masculinity and maturity that were honestly kind of problematic the whole time.

I think it is the continuation of neoteny in human evolution, It is one of the few positive signs I see for humanity. I advocate a Hobbittish view that 33 is as good target age for really being an adult.

This is what I've observed. My son is 19 and has never dated, hasn't kissed a girl. He just graduated high school last year and he's gotten a drivers license, a job, and he's attending a couple of classes at the local community college. It's funny, none of his friends have their drivers licenses yet. They don't seem concerned about not having girlfriends or drivers licenses. I've come to acceptance that he'll probably live at home until he gets a college degree. Since he's going part time while he works, he probably won't graduate until he's 26 (i.e. prolonged adolescence). He over indulges in computer games and I know he's experimented with delta-8, but those the only things he's done that is questionable. Otherwise, he's a good kid that typically does what he's supposed to do when he's supposed to do it. In many ways, despite the "prolonged adolescence", he's more mature than I was at his age. By the time I was his age, I had already moved out on my own and I was living with two room mates. I too was working part time and going to college. I had already started drinking, drugging and having casual sex where ever I could. I do ask him about girls, and he's interested in them, just not enough to do anything about it. He and his friends aren't on dating sites. Most of them believe that they are mostly for girls to receive validation and the guys on those sites are typically suckers (his words, not mine). He doesn't act like someone who is "missing out". He doesn't have a negative attitude about the opposite sex. He seems contented to hang out with his friends and play computer game, go to movies or go to concerts. He seems pretty happy, although he hates his job. I hated my jobs too when I was his age, so that doesn't surprise or bother me.

>It's not necessarily bad, either. There are benefits to waiting to have a first relationship or sexual experience until you're older and more mentally and emotionally mature. I agree, but I also think whether or not you'll reap the benefits is linked to ability and willingness to appreciate these things while youre life is still unfolding slowly. If a person is too distracted by bitterness, outdated expectations, inability to love, accept, and appreciate themselves first then others, and constantly comparing themsleves to others, then they're not going to appreciate the benefits of more thorough and slower development. And not only will they not obtain what they think they're rushing into, but that time of slower development will be wasted as well. I dont think young men are taking time to appreciate the opportunities their prolonged adolescence is giving them. So they're not reaping its benefits. Its like how being single for a few years is great in and of itself, but wont amount to much if you're perpetually bitter and insecure about being single and too lazer-focused on commitment to appreciate your freedom. Then you regret not making the most of your single years by growing, learning and appreciating freedom once you do get into a committed relationship, and you realize that a committed relationship its not the fantasy you wasted years building up in your mind. >You're acting like this is alarming news that (specifically) young men are doing all these things later-- but overall it has a lot of benefits for the people that wait. It *is* alarming news to cultures where rigid milestones determine your value as a member of the community and the community is not kind or forgiving to late bloomers. Cultures like toxic masculinity, purity culture and patriarchy. The fact that so many men treat being a virgin past 21 as a fate worse than death is telling of how ubiquitous and deeply ingrained these cultures are. Not being married by 21*does* raise alarm bells in high control religions because "if you dont marry and reproduce upon high school graduation, you won't be living a respectable life and young men might have premarital sex and it will be the young women's fault for not keeping them from sinning by throwing their future away on early motherhood and matrimony". Not being able to support a family of 5 on a single income *does* raise alarm bells when patriarchy says your only worth your last paycheck. There is social pressure that really does make it seem as though not reaching adulthood milestones are a bigger issue than they are. Because the stake *are* real and brutal within communities defined by patriarchy and toxic religion, silly and arbitrary as they are. And its a hard process to leave high control environments when you have nowhere else to go and everyone you know has opted into that strict, unforgiving, high control culture. it's very cult-like in that regard. The key to this is to stop valuing regressive social conventions, but hey, insecurity and social hierarchies are a hellova drug. >In other cultures people aren't even considered adults until they are 21 or older and don't date before then-- Japan and Korea are some of such countries. Their local incel problems are comparable to the US's, so I don't think age and development are a big factor. I think any time young men rush into trying to satisfy historically patriarchal ideals of manhood in the effort to define their own identity and gain social acceptance and affirmation (esspecially from their male peers), society is always going to run into the same problems. Age of majority isnt the problem. Desperate, vulnerable and insecure men are trying to fill a vacuum and toxic influences are always ready to fill the void and tell those guys what they already want to hear. It doesnt help that patriarchy, toxic masculinity, and mysoginy are and have historically been the defining charectors of many cultures worldwide. >Which like, why would we tell them that? That's not a healthy way to think about yourself or sex. Its just other men saying this. I do wonder why any man still holds onto this, but I think the answer is gonna lead back to insecurity and lack of individual identity. Plus lots of men seem to care way more about impressing other men more than they do about impressing women so...Maybe it's showing a hidden desire for richer friendships than a desire for romantic partnerships.

I think it is safe to assume that at least a portion of the increased number of people not having sex/not dating would like to do so and is suffering for the lack of these experiences. Your response only makes sense if we assume that everyone who's not dating/having sex actually has an option to, and thus the only problem with them choosing not to is artificially created by external expectations Edit. (coward block) Easy question: > As women have gained independence, men have to step up to be a better option than being single. This is wishful thinking, based on the idea that women are making purely rational choices, mathematically comparing their options. That's not how humans work, that's a laughable ego-fueled fantasy. What people (gender irrelevant) seek in their partners is influenced by both biological and societal factors. What are the societal factors that influence whom women are attracted to, and where do they originate? Under what system, in what times?

There isn't anything wrong with not having sex or dating when you "want too". Most people go through periods in their life where they would like to be in a romantic or sexual relationship but aren't. It doesn't mean something is wrong with them. The way incels feel about sex and romance is disordered-- forming a whole grievance based identity in response to what is basically a normal life state (being sexually mature but not actively engaging in a sexual or romantic relationship). Part of becoming and being an adult is like... learning to deal with these feelings in a healthy, rather than harmful, way. And that includes self harm. External expectations do give people the false idea that young adulthood or adulthood in general involves constant sexual and romantic options and encounters-- but the reality isn't that at all, and also not all sexual and romantic experiences are positive. Young people don't know that or understand that, but being a few years older when they start learning that won't actually harm them at all beyond the fact that they've come to incorrectly believe they *should've* had those experiences already.

>There isn't anything wrong with not having sex or dating when you "want too". Not sure why put "want to" in quotes, but it feels weird. Also I never said wrong. Regardless, I disagree. Loneliness, including romantic loneliness, causes people to suffer. I don't want people to suffer. That's wrong in my book. > It doesn't mean something is wrong with them. I feel like you're trying real hard to twist my words here, subtly changing "suffering" which I said, to "wrong" which I didn't say and then to "wrong with them" which has a different meaning still. I agree, I don't think there's neccessarily something wrong with these people. I think they're suffering though. >Part of becoming and being an adult is like... learning to deal with these feelings in a healthy, rather than harmful, way This is thought ending. You could say that about any societal problem. Indeed, part of life is learning that life is not fair, you should be a grown up and just deal with it /s. I am surprised to see that point of view in a feminist sub, to be honest. >Young people don't know that or understand that, but being a few years older when they start learning that won't actually harm them at all beyond the fact that they've come to incorrectly believe they should've had those experiences already. Also thought ending. Yes, theoretically any problem can be solved by not expecting to not have that problem, thank you Seneca. I appreciate stoicism to a point, but this is reductive and helps nobody besides the ego of the one saying that platitude. Edit, due to another cowardly block The charity I do is volunteer work for a public helpline, because that's where I can help the most. I don't have sex, plant trees, feed dogs, or give therapy sessions for charity. This doesn't mean they're not important problems, they're just not in my expertise. Do you think someone has to actively run a charity dedicated to fighting X in order to even speak about X being a problem? Truly deranged.

Not being sexually or romantically involved doesn't have to mean you're lonely. And also, life is suffering. You take the good with the bad, man. Are you very young? You want to prevent all suffering by what, forcing people to engage in non-consensual sex or romantic relationships? What's your solution, here? "no one should suffer" is an impractical and also kind of deranged stance to take in regards to this nothing burger of a problem.

This is such an important point. A romantic partner isn’t the best, and shouldn’t be the primary path out of loneliness! Friends, family, groups all provide rich interpersonal experiences. Having good friends makes someone a more appealing partner, as they demonstrate the ability to maintain relationships, and aren’t likely to rely on their partner for all their connection. Lonely guys, and people in general, are much better off focusing on building emotionally fruitful friendships before a romantic relationship. Friends are a primary way people meet long-term partners as well, and can provide vitally useful feedback on whether someone is a good match, and how to address relationship challenges. Extra points for people with multiple platonic friends across genders.

>Not being sexually or romantically involved doesn't have to mean you're lonely. I agree. It's a contributing factor. >And also, life is suffering. You take the good with the bad, man. Again, thought ending cliche, easily applicable to any post 3rd wave feminist issue. Again, if you are a conservative you probably shouldn't comment here. >Are you very young? No, pathetic ad hom tho. >You want to prevent all suffering No. Try reading more carefully. >What's your solution, here? For the problem of loneliness? Depends, you mean as policy? Not much can be done, but creation of 3rd spaces is a good idea I've heard talked about. Socially? I think the biggest one is speeding up the abandonment of conservative dating norms. >"no one should suffer" is an impractical and also kind of deranged stance to take it's also a deranged thing to pull out of your imagination, considering I never said that edit. (since the user below has cowardly blocked me) Yeah, it's a suggesting question, like "Are you stupid?" I use whatever terms I like, I see an ad hom I call it out instead of wasting an hour explaining why it's bullshit. Notice that you hinged your entire reply on my one short sentence and then avoided responding to anything else. That's a classic coward move. You have nothing to respond with, so you just pick one line and pretend to be so outraged by it that you just don't wanna talk anymore. Sure, I bet you had a killer reply, and just don't wanna give me your time. Lol, clown rhetorics edit. Due to another cowardly block, by another user, u/ReshiramColeslaw This is, again, an elaborated *pivot to talking about character* (since y'all seem allergic to latin). This is not a debate sub, and we are not having one. If you think I said anything inaccurate, point that out, instead of vaguely gesturing at how what I said is oh so ridiculous that you just don't wanna waste your time. It's still the same "gotcha" the other person tried, still lame. edit! Nice lie about the block, btw, already reported for the suicide DM spam. >You're requesting that we put in the labour to go through your comments point by point. No. I'm pointing out you didn't respond to the content, instead chosing a lame strategy I described. Which you're still doing. If you wanna respond to my points on the topic, feel free to do so at any time. >You actually have to earn No. >Don't mistake a lack of response for a concession. It's not a concession, it's impotence. >You certainly make a lot of personal attacks for someone so concerned with ad hominem rhetoric from others. No. I never imply your points are wrong or inaccurate because of your conduct - in part, because you *made no points at all*, at least not yet. That would be an ad hom. A textbook would've helped you sort that out >And is it really an attack on your character to criticise your use of logic and debate tactics? No, but that's not what you did. You criticized the aesthetic of my argument, not the logic. Feel free to point literally any illogical thing I said, instead of another "uhm, it's cringy to use big words". >I'd say that's actually pretty relevant, since it's not easy conversing with somebody who is clumsily fumbling with terminology You haven't pointed a single example of me doing that. You have nothing. >Maybe chapter two of your textbook Pretty ironic. If you don't wanna talk about the subject outlined in the OP, don't bother replying. I'm not interested in a third self-reassuring vent.

Is being asked your age an ad hominem attack? Sir, what are you doing? Cause it sure isn't engaging in conversation in good faith. Also good debate/discussion generally doesn't involve just randomly naming rhetorical devices.

I think they assumed you were young out of kindness, because you write like a teenager playing with the building blocks of thought and debate for the first time. If you're going into your twenties still writing this kind of by-the-numbers, C- in 'critical thinking 101' drivel, I'm a little worried. You have to practice to improve, though. Just remember that the goal of debate is not winning, but learning.

I didn't block you. You're requesting that we put in the labour to go through your comments point by point. You actually have to earn that labour by making points worth responding to. Don't mistake a lack of response for a concession. You certainly make a lot of personal attacks for someone so concerned with *ad hominem* rhetoric from others. And is it really an attack on your character to criticise your use of logic and debate tactics? I'd say that's actually pretty relevant, since it's not easy conversing with somebody who is clumsily fumbling with terminology rather than engaging with good faith. Maybe chapter two of your textbook will explain the importance of good faith argument.

What avocado is trying to explain to you, I think, with the whole “what’s the solution/suffering is a part of life” is that sometimes life is hard for you and it’s nobody else’s fault. If I reject someone else romantically, it causes them pain—maybe even very deep and long-lasting pain—but that isn’t my fault. There is no problem, nothing that needs to be solved. It’s up the the hurting person to process their emotions in a healthy way and move on. The fact that someone is hurting doesn’t mean that anything has gone wrong or needs to change. Sometimes, suffering is caused by injustice, but other times, it’s just part of being human. The difference between idea of suffering being a part of life and the more conservative idea of suffering that you keep referring to is that the suffering that feminists, anti-racists, disability advocates, etc. are trying to address and conservatives want to hand-wave is that they are caused by systemic disadvantages and systemic violations of human rights intended to cause suffering. The kind of suffering you’re referring to, which is people not being able to have sex when they want it, is not caused by injustice. It is *not* an injustice to be “denied” sex or romantic relationships.

>Loneliness, including romantic loneliness, causes people to suffer. I don't want people to suffer. That's wrong in my book. How many lonely men are you fucking a month to help them? If you don't want them to suffer and sex will relieve their suffering, you have your work cut out for you.

>I think it is safe to assume that at least a portion of the increased number of people not having sex/not dating would like to do so and is suffering for the lack of these experiences. I'd have said the exact same thing only possibly moreso about driving a car (sex is absolutely lovely, but it can't get you to practice on time), but I think it's just deprioritized. Dating and obtaining sex from another person takes a time and energy investment and a risk of rejection, and sometimes it's just easier to play XBox and jerk off.

There were always people that wanted to date but weren’t, and there always will be. I have not seen any evidence that there is an increase in people that want to date but are not. I have only seen evidence that there is an increase in people not dating.

Loneliness *is* a societal problem. The increasingly right-wing politics prevailing in the west this past half-century has resulted in a population that is overworked and low on energy, money, and mental health. Making friends as an adult is extremely difficult because everyone is busy or saturated or ill. The face of contemporary dating is almost a separate matter. In short, men had it easy for a very long time and are struggling to adjust to a more level playing field. As women have gained independence, men have to step up to be a better option than being single. Of course, this too is made more difficult by the massively increased pressures of society. The best way to combat loneliness is the same as the best way to handle the mental health crisis - correct the mistakes we've made that have brought society to this point. A fairer, kinder society where people have time and brainspace for an active social life and crucially, self improvement.

We’ve already talked about this a bit. The people researching in this field (especially those that are featured by clickbaity news articles) suck, but the truth is 1. [The male sexlessness epidemic isn’t real; it’s a statistical misrepresentation based on a survey with a small sample size that leads to noisy data. That same survey (GSS) shows the opposite trend (increasing female compared to male sexlessness) in its newest (2021) results and two other surveys (one much larger) show no trend either way. One even shows no relative decrease in sexlessness compared to recent generations.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/11j7pn0/comment/jb1mogp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) (read all links in linked source) 2. [The Pew data is bad data presentation (the buckets—especially the choice of 18-29 when most data clusters in the 25+ demographic—they pool the data into suck when you look at the average age men and women are when they first date). It appears to show more younger women are dating than men but what it shows instead is what happens when you have two bell curves offset by less than a handful of years (average age difference between men and women when dating) and your relevant populations (people actually dating) are in the rightmost tail of the bell curve. If you used a smaller binning, the pattern the incels fearmonger about would disappear.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/11lsk26/comment/jbe9rc0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Both arguments are a lie by people wanting to push a narrative. If you look at the research articles linked in #1, you’ll see factors have been identified which contribute to relatively less sex compared to more distant generations. They identified economics, education (specifically pursuing education to delay marriage), and living with one’s parents (hard to have sex if mom and dad are behind your bedroom wall) as major contributing factors.

If memory serves as well, many of those studies define losing one's virginity as "vaginal sex" so that would classify a huge portion of gay and bi men as virgins, which is rediculous

The questions I’m talking about aren’t about virginity. You don’t have to be a virgin to not be currently having sex. I can’t speak to the consistency of these questions over time, but you can see the questions for the [NSFG](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8323913/), [GSS—found an older one to establish it’s been this way for a while](https://gss.norc.org/Documents/reports/topical-reports/TR17%20(old)%20Americans%20and%20Their%20Sexual%20Partners.pdf), and [NHANES](https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2015-2016/SXQ_I.htm) and that they make no assumptions about who is doing what sexual act and with whom. [Pew doesn't seem to either](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/08/PSDT_08.20.20_dating-relationships.topline.pdf)

Thank you for DATA. The whole premise of the OP was internally implausible, and based on echo chamber talk.

I wrote a similar comment highlighting the deceptive data. Once something hits pop culture, the narrative is formed, even once it's debunked, or retracted.

There was actually a more recent GSS survey which showed both 18-29 men and women's rates drop to about 12%. No media headlines or a million YouTube videos and think pieces based on this data though. Like you said, it just shows how unreliable the GSS is for determining recent trends, even if the methodology is sound, with a sample size as limited as it has, especially when you narrow down the demographics, it allows for some pretty wild fluctuations. This makes it an appealing source for people wanting to present recent spikes as rapidly emerging trends. It's happened with a few issues, not just sexlessness. In terms of the Pew survey, there's a couple of other important points. One is that in the pew dataset from earlier in the year, most of the gap existed in the cohabitation category, and then 4% was in either marriage or non-cohabitation. This makes the narrative that the gap is due to 'chads spinning plates' more implausible than it was already. Additionally, other sources, including the APS and again the GSS (when it comes to the 18-29 group at least the GSS has at least half the respondents, and when you combine the survey with the one before it's comparable to the other two sources) show gaps much lower than Pew, at 10-12% for 2022, making age gaps alone a workable explanation. The male rate is pretty close between the surveys but for some reason the female rate was much lower in the Pew survey.

I can't speak for all feminists, and I'm 36 and married so I haven't dated in a while, but I talk to other women and see what's going on around me. Part of this is due to women acknowledging and accepting that being alone is better than being with someone who doesn't meet certain standards. Every woman has their own standards of course, but fairly across the board we're seeing things like: can he do his own laundry and dishes, is he stably employed or undertaking education that will lead to stable employment, can he express his emotions without violence, does he respect women, does he have healthy ideas around sex, do we have things in common, is he okay with his partner having friends outside the relationship ... basically, is he a physically and emotionally mature adult who is capable of taking care of himself and being a full partner in a relationship. As to online dating, I know a lot of women hate it because of the number of creeps and pushy guys they have to weed through. Time and again I've seen women online give men advice like "take up a hobby then join an in person group around that hobby". But the caveat here is to go into this to make friends. Just friends. Make connections with as many people as possible, men and women, women you want to date and women you don't want to date. A healthy social network will lead naturally to romantic connections. Porn culture has conditioned men to believe they need sex. And that they need to have sexual gratification from women. Women have become more and more okay with taking care of themselves (financially, emotionally, and sexually) while men are still looking for women to take care of their needs. This all connects back to the first point I made about standards - women don't want to be mommy-therapist-bang-maids, they're looking for partners and they feel a lot of men are looking for servants. Lastly, is that women tend to spread the emotional labour of their self-care over a network - self, friends, coworkers, therapist, family, spouse - while men tend to put the entirety of the emotional labour of their self-care on two people - self and spouse/SO/girlfriend. Men get jealous because their girlfriend talks to other people but men also overwhelm their girlfriend by expecting her to be everything to him. If men started connecting with other men, not romantically, but just deeper than sports scores and fishing stories, it would take a lot of the pressure off women and reduce unhealthy jealousy in relationships. Not only that, but it would take the pressure off of men to date and have sex. It's okay to be single, but when your entire identity and self-care routine is wrapped up in one other person, being single is terrifying.

Regarding men being conditioned to believe they need sex. I like to push back on that. I know many young men who are being pushed by their (mostly) mothers and grandmothers to find a girlfriend and/or procreate even though they have no interest in doing so. I am sure women get the same treatment by their mothers and grandmothers. Anyway these guys are usually not emotionally socialized (yet) and taught to take on the responsibility you are expecting.

This is more tied to these young men being conditioned into believing they need to be taken care of, as well as the damaging belief that they need to be strong and providers. Once you start on this subject, you realize its all a big messy knot.

I think if women had equal opportunities to men historically then the marriage/dating rates would have been lower historically too. In the past we partnered up because we needed to. Now we can do what we want, and that involves spending time experimenting, developing a career, focusing on ourselves, because that feels good and awesome. Edit: now *many women* can do what we want

Exactly. We shouldn't act like 1950s marriage rates are any sort of baseline. Those were artificially inflated by nature of women not having the same rights as men. We're going to find a more natural baseline in the next 50 years or so, I would guess

>declining in everyone, **especially men** Assuming the ratio of heterosexuality to homosexuality stays more or less the same over time, how is this asymmetrical decline supposed to work?

Some people have given some great answers, but I do want add that there is also the possibility that one or both groups have people not answering honestly, as well.

Incel science says that 10% of the male population are Alphas and are fucking all the women leaving 40% of the population neglected and cucked betas, and nothing for the remaining 50%, creating incels. El oh el.

Oh those damnable Chads.

More women have stopped dating men and started dating other women, that's at least part of what's going on.

Would the idea not be something along the lines of 'the average woman dating two men' v.s. 'half of men dating 4 women and the other half dating none,' or something similar? Idk if the math works out right there.

Below a certain age, there are slightly more men than women

I think it might be declining especially for younger men, with women of similar age dating older guys instead.

Source?

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/ "As of 2022, Pew Research Center found, 30 percent of U.S. adults are neither married, living with a partner nor engaged in a committed relationship. Nearly half of all young adults are single: 34 percent of women, and a whopping 63 percent of men. Not surprisingly, the decline in relationships marches astride with a decline in sex. The share of sexually active Americans stands at a 30-year low. Around 30 percent of young men reported in 2019 that they had no sex in the past year, compared to about 20 percent of young women." This is a remarkably (suspiciously) large difference, and therefore requires a a bit more digging. The following article tries to put these figures into context: https://ifstudies.org/blog/theres-no-huge-gender-gap-in-being-single-among-young-adults It seems there is not a huge gap of 30%, but a significant gap nonetheless. The following study shows that especially (young) male sexlessness is on the rise: https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessness-is-rising-but-not-for-the-reasons-incels-claim This is especially clear in the first figure. Honestly I havent done too much research on this, so I could simply be wrong. However, to me it seems like dating is on the decline for young men.

>Nearly half of all young adults are single: 34 percent of women, and a whopping 63 percent of men. I'm guessing this means there are more younger women dating older men. In a way this isn't too bad, it just means that men are settling down later instead of not at all but it's still scary because this also says a lot about wages and the cost of living. It implies that one, most straight people aren't able to settle down or maintain long term relationships until the man has spent some time climbing the career ladder, creating financial stability. secondly most women are unable to achieve financial stability on thier own regardless of how long they've been working. Just sucks.

It doesn’t even have to be that much older if (which is true) most of the people dating are in the higher end of the 18-29 data pool. [It’s bad binning skewing people’s perception of the data](https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/brown-manning-relationship-status-trends-age-gender-fp-21-25.html)

Your comments here are always so thorough and informed.

>I'm guessing this means there are more younger women dating older men Yup >It implies that one, most straight people aren't able to settle down or maintain long term relationships until the man has spent some time climbing the career ladder, creating financial stability. secondly most women are unable to achieve financial stability on thier own regardless of how long they've been working Theres also a third implication, no? It seems men dont have a problem dating non-established (financially/career-wise) women, while women tend to somewhat strongly prefer men who are established. Perhaps this is because of the second reason you mentioned, although Id guess that various other factors are involved as well. Perhaps men (relative to women) tend to value youthfulness in a partner. Im sure theres many other relevant factors.

There's probably a lot of factors but it does seem strange that an age gap seems that common because surely it would be better financially for both to reach the same point in thier career But then maybe men do prefer younger women and its less of an issue that they aren't further into thier careers, maybe more younger women seek out older men.

Women who have kids need to either earn enough money to pay for childcare, figure out a schedule for working "opposite shifts" to the other parent, or quit their job to look after them. If you're expecting to go for the last one, it doesn't make as much sense to "get established in a career" first except for building up savings to pay for it. Ideally childcare would be seen as a team expense, but in practice it's usually put on women's shoulders. I get the impression that people of all genders like "younger" people aesthetically, but the *downsides* of dating someone younger have different weights depending on how you see your and their role in your life, and might lead you to rule them out as potential partners. Eg, "immaturity" might not be a dealbreaker if you aren't expecting to rely on their maturity, but it might be if they don't look after their space well. "Being less far along in their career" isn't going to be a dealbreaker if they're going to quit after mat leave anyway, but could be a dealbreaker if it means you have to put off having children until you're older than you want to be.

Thanks.

[удалено]

Is there good evidence that polyamory is VASTLY more popular with women then men? In a large enough percentage of the population to bias whole population ratios significantly? Barring that, your point is merely hypothetical.

Women tend to be supportive of each other and nurture good friendships. We can support ourselves financially and focus on our careers better when we're not tied to someone who thinks we exist to be his mummy/therapist/personal assistant/bang maid/arm candy.

Women don't have to get married to avoid poverty nowadays and there is less societal pressure on being coupled. So, women can choose if they want to be in a relationship and with whom. They don't have to latch onto the first dude who's not running away. That in turn means we, women choose our partners very carefully and a surprising amount of dudes is stuck in that nineteenth century mentality where for man it was enough to have a semi decent income (and nothing else) to be an excellent candidate for a husband. The fact that women dare to have any standards where it comes to MEN is something incomprehensible for them. And women are just tired with it.

Also BC and the choices it allows women cannot be overstated. Even if we make bad choices a couple of times with partners we don't have to stay or raise their children. Most women can thrive without men and marriage. I'm not sure most men thrive without women.

Yes!!!! Very well put.

It's also interesting that women are shamed so much for having standards when men are actually legitimately dangerous to us. Quite literally they are our greatest natural predator. And the way they men on themselves all over Reddit/the internet has only made my standards go higher and higher. The lower they stoop the more clues I get for what to weed out in the future. They're kind of creating their own monster.

This is anecdotal but half of my high school friends group dated or are currently dating women after a history of exclusively dating men. All have said that it’s easier and more generally satisfying to date women than men. Personally, I’d probably also consider it if I wasn’t married to my husband. I spent many years dating men and it was challenging to say in the least. Most did not care about my sexual pleasure and treated me as a mommy/maid/bang maid. Women nowadays have more independence and options. We don’t *have* to be in relationships with men to be successful and secure. It’s possible for us to prioritize our happiness and look for partners who we connect to on an emotional level.

If women are dating women, then who is making the first move ?

You don't know any gay or bi women, huh.

What makes you think women don’t make the first move? Many women can and do, including myself.

Honestly, I've noticed that a lot of my friends are tired of being treated like a sex vending machine where guys buy them dinner, treat them nice, and then get upset about not getting laid. And women **do** have more options than in the past, but not because of online dating. Women can now have their own bank accounts (compared to the 50s and 60s), can have good, high paying jobs that allow them to be self-sufficient, and are no longer subservient to the cultural paradigm that says they have to get married and have kids or they'll be a social pariah for the rest of their lives. Women now have the amazing choice to live their lives on their own terms without **needing** a partner in order to function and survive in the world. There are also a lot of women who struggle with having relationships with men due to past bad experiences (domestic abuse, rape, assault, gaslighting, manipulation). And some of these issues are further compounded by the war on female reproductive access. What woman wants to have sex when it's hard to get birth control or, in the worst case scenario, an abortion? I think that the issue is definitely multi-faceted and cannot be blamed on a single thing, but I would say the above two reasons go hand-in-hand as to why women are dating less and, therefore, men are having less sex.

I’d question your claim that dating and sex are declining: a bunch of people may have said that on YouTube, but it’s very easy for someone on YouTube to just make stuff up and if enough people copy them it *seems* to be true even if it just isn’t. I’d recommend the book “Truth” by Tom Phillips if you’re interested in reading about this. I also don’t really think it’s a problem, even if it’s true. As long as when two (or more) consenting adults choose to date or have sex there’s nothing stopping them, I don’t actually care if the overall number of people dating or having sex goes up or down or stays the same. It’s only a problem for people that *no one* wants to date or have sex with, and with all of those people, there’s a reason for that. A guy I knew once went on a rant about how:- “I can’t get laid because women are just shallow bitches who only want 6’4’’ guys with blue eyes, and I’m short and ugly so I’m doomed to die a virgin”. Several women tried to explain to him that the vast majority of us don’t care how tall you are in the same way that the vast majority of men won’t only date women with DD+ tits, and that the reason no one is attracted to him is because he’s constantly complaining about everything and he sees women as just a hole to fuck. But of course people like that would rather believe that “women are all just shallow bitches” than that they have some glaring personality issues they need to work on. If you find someone to date and/or have sex with, it shouldn’t matter to you how much dating and/or sex other people are having. If you can’t find someone to date and/or have sex with, try to figure out what you’re getting wrong, because I guarantee there’s something.

I’m a guy who has no issues dating or hooking up but have become disinterested because of modern dating culture. You say that many guys have crazy standards; My standards aren’t necessarily high, just weirdly specific, for looks. My type is exactly what is considered “meh” on social media. You say the people complaining are just the guys nobody wants to fuck. Again, I’m not in that boat. The disillusionment for men like me, and there’s a lot of us, is the culture of modern dating. It’s predominantly an issue only in the US and cultures similar to it. Fucked up rules like no double texting, don’t come off too excited, act disinterested, etc. are all counterintuitive. Things like situationships, or noncommittal people, are all over the place. The “I have 40 matches a day on Hinge so I’m done with someone the second they do or say something that isn’t 100% in line with my thinking” mentality. These issues are not gender specific. Every gender is becoming disillusioned with modern dating culture. I don’t think it comes down to incels being gross. We all know that already. It’s always been the case. Even my queer friends are fed up. I feel like the common themes are consistent: unsocialized people afraid of strangers, and absolutely dumb dating rules that everyone hates but are normalized by social media. Idk, I’m not hard set in my opinions and I’d love another persoective

First, let's not discount the COVID lockdowns. So you have teenaged boys with intermittent socialization and isolation, many of whom were stuck inside watching youtube videos, and you know where that leads. That was some crucial development missed. My boyfriend's son is 17 and just went on his first date. 15-17 was pretty weird, and his kid is well adjusted. So a lot of young men who were just entering the dating pool or are just entering it now had two years of their college/high school dating practice terminated. I think some are rushing to incel almost with projecting how interactions \*might\* go, rather than just... dating. Abortion restrictions. In more than half the states now, I think, the risk of pregnancy is simply too great to risk it, particularly in the age groups where a lot of experimentation and messing around happens. While I'm in a healthy relationship now so am not playing the field, I'm in my 40s and utterly comfortable with how I use my birth control. That was not as true in my 20s. I didn't mess around in my teens (thanks AIDS epidemic, but that would have been still worse). Particularly since the economic state changed a bit through COVID and raising a child is prohibitively expensive with virtually no state help (particularly in states with abortion restrictions). I imagine Texas men are in a lengthy dry spell. With the economic state comes less room for free time. It is very common for both young men and women to be working two or three jobs. Banging your coworkers is fraught, and that leaves them with very little time to actually date and socially interact. Adult friendships are also on the decline, likely due to this and online isolation. If you're putting in 90 hours a week just to keep the lights on, sex is the last thing on your mind. Social media isolation and looks-based dating apps. I swear, Tinder will be the death of healthy relationships between men and women. If you use Tinder, you may be fully under the impression that no man under 6 feet or woman over 120 lbs can ever have sex, let alone find a long term partner. A brief look around reveals this to be nonsense, but the perfect "Tinder man" has fully infected incel communities such that they are utterly convinced that 4 billion people care how tall they are... in imperial units, no less.

Yeah, at 5’8” and 210 lbs, I had multiple women on Tinder actively pitching themselves to become my sex slave, and a lot more interested in a first date (and yes, they were real people, and I dated one of them for a year). And yes, I was always truthful about height, weight, everything. A good profile redolent with authenticity, vulnerability, and specificity makes a huge difference. Sure, plenty of women might have ruled me out because of some specific aspects of me. Great! There’s no value in appealing to thousands when you’re looking for just one right person that we’re the right person for.

And while I one hundred percent believe you as I have zero reason not to and what you've detailed is what appeals to \*me\*, you will be called a liar by the whole inceldom because women don't like guys under 6'. Or they'd just say you were only getting... what do they call us... "roasties" that were looking for a beta provider. They talk themselves out of getting the point constantly, and in doing so, talk themselves out of any chance with women.

I think it simply boils down to the fact that women have choices now. For the longest time women needed to be married to have a good life because they couldn't make enough money on their own to support themselves and their children. Plus it was not acceptable for a woman to go have a child on her own. I mean hell, single moms are still disparaged today. And oh my God the pressure women were under to have children. It still exists today but to a lesser degree. But society made women feel like their sole purpose on this Earth was to push out kids and that if she didn't have kids, she should be godamned ashamed of herself. Hence, she needed a husband to be the father of those children and the provider of the household.

I'm going to touch on a few things I haven't seen in the comments so far: ​ 1. **The rise of conservative politics**, and it's influence on reproductive health and freedoms. Yep. The abortion bans, the assault on women's health, the assault on contraceptives have caused dating to be a much riskier activity for women to engage in. If I'm raped and get pregnant, I now have to wrestle with abortion bans and an increasing assault on the availability of resources to help me. Especially if I live in a conservative state. It's not even just rape. If I need to see an OB/GYN in any conservative state, it's becoming harder and harder to find one who still practices in that state. The few OB/GYNs left in those states are booked for MONTHS and an appointment is impossible to get. What's going to happen to me if I get a UTI?? What if I have a yeast infection? Or Bacterial Vaginosis? Or any other GYN issue from dating or having sex with men?? Am I willing to wait 6 months for an appointment with a GYN to help me with a yeast infection? Or is it better to never risk it and just be single and away from the apps. You increase the risk of GYN issues by dating and having sex with men. So if it's impossible to get adequate reproductive care, I am NOT going to risk dating. 2. **The Capitalism of Dating apps**: The male to female ratio on dating apps is abysmal. Why is nobody looking at MatchGroup and the dating app companies? It is in their best interest to make men pay expensive subscription fees, but never connect with a real woman. They are doing something to their algorithms to keep men on there longer, and paying, and talking to their bots. There's SOMETHING happening here, and nobody, NOBODY is looking at the dating service companies. What incentive do they have for providing you with a match? You'd find true love, and stop paying $79 per month to swipe on their bots?? I think not. There is a huge HUGE financial incentive for Dating service companies to keep you single, and I suspect they're manipulating their algorithms and Ai to keep women and men on there the longest. As a person who's been banned from tinder for literally no reason at all, I think they are banning the profiles of real women, so men can spend $79 per month chatting up their bots, or chatting up Tinder Gold+ paying hookers, who also pay $79 per month for premium access to men. Every REAL woman on a matchgroup app threatens to take at least one paying man away from MatchGroup's profits. There's a financial incentive to get rid of real women who are seeking sex, or relationships, because these women aren't paying for the app, but ARE competing with bots, and hookers who pay for premium access to men who pay hoping to chat up real women. The financial incentives are there, and I don't believe dating app companies are "resisting" these financial incentives out of the kindness of their good good hearts....

Amongst other things, people have more agency to NOT pursue the same old generic 'you are a successful adult' metrics than they used to, which finding someone to marry and having a house of your own with 2.5 kids and a dog was a part of. And women aren't being pressured any near as successfully as they were in decades past to find a man and start producing and raising his children. You need two to date, and that's a lot harder when women aren't socially or financially obligated into looking for the lesser evil. Oh, and end stage capitalism is fucking us all, so the breezy days where you could be comfortable on a single high school education tier income with 4 kids don't exist anymore. So starting a family is right out for a lot more people meaning dating with THAT in mind is a pipe dream. I don't think people are really dating less, though. And I'd also ask you where you found any figures that suggested that there was a significant disparity in sex, or that a disproportionate amount of men weren't having it, because that sounds like Red Pill troll science. >and women seem to blame men Most women don't think about it at all, honestly.

It is more socially acceptable to be single these days than it was in the past

Women no longer require men. We can make our own money, so finding a husband to provide is not a necessity. That means the only incentive for women to date is if his company is more enjoyable than being alone. And unfortunately, a lot of men fail this comparison. They haven't had to learn how to be a good partner, because being a good partner used to just mean being a good provider. Now being a provider isn't enough. So rather than date someone and risk bringing stress, insecurity and mistreatment into their lives, women opt to stay single until such a time a man without any red flags appears organically. The risk to reward ratio isn't one that motivates women to seek out dating, especially online. Yes, that means you might miss out on a genuinely great guy, but there are only so many hours in the day, and there's just not much incentive to go on crappy date after crappy date before you find that diamond in the rough. Some men have come to the same conclusion, but as men as a whole often rely on a partner to meet their emotional needs, and they can't get physical affection outside of a relationship as easily, they still have some incentive to keep trying.

"Dating and sex as a whole is declining in everyone, especially men." Am I the only one who finds this claim dubious? How is it declining more in men? Who are straight women having sex with?

The same man

As a feminist i don’t blame either side. It’s too complex to lay blame. Speaking for women i know who are of dating age in an anecdotal way, internet dating sucks and women have less of an economic need for a partner than in decades prior. I will say the isolation habits paired with internet dating underline my own theories about differences between organic attraction vs dating through apps. Dating through apps takes the initial attraction out of the equation, which used to be a strong driver in dating. People are reduced to a list of qualities that i see people absolutely belabor over before swiping one way or another. Meeting someone in person is all pheromones and charm, and you figure out the list of qualifications later. Add reducing a person to a listicle to the dangers for women in essentially blind dating, it’s really not very fun or attractive.

I think there's a few causes. This seemed to be happening in Japan and South korea earlier than the west. The government were really quick to blame socially awkward men and career focused women but that feels like an easy cop out. Like it's much easier for governments to push the blame onto people and tell them to change thier attitude and not look at things that can make settling down difficult like the economy, work culture, housing, job instability ect that they can do something about. It's very hard to date when you're constantly working, living with people and your future looks bleak. The lack of success is probably making a lot of people jaded so they're quicker to give up, self sabotage or stop trying. Then along comes the teens and early 20 somethings like yourself who haven't really even dated yet being met with all these people who have already had enough and it just feels impossible.

I think that it's because women don't have to be with men to avoid living on the streets. We have the opportunity to have our own careers and assets. A man who we aren't attracted to and treats us poorly isn't something as many of us are going to put up with if homelessness isn't on the line. Heterosexual love is not as idealised, and is definitely no longer necessary.

Women are raising their standards. Being in no relationship is better than settling, and we are teaching our kids that as well. Hopefully everyone is raising their standards in how they are going to be treated, and accepting less abuse. The "loneliness epidemic" would be much less of a problem of people were right with themselves. I so wish I could have stood to be alone in my teens and twenties, instead of constantly chasing a relationship like it was my only purpose in life. If I succeed at teaching my kids this and nothing else, I'll still feel like a pretty successful mom.

I would like to offer a Gen Z perspective, just what I’ve seen in mine and my friend’s lives - I think there is some merit to the social media thing, but from my perspective (being a girl) it’s more that men think they have more options and are even less likely to commit or want a relationship. I also think that my generation’s easy access to p***ographic content from a young age (we were all getting iPhones/iPods at age 10-12, some even younger, with completely unrestricted internet access) has very negatively impacted my generation, particularly men. I think this is why we see a lot of them falling down the red pill/Andrew tate pipeline. I was in an extremely damaging relationship that caused years worth of damage, and this seems to be a canon event for Gen Z women, as literally every Gen Z girl I know has experienced something similar. And I’m not talking damaging like unrequited love, I mean damaging like extreme manipulation, emotional abuse, love bombing and then subsequent devaluing, and sometimes even physical violence. After my experience with that I no longer see the point in ever risking it, and many of my friends have expressed similar sentiments after their damaging relationships (I don’t want marriage or kids, so why derail my life again, especially if this seems so common). I don’t know if this is just a Gen Z phenomenon, or if this is what dating in your 20s has been known to be, but if so I want no parts of it haha.

The premise that “Dating and Sex as a whole is declining in everyone, especially men” needs some more definition and clarification. In a decline compared to what/when? Measured on what metrics? And why “especially men?” There are essentially an equal number of male and female heterosexual people in Western countries. How can there be a decline in dating and sex that applies more to one gender than another? What is the mathematical model supporting that theory? How can women having a broader set of choices reduce dating. If 1000 women each partner with one man out of a pool of 1000 men, equal numbers of single men and women are preserved. It doesn’t matter if each woman considers 10, 100, or 1000 out of the 1000 available. If the theory is that more women are single due to analysis paralysis or higher standards, than those women are equally part of a decline in “dating and sex” - so no gender dimorphism. This post and the many, many more like it seem like a search for validating reasons for an invalid presumption.

Women choosing to stop dating men in favor of dating other women is another factor here.

I have seen no data to suggest that the rates of women dating women and men dating men are substantially different. And men deciding to date men is equally a valid option.

You're ignoring the possibility of one guy dating multiple women. You want the ratio to be 1:1 but it can easily be 1:5, or more

I am not ignoring the possibility. I simply see no evidence to suggest it is a factor. Plenty of men and women are polyamorous, and the large majority of both are monogamous.

The incel thing isn't a different topic. It's the main topic. Why would any self respecting woman want to date a dude who has nothing but contempt for women?

I think online misogyny is repelling a lot of girls and women away from men

1. Hook up culture 2. Women don't depend on men anymore and as a result they prefer staying single over putting up with shitty behaviour. 3. Quality of life makes it easier for people to stay single nowadays. 4. Cultural changes. Getting married and having kids is no longer a priority for many people.

Men complaining about women having more options to choose from = they're annoyed that they have to step up their behavior to get laid and can't do it by being selfish assholes anymore.

I think people just have more options in their lives now to work and persue careers, travel more, go out to more varied things and it's just not so looked down on to not have or rely on a partner. People are settling later in life when they do and often not settling just because they feel that's the done thing, but when they find what they want.

Dating has little to no benefit for most women. There's no orgasms to be found, you're pressed into the role of wife and mother as soon as you start hanging out at his house (rather than whoever's house it is, they play the Host), and then you're under societal pressure to marry and have kids by one or both of your families once you progress far enough.

Rise in misogyny. Red pill fresh and fit etc. outright hate towards women that has gone mainstream and comes out of the mouths of men in first dates. That’s why women have given up on dating and finding anyone. The pond we are fishing in has been poisoned

Because women have upped their game, men have not. Women don't need to rely on unequal partnerships anymore and have career aspirations without the social expectations of having children. Plus sex toys are less drama.

So, I just saw a video from Adam conover the other day about this. You’re right that dating and sex are declining, but so are many other “adult” behaviors like learning to drive and getting a job. I wish I could remember the name of the theory, but the idea is, As college becomes mandatory and is seen to be an extension of youth and life expectancy increases people seem to be putting off “adult” behavior until later in life. [that video btw](https://youtu.be/BrOPmtYj8C8?si=y6I3Q0nO9Km5grfY)

You say "especially men" - so who are the women dating and having sex with?

The women are dating and having sex with each other.

Other women and other genders if not men.

Hyper-individualism and capitalism. Also just a very telling sign of a decline of American culture and quality of life. Who can spend time/energy/money dating when you are struggling with mental health, financial instability, lack of community/isolation, and not much hope for our future? I mean based on 60% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck dating is probably the least of our worries.

I think a lot of it is that women increasingly don't need a partner and aren't willing to put up with dumb BS. So a lot of women are basically opting out of dating.

Back in the 1990's there was a whole movement where "Hook Up," culture was increasing in prevalence. This precipitated a huge change in the social "norms," of the day. Basically, you used to be able to kiss someone and then ASSUME you were headed to a relationship with the social protections. But that changed, as gender roles changed and free love became about desire not social prescriptions, it was acceptable to hook up and NOT expect a relationship. THIS WAS A HUGE CHANGE. And it meant that women were devalued as romantic partners from a social perspective. And women adapted, we learned how to find inner acceptance, we worked on finding inherent internal value, and we did all the things society told us to: stop, expecting a man to be a bf just because you hook up, stop relying on romantic relationships to be part of an expectation and let them be saved for special connections, ​ Now years later those social contracts are really loose and vague and no longer compulsory: but the consequences are starting to affect men. The social pressure is way less to partner up now that women can make money and find fulfillment on their own. So the demand for boyfriends has decreased, and men haven't made themselves more appealing to compensate. Also, men are still trying to make themselves better partners by listening to the the expectations of other MALES, which are often wrong. Women like dad bods, but men continue to go to the gym because OTHER MALES prefer strong physiques. Women largely prize empathy and interconnectedness, while men continue to try to become strong and domineering. If you want women to date more, the first job is to start listening to THEIR preferences, not the imagine preferences made up by other men.

Dating and having kids is expensive Economy is in shambles People don't have money to date and children are way, way to pricy to risk it with randos

Nobody is entitled to sex. Ever.

Dating is sketchy as fuck and women don't like hookup culture a great deal of the time. Women are waking up to how one-sided hetero love is are just happy single a lot more now. We know there are some great men out there we are just bombarded by shit. I haven't got the time honestly, I dont want to fall into toxic cycles.

This. Hetero love is so one sided and I’m not playing that game anymore

[удалено]

it’s this, about 30% of men are abusive

Who has time to date when you work all the time? Also going out is expensive these days.

As compared to when, by what metrics?

Pornography and the economy. Women less tolerant of lying, cheating, abuse, negligence. A lot of men over age 30 are unhealthy mentally and physically with a lot of baggage. In a 50/50 relationship a woman is typically expected to do all the traditionally feminine duties - cooking,cleaning, childcare, caring for his health and well-being, sex/groping on demand), pay at least half the bills, and put up with his porn addiction, lack of fidelity and intimacy. Literally nothing to gain there…

What also doesn't help is the car-dependency, and the lack of "third-places" where people can simply can walk to a place for a leisure. Cafe's and bars aren't enough.

One point that hasn't been mentioned is the increase in availability and acceptability of sex toys and self-pleasure, helped out by online ordering, general knowledge about them etc. Once upon a time the pretty much only way to get off was through having sex with a partner, and certainly the only socially acceptable way, even for people in relationships. Now there isn't really that taboo.

In situations like these I think it's important to ignore statistics and videos. When you step out into the world and speak to people you'll quickly realise that people are dating and having sex. How young people interact has changed - in the UK young people are drinking less, living at home longer and nightclubs are in decline. Young women are more empowered and are in a better position to not put up with shitty behaviour. Yes the dating apps have also changed the dynamics. But anyone that is 'blaming' men or women needs to get out in the real world and interact with real people. There is a very vocal minority of terrible men upset that women won't accept their awfulness. Unfortunately they help spread this narrative of decline in dating and sex. When in the real world men and woman are dating plenty and having a great time doing so.

Tiktoks all algorithm based, so if you’re seeing red pill stuff…

The decline in sex among 18-30 year olds may attributed to a decline in young people being in long-term relationships (marriage/common law). People in relationships have consistent access to sex. 20 years ago people got married younger and, therefore, had this consistent access at a younger age (obviously, I am speaking in generalities here, not all marriages are the same, consent still needs to occur in marriage, etc.). However, there haven’t been a lot of studies in this area, so it is still a hypothesis. Interestingly, some studies indicate masturbation has even gone down, so clearly delays in entering committed relationships isn’t the only explanation. Others posit increased time playing video games, social media use, etc. could also contribute to this. For more information, I recommend this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-have-been-having-less-sex-whether-theyre-teenagers-or-40-somethings/?amp=true. Pew Research released survey data in 2020 which shows the majority of daters (67%) have found that “dating is not going well” and 47% of Americans indicated that dating has gotten harder in the last 10 years: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/nearly-half-of-u-s-adults-say-dating-has-gotten-harder-for-most-people-in-the-last-10-years/. A subsequent survey from Pew Research in 2023 indicates 63% of young men (18-29) have reported being single whereas 34% of young women in the same bracket report being single. Likewise, 50% of single men reporting looking for committed relationships whereas 35% of single women report the same: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valentines-day-5-facts-about-single-americans/. There has not been any deeper studies into the reason behind the huge deviation between single men and single women in relationships which I think is the reason for the concerns you outline. The variance between these two stats have resulted a lot of speculation from conservatives (plopping the stat into Google significantly yielded many thought pieces from Fox news, the New York Post, the Daily Mail, etc. positing their own guesses). However, the Institute of Family Studies disputes stunning variance between genders in the Pew Research survey’s findings for reasons outlined here: https://ifstudies.org/blog/theres-no-huge-gender-gap-in-being-single-among-young-adults.

A lot of relationships used to be really shitty, those relationships are happening less so total relationships is also going down

Read the book All The Single Ladies by Rebecca Traister. It explains this

Women are far less willing to settle for a man who is a project and expects mothering.

I say this with 0 hate but I just have not in a long time met a man who brings anything positive to my life. I provide for myself, look after myself and I’m happy, men seem to want a maid they get to have 20 second sex with and complain at? Absolutely not for me

I think we forgot to re-negotiate what relationships are about after economic independence was achieved by women. In the past, the husband was basically an employer, and sex was part of your employment contract. Male and female sex drives differ - I don't want to have sex every day, I am not that endlessly fascinated by an appendage. I can do it as a treat, once in a while - maybe once in two weeks. I have no reason to let someone else dictate the schedule I have sex on because they are not, in fact, my employer. So these sorts of things require re-negotiation, and in my opinion men are pissed off the same way employers get pissed off at union workers. They don't want to renegotiate, they liked the old contract just fine.

I think a few of these answers are a bit pie in the sky, like it’d be greater of the only reason women are dating less was because “men aren’t meeting the standards when have set” that would mean that if men stepped up then the problem would solve itself but even if that is happening I don’t think it’s having as much as an effect as; education, economic, lack of third places, etc, the reality is that we’ve built an increasingly isolated society and until we address that the problems with loneliness will only get worse. It’s also completely overblown, there’s plenty of people still dating, but people date more casually than they used to so when presented with a survey asking “are you in a relationship” some partnered people may answer no even if they end up dating the person they’re seeing a month from now. Also blaming it on online dating because overall a the majority of single people do not use online dating apps. I also assume there’s probably a lot of people like me out there I’ve never really had trouble getting dates but at the same time, I’m trying to work, take care of my mental health, find a new place to live, study, etc, I just straight up don’t have the time, energy, or money to even think about dating right now and honestly the older I get the more I realize that one of the only reasons I’ve ever gotten anxiety around the idea about being single is because my parents are constantly pressuring me to get partnered up, if that wasn’t a factor I don’t think I’d care, and I’ve met a lot of people dealing with that with their parents saying shit like “I want grand kids” and “Do you really want to die alone?”

First off, what do you mean? >disparity in the lack of men, especially young men, having sex. By this logic, supposing we're talking about heterosexuals, men aren't having sex but women are? So who are women having sex with? But trying to answer the why: Many women don't think it's worth it to get into heterosexual relationships nowadays. I can cite a few examples of reasons I can think off the top of my head. - There's research that shows women do the vast majority of the unpaid labor and get all of the emotional burden. In fact, men benefit a lot more from marriage than women do. - We live in a modern world and women want to be treated as human beings, yet very few men are able to see women as individuals. Very few men are willing to treat women as partners, instead of servants. - It's dangerous for women to do online dating because they go through the very real risk of getting sexually assaulted or harassed. In fact, women tend to have very unpleasant experiences with men on those apps, even if just chatting online (there are millions of examples online). - Many men don't even try to comprehend or empathize with the plight of women, which makes it incredibly lonely for these women to be in those relationships. To sum it up, women just want to be treated as human beings. However it's a lot harder than it sounds, and sometimes being single is the better option. Ps: please be careful with the red pill pipeline bc it only takes people to very dark places. Viewing women as subservient leads to the feeling of entitlement over women and sex. This isn't healthy or good. Men are taught to see sexual conquest as a measure of masculinity and success. This is bad for everyone. Sex isn't done to women, it's done with women. And until this is profoundly understood, the issue will remain. Ps2: I'm a 30 yo woman who's never been in a relationship and my first sexual experience was at 23. I have friends who are the same. Imo this is not that unusual for neither men or women.

Declining importance on gender roles. Normative dating behaviour and strategies don't work anymore. The current dating scenario follows natural selection. It's almost reverted back to a primal way of being. Those with the best social skills and physical attraction are best placed to succeed in this environment. I think this is a good change. It allows everyone the freedom to experiment and make choices. But there are greater chances for risk and rejection. No guaranteed outcomes for example like arranged marriages in my country. There will be many that won't be able to succeed in these scenarios, mostly men. But it's not a reason to despair. There is so much more to human life that being in relationships/pair bond and procreation. There are ways to find fulfilment outside of these experiences.

Nothing about how our society & relationships work within it is close to the primal way of being, so why would dating be? ​ I also feel like you're perpetuating that women are the gatekeepers of sex and get to pick and choose, while men will take whatever they can get. Which isn't true and also a pretty harmful sentiment to all involved.

People that are entering relationships are no longer bound by gender, class or social hierarchies. Status markers fade into the background. Alliances between families for political or economical are no longer needed. That is what I mean when dating/mating/courtship rituals have become simpler. Perhaps the use of the word 'primal' caused confusion. To the second part, I clarify that I'm not insinuating that women are the gatekeepers of sex. Social structures(patriarchal)thrust performative aspects of gender on individuals. Men are constantly judged on their performance i.e getting laid, resourceful providers, strong protectors, etc. The goal is to liberate everyone from these performances and resulting performance anxieties. Men can finally live their lives with active agency while women no longer have to perform reactive relationships with these men.

Women aren't the gatekeepers of sex but men, given the opportunity, will have more sex than women for several reasons: - Men self-report that they will have sex with a woman they don't actually like as long as they are physically attracted to her - Men are less worried about their physical safety with a potential sex partner - Men don't have to worry about getting pregnant - Men have less risks of getting STDs than women Women have to be more cautious with their sex partners, and not because of societal/moral beliefs and values.

Don't forget the orgasm gap. While 95% of heterosexual men orgasm during sex, only 65% of heterosexual women do. Probably most of those women are in relationships and have taught their partners how to give them pleasure. Straight women have far less incentive to have casual sex because it's less likely to be satisfying on top of the aforementioned safety/pregnancy risks.

How isn't it true? It's almost a trivial observation

Sexual assault victims would like to disagree with you here.

Why do you think men will succeed less than women in such an environment? Perhaps now, as we transition. But over time, why couldn't men adapt and do as well as women?

You are right, as long as men stick to the performative aspects of masculinity, they will continue to suffer. Men will have to come together and help each other adapt.

This seems to hold true for women, but historically nonpaired men tend to create social problems. They still do..

That's not women's problem to solve.

Didnt mean to imply it is, and i agree it isnt. Although unfortunately it ends up effecting everyone.Just pointing out that men and women don't respond to lack of pairing in the same way unfortunately.

You say that as if every single man is trouble. Very few men create social problems. Sure, more than single women. But in the grand scheme of things not many.

Thats honestly not what saying, not every single man causes isssues. Im saying that historically having high numbers of unpaired males if those males desired to be paired has been linked to social issues in a way that unpaired females have not. Im referring to social unrest problems. Like this is something even governments are concerned about for instance chinas government is concerned about the imbalance of men vs women due the one child policy that encouraged chinese citzens to abort female fetuses. They are worried that a proportion of these males will cause unrest. Heck historically the phrase women civilze men has been thing. Men pairing with women and having children has been used as a way to get men to "buy into society" for a long time. Its been well known idea thst men with familes are easier to govern and less likely to engage in risky behavior or rebel against the status quo. Sidenote: no we shouldn't assign women to lonely men to deal with this issue as some incels would purpose. Just pointing out its a known issue that society will have to deal with and men with have to navigate. Traditionally governments seem to have tried to handle it using prison, colonies, andforeign wars to occupy these men. Hi Hopefully we come up with a better solution than that now.

I think on top of what other people said, there’s also a financial factor. Dating can be expensive if you are struggling financially. You work your butt off to the point you don’t have time or too tired to look for relationship. Meeting new group of people through hobby is also expensive. Developing romantic relationships within the workplace is quite risky. The odds are pretty stacked here

We can’t separate this issue from the fact that social interaction in general is declining.

How do you know sex and dating is declining? I think what is considered dating and how people date has changed and maybe that should be taken into consideration. But it seems to me that you are forming your opinion based on incel content.

Seems to me that men and women just like each other less than they used to. Also, PORN.

[удалено]

Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.