Americans Are Not Getting Laid – Especially Young Men

The data is out. New information from the General Social Survey has dropped interesting figures on sex in America.

The data is fascinating. 23% of people in my age bracket are not getting together.

See the following graphs (Courtesy of FreeBeacon.org and WashingtonPost):

Americans Are Not Getting Laid—Especially Young Men

I am unable to fully comprehend this. With how overly sexualized our society is, it seems insane to consider that 23% of my age bracket (18-29) have not had sex in an entire year.

What are they doing? It is an entire year. I thought a month was a long time.

There is so much to unravel here.

Let’s go through a take-away list:

Americans not having sex in the entire preceding year has rose from 18.6% to 23.2%.
Older people have less sex, especially if unmarried.
The group most likely to have sex in a given year is 35, give or take 3 years.
Young Americans (18-29) reporting no sex has increased immensely from 14.3% to 23%.
The decline in young Americans’ sexual numbers is mainly due to men. The share of young men reporting no sex in the past year increased from ~15% in 1989 to 28% in 2018.
Married individuals report more sex in every age range.

This is baffling, honestly.

Even with the rise of hookup culture, feminism, and degenerate apps like Tinder, we are still seeing a decline in sex in the demographic that is most-likely to be affected by these items (18-29).

Additionally, it’s become almost a meme that married people never have sex. Yet it seems the opposite is true: married people are out-bunnying everyone at every age.

There are a few things that are pretty obvious. Such as older people have less sex and the decline in sex is most noticeable due to men.

But the rest of these? I’m not entirely sold on any specific reason.

Sure, men are avoiding marriage in higher numbers due to significant societal stressors.

And MGTOW has become a “thing”.

And gender relations are not in the best state of affairs.

Yet none of these could fully explain the increase. These may affect it a bit, but not entirely.

How do I know this? Simple. Because women’s rates of sexless-ness in a given year did not increase as significantly as men’s.

All three of those issues are men-driven. Yet women are still having sex. So it’s not men driving this phenomenon.

It’s likely women are going for a smaller number of higher quality men. One man, two girls. Or seven or so.

This is obvious given the data. If 18% of women are sexless in a year and 28% of men are, then there is some overlap in the sexually active men getting women.

Likewise, women generally hover around 15% mark, so while 18% is an increase, it is not that significant. Compared to men, who also historically hovered around 15%, are now at that insane 28%.

So while anyone can have an opinion of why this is occurring, we know that it is largely women going for the upper tier men that already have (and utilize) options. Leaving the other men to become this iconic statistic.

An interesting phenomenon, for sure. I’d be interested to know why women are more likely to be going for the same men now compared to the preceding years. Or if there was just such a large overlap in earlier years that it resulted in diminished numbers for both sexes.

There are 5000 articles online discussing this right now, all with different opinions of why this is happening. Some say Tinder, some say technology, some say x, some say y, but I have not seen any discuss this root issue. Women are going after the same men. Most of this increase is driven solely by certain men not getting laid. Women are still in pretty equalized numbers, so it’s not all of us having less sex. It’s women picking differently.

Why? I don’t know. I can’t answer that. I’m not sure anyone truthfully could. It’s probably a combination of many things.

But I am interested to see where this goes. Will this incentivize men to get better so they can actually get laid, or will it just create Japan-like ‘herbivores’ (men with no interest in sex) in the coming decades? Or some potential that I haven’t even considered?

We’ll have to wait and see.

Kaisar

Kaîsar is the sole owner of The Hidden Dominion. He writes on a wide range of topics including politics, governmental frameworks, nationalism, and Christianity.

Hosea 4:6 & Ezek 33:1-11

Articles: 1390

4 Comments

Eighty Percent
April 18, 2019 / 8:48 pm
Women are picking differently, therefore men need to get better. Interesting jump in reasoning there.
- Kaisar
  May 25, 2019 / 9:47 pm
  Not a jump in reasoning, just facts. Throughout all of history women have been the ones who make the requirements and rules for relationship affairs. If they changed the rules, men adapt. Maybe “better” isn’t the best word, but “adapt” is. This is common throughout practically all of our recorded history. Due to the nature of gender interaction, men have never been the ones who decide how these things work.
Mark
February 29, 2020 / 3:52 am
Ever hear of the thing where 80% of the woman go for the top 20% of the men? Well in this app hook up culture these numbers are manafesting. Women are becoming more choosy and the top tier men are getting multiple partners. What blows your mind is the actual flip side of these numbers…20% of guys that are not getting laid are not doing so by choice, due to hypegamy they are getting passed over. It’s the bottom 20 % of guys that are ugly/geeky/broke. Think Mark Zuckerberg if he worked at a gas station. Seeing that you can’t understand it, you obviously are lucky enough not to be in that lower 20%
PolishKnight
June 19, 2021 / 5:35 pm
“ALL of history?” Now isn’t that a rather large barn door for someone to take a shot at? 🙂
I’ve considered arguing that feminism is partly based upon a notion of women wanting to return to pre-history when they did have such a choice when economics and Patriarchal domination wasn’t a factor in whom women had sex with. Namely, pre-economics and pre-family, really. When women had sex with the man she desired and men didn’t have the consciousness or obligation to protect a tribe or family, then certainly she could choose whomever she liked since she was raising her child on her own anyway.
But civilization was patriarchal for a reason: Men made the predators that had previously hunted humans into food FOR humans or in the case of cats and dogs, companions. Instead of gathering berries, humans cultured farms. Ironically, this made the single greatest threat to a human each other hence if a woman (or man for that matter) went out on their own, they were prey for other humans.
The Patriarchy defends society from other Patriarchies but also improved the standard of living. This was in the form of harems of the elite men or the two parent family where a man was motivated to work hard and put up with society in the interest of protecting and providing for his own woman and offspring. Female slaves were chattel for affluent men while male slaves were simply chattel but also, male slaves made lousy workers or soldiers. This has been a problem that the elites have struggled with for all of human history but I’m afraid they may have cracked that (but that’s a WHOLE other topic! 🙂
So in answer to your point, probably for much of history, pre-history so to speak, women did choose mates but since that was pre-language they probably chose based upon size which explains the heightism BUT also, unlike today where women are highly conscious of making sexual choices based upon what their friend circle dictates, they made those choices without regard to what anyone else thought AND also, in those days, they mated at a MUCH earlier age about 13 or so. Hence, women would probably mate with the first guys that hit on them. The notion of women developing an idea of what they wanted between 13 to say 18 or so is out of sync with early humanity.
For the rest of known human history, and outside of western society, women “choose” mates similar to how we “choose” jobs: We try to get the best we can but I can’t just choose to be a doctor. The marketplace reminds me of my value. But women can largely sleep with men of a much higher SMV than they can rely upon to help them raise offspring. And the Western society that made this notion of female “independence” possible is highly artificial and temporary: The west is economically collapsing due to debt, exporting manufacturing, and importing patriarchal cultures which don’t assimilate into an anti-identity-politics agenda.
It’s amusing that feminism promoted the idea of free love and women wouldn’t choose men for how much money they made anymore and that is somewhat true in that game is now a much greater factor in who women have sex with than money. Look at Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos who are clueless about women. It just turns out that men and women have different ideas about what “romance” means.