Do 18-24 year olds have sex any more

[GoldenMaia]

I love this question. As a 50+ yr old woman I get all kinds of action from 20-somes.they are horny and they are looking for sex.

 

[XerXesXu]

I'm a UK boomer.

If it's any comfort to a youngster in bed at home, let me tell you what it was like for us. We had 4-minute warning drills at school, 4 minutes to evacuate into atomic bomb shelters. I worked in every school holiday from 13, illegally of course, cash in hand (see below). Electricity was expensive, many homes, like mine, were all gas. The WC was outside the house; there was no hot water and no central heating. We were told that the trend in Global Cooling presaged a new Ice Age and that humanity was doomed.

When I bought my first home the basic Rate of Income Tax was >50%. The mortgage rate was >6%. I had three jobs, which meant that I earned enough to qualify for a mortgage, even after giving half to the government. On the other hand, you needed no appointment to see your doctor. If you turned up at his morning or evening surgery you'd be seen. If there was an emergency, he'd be the same bloke who turned up at your house at 3 am. Girls were a bloody nuisance, you'd have to beat them off with a stick.

Life was good.

Get out of bed. Go to work. See how it works for you.

 

[SimonDoom]

Do the forces that control these policies have any reason to change them? The cost of housing has risen since 1975 and shows no signs of abating.

Median household income has also increased but it has not kept pace with housing costs. The median sale price of a new home in 1975 was $39,200. Today it is $367,969. This is a 839% increase. The median household income in 1975 was $11,800. The median household income in 2025 is $69,278 for single earners and $87,659 for dual income. These are 487% and 642% increases respectively, which look great but when you compare that to the increase for housing costs, those are vastly skewed. In simpler terms, in 1975, you had to spend 3.3 times your income in order to afford a house. Today, if you are a single person, you must spend 5.3 times your income to afford a house, while also dealing with the general cost of everything else being higher.


These fall under the "general cost of everything else being higher". Everything is objectively better in terms of quality through technological innovation, but you still need to pay for it and some people still cannot afford to.

Opportunities are probably better if you're cis and white. If you're anything else, I doubt it.


There has been some progress yes, and I will concede it's better today than it was in 1975. But that bar is very low and the state of the world is sliding back towards 1975 rather than moving forward.


This is not as easy to quantify but with everything going on in the world currently, I am not inclined to agree with this.


Our world is so much more connected than it used to be fifty years ago, meaning you can hear a lot more complaining just by the fact that the internet exists.

I do agree that the privilege enjoyed by previous generations have made it easy to complain when you compare how things were to how things are now. And if this generation is the "most complaining generation in history", that's because the world we live in has so many more things to (rightly) complain about.

And it’s a poor argument to go straight to Malthus when anyone mentions anything about overpopulation. It’s like a knee-jerk reaction which absolves the person saying it from actually thinking about the issue. It’s like a Harry Potter spell.

Except that it's true. Minding the past is not an infallible guide to the future, but it's better than ignoring the past.

There's no good reason to believe overpopulation is a dire problem. The standard of living overall has continued to improve while population has increased, and soon population will stop increasing. These are trends, sure, but they are trends for which we have compelling evidence.

We keep NOT running out of things, despite unrelenting predictions since the 1960s that we will. The better bet, based on all evidence, is that we will continue not running out of things and that the quality of life for humans will continue to improve, as it has for the last 200 years.

 

[FrancesScott]

There's no good reason to believe overpopulation is a dire problem. The standard of living overall has continued to improve while population has increased, and soon population will stop increasing. These are trends, sure, but they are trends for which we have compelling evidence.

You know what happened when NASA said “the O-rings haven’t failed yet, so we are good,” right?

I hope you are right, as we are doing nothing to curb our population. But there is no guarantee that you are. Malthus was an example of bad extrapolation. There is nothing to say that being sanguine about overpopulation when it is orders of magnitude greater than in his day is not another just another example of bad extrapolation.

You can’t have it both ways, extrapolating is either unreliable or it’s isn’t. It can’t be unreliable when Malthus did it but reliable when you do. It’s pretty obvious you are appealing to the example of Malthus because you know what answer you want in advance. I doubt population biology is your specialist subject given how casually you dismissed an uncontraversial tenet of it above.

I’ve been told you are an lawyer. Lawyers are good at sounding as if they know what they are talking about. At least when non-experts are listening. This can lead to an over confidence in the level of actual knowledge they possess. You wouldn’t be the first of your profession to bloviate in areas outside your core expertise, nor the last. It’s why so many lawyers go into politics.

Complex systems are prone to swift and dramatic readjustments (as well as sometimes righting themselves quickly afterwards, until they don’t of course). Then I’m sure you know all about them too given your expertise in statistics, and indeed pretty much everything.

—​

I might also add that if we are expecting technological breakthroughs to save us, disbanding the entire scientific community is probably not where you would start. But hey, screw those elites knowing more than what you can find out for yourself on YT, right?

 

[Bramblethorn]

People hooking up via dating apps or communicating online isn't interesting or sexy, and having people in the present day behaving like they did from years past creates a paradox. I've heard that young people today don't even like to talk on the phone, and that at times have had to go to training courses when they get jobs to be comfortable with this.

I think there are also quite a few middle-aged folk who dislike talking on the phone, but just didn't get much choice about it until the last couple of decades.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Not to sound like one of those “born in the wrong generation” people (though I definitely do feel that way sometimes), I feel like being young is less exciting than it probably was in the 70s-90s. Social media and the internet has made most young people annoying and unattractive (to me at least). I feel like if I was my current age in a different generation, I probably wouldn’t still be a virgin. Like I watch 80s movies staring ppl my age and it seems like so much more fun.

Those movies were made to be fun and escapist though, not to depict what it was like at the time. The 80s had their good points but it wasn't all sweetness and light.

In the early 1980s we lived with the spectre of nuclear annihilation. My class watched "Threads" in school and it was fucking traumatic; see also "When The Wind Blows":

By the late 80s, as Cold War tensions eased, the AIDS crisis was in full swing. My school sex-ed was basically "wait for marriage otherwise you'll get AIDS and die". Here's an example of what we were watching at the time:

 

[SimonDoom]

You know what happened when NASA said “the O-rings haven’t failed yet, so we are good,” right?

I hope you are right, as we are doing nothing to curb our population. But there is no guarantee that you are. Malthus was an example of bad extrapolation. There is nothing to say that being sanguine about overpopulation when it is orders of magnitude greater than in his day is not another just another example of bad extrapolation.

You can’t have it both ways, extrapolating is either unreliable or it’s isn’t. It can’t be unreliable when Malthus did it but reliable when you do. It’s pretty obvious you are appealing to the example of Malthus because you know what answer you want in advance. I doubt population biology is your specialist subject given how casually you dismissed an uncontraversial tenet of it above.

I’ve been told you are an lawyer. Lawyers are good at sounding as if they know what they are talking about. At least when non-experts are listening. This can lead to an over confidence in the level of actual knowledge they possess. You wouldn’t be the first of your profession to bloviate in areas outside your core expertise, nor the last. It’s why so many lawyers go into politics.

Complex systems are prone to swift and dramatic readjustments (as well as sometimes righting themselves quickly afterwards, until they don’t of course). Then I’m sure you know all about them too given your expertise in statistics, and indeed pretty much everything.

—​

I might also add that if we are expecting technological breakthroughs to save us, disbanding the entire scientific community is probably not where you would start. But hey, screw those elites knowing more than what you can find out for yourself on YT, right?

Now you're just engaging in a lot of nasty ad hominems. That's not worth responding to.

It's not as though you have demonstrated that you have science on you side, in this thread or others. You have your narratives, and your outrage at those who don't share them.

 

[Levorotatory]

The end of Moore's law provides a real example of the limits of technological progress. Many technical roadblocks were overcome to maintain an exponential pace of improvement of integrated circuits for 50+ years, but that inevitably began to slow as transistors approached the more fundamental limit imposed by the size of the atoms they are made of.

Humans have now appropriated 25% of the primary productivity of the Earth to feed 8 billion of us, and much of that is enabled by extraction of fossil fuels and mining of fertilizers at unsustainable rates. The fundamental limits are in sight.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I think there are also quite a few middle-aged folk who dislike talking on the phone, but just didn't get much choice about it until the last couple of decades.

People are really overthinking this phone thing. Young people began the transition from phoning to texting twenty years ago, for the simple reason that texting is cheaper.

 

[FrancesScott]

Now you're just engaging in a lot of nasty ad hominems. That's not worth responding to.

It's not as though you have demonstrated that you have science on you side, in this thread or others. You have your narratives, and your outrage at those who don't share them.

“You know it's true. How nice.”

 

[AG31]

Suggesting that modern consent standards (which should have been in place for centuries) would lead to the extinction of humankind is suggesting that we need rape for our species to continue. Your comment wasn’t misconstrued.

I certainly didn't read them as suggesting that "modern consent standards" were to blame. Simply mentioning the problem of population replacement is not to suggest a solution. Population replacement is already a problem, wrestled with by governments all over the world. It does us no good to ban a mention of it because you think that implies a particular solution.

 

[TheLobster]

I have to say, this has been a very insightful and helpful thread. I learned a great deal about what I actually think about certain topics and what my opinions actually are.

Thank you! Clearly, I've been living in darkness this whole time, but now that y'all took care to properly womansplain it to me, I can finally see the light.

And on that optimistic note, I can now safely ignore this thread and go back to trying to catch up on my writing. Probably some non-consent, since I'm apparently very much into it, much to my surprise.

 

[AG31]

There's no good reason to believe overpopulation is a dire problem. The standard of living overall has continued to improve while population has increased, and soon population will stop increasing. These are trends, sure, but they are trends for which we have compelling evidence.

There may or may not be good reasons to think it is a dire problem. There are certainly very intelligent sounding arguments that it is an unprecedented problem. And many governments are taking steps (good and bad) to address it.

I do wish I could remember the exact interview that I heard. Anyway, the point is that theree are arguments that are not, on the face of it, bad.

 

[stickygirl]

I certainly didn't read them as suggesting that "modern consent standards" were to blame. Simply mentioning the problem of population replacement is not to suggest a solution. Population replacement is already a problem, wrestled with by governments all over the world. It does us no good to ban a mention of it because you think that implies a particular solution.

But why is it only governments telling us we have a problem in falling birth rates? Capitalism needs ever expanding demand to make inherent inflation work, but the planet won’t sustain it. I don’t hear anyone in my life saying ‘the transport system is so quiet these days’ or ‘schools will have to get used to ten students in a class’ or ‘the view is so much better with all the houses where there used to be fields’.

Too many people.

 

[MelissaBaby]

But why is it only governments telling us we have a problem in falling birth rates? Capitalism needs ever expanding demand to make inherent inflation work, but the planet won’t sustain it. I don’t hear anyone in my life saying ‘the transport system is so quiet these days’ or ‘schools will have to get used to ten students in a class’ or ‘the view is so much better with all the houses where there used to be fields’.

Too many people.

 

[Nynah]

I learned a great deal about what I actually think about certain topics and what my opinions actually are.

Probably some non-consent, since I'm apparently very much into it, much to my surprise.

It probably would have helped had you definitively stated what your opinion on non-consent was when asked multiple times by multiple people in this thread. Given the fact that you never did answer definitively and instead chose to double down with either more vague statements or complete non sequiturs, I'm not sure what other conclusion people were supposed to draw.

Thank you! Clearly, I've been living in darkness this whole time, but now that y'all took care to properly womansplain it to me, I can finally see the light.

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

 

[FrancesScott]

but now that y'all took care to properly womansplain it to me

I’m so delighted you used this term. More men should realize what it’s like to be patronized, infantilized, and have your valid points dismissed or ignored as you lack a Y chromosome. It happens to us every fucking day. The more men understand what it actually feels like to be on the receiving end of this shit, the less likely they are to do it to other women.

Progress I think.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

People are really overthinking this phone thing. Young people began the transition from phoning to texting twenty years ago, for the simple reason that texting is cheaper.

Is the price of calls that big of a deal in the US? Calls are cheap as fuck where I am, excluding Roaming or calling a different country. I don't think I've ever used more than 1-2% of call hours.

15-20 years ago, the price of calls was something that needed to be considered here, but not anymore. My theory is that now, it's all about timing when it comes to texting vs calls. Whoever is calling you is demanding your time right now, regardless of where you are, what you are doing, etc. So they know you might not pick up, and they would need to call again or wait for your call to say what they needed to say.
But when someone texts you, you can reply whenever you are able to to reply. It's simpler.

 

[Bramblethorn]

People are really overthinking this phone thing. Young people began the transition from phoning to texting twenty years ago, for the simple reason that texting is cheaper.

That may be a factor in the USA, but I don't think it's the whole of it. Here in Australia mobile plans will typically come with unlimited domestic calls, or a minimum monthly charge that allows for quite a few free calls before they start costing, and texting is still pretty popular with young people.

 

[Areala-chan]

Probably a mistake wading in here, but Jason Pargin, under his David Wong pseudonym, wrote an article for Cracked back in 2012 called "6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You A Better Person" that is worth reading for anyone wondering why they're having difficulties attracting a date. He's writing as a man for a mostly male audience interested in figuring out their relationship woes, but it's worth reading if you're a woman, just to get a handle on how an awful lot of men approach reality, and why they do so the way that they do.

If you don't want to read the whole thing, then just focus on point 4: "What you produce does not have to make money, but it has to benefit people." This is where he talks about "nice guys" and the problems they face, why it seems they never get anywhere. As he puts it, "Don't say that you're a nice guy -- that's the bare minimum. Pretty girls have guys being nice to them 36 times a day. [. . .] Does that break your heart? OK, so now what? [. . .] It's up to you, but don't complain about how girls fall for jerks; they fall for those jerks because those jerks have other things they can offer. [. . .] Saying that you're a nice guy is like a restaurant whose only selling point is that the food doesn't make you sick."

Basically, people want partners who are interesting, not just kind, who have passions about doing things beyond just existing. You can be the nicest, kindest person in the world, but there's someone else out there who is just as nice and who knows how to play the guitar, or is practicing creative writing, or works in animal welfare, or is studying to become a surgeon. There isn't any trick to getting into someone else's pants (unless you're a sociopath). You can't make someone interested in you, but you can make yourself into someone more interesting, and that should the point.

 

[FrancesScott]

Basically, people want partners who are interesting, not just kind, who have passions about doing things beyond just existing. You can be the nicest, kindest person in the world, but there's someone else out there who is just as nice and who knows how to play the guitar, or is practicing creative writing, or works for animal welfare, or is studying to become a surgeon. There isn't any trick to getting into someone else's pants (unless you're a sociopath). You can't make someone interested in you, but you can make yourself into someone more interesting, and that should the point.

Agree with this. Being a decent human being (kind, respectful, understanding, supportive, forgiving) is a prerequisite, but a combo of shared interests and divergent ones - allowing for growth, a common sense of humor, and - this might just be me - being super smart, all help. Appearance and money aren’t on that list.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Is the price of calls that big of a deal in the US? Calls are cheap as fuck where I am, excluding Roaming or calling a different country. I don't think I've ever used more than 1-2% of call hours.

15-20 years ago, the price of calls was something that needed to be considered here, but not anymore. My theory is that now, it's all about timing when it comes to texting vs calls. Whoever is calling you is demanding your time right now, regardless of where you are, what you are doing, etc. So they know you might not pick up, and they would need to call again or wait for your call to say what they needed to say.
But when someone texts you, you can reply whenever you are able to to reply. It's simpler.

The disparity is not so great now, but it definitely was then, and my point is that was when the trend away from talking on the phone began.

 

[MelissaBaby]

That may be a factor in the USA, but I don't think it's the whole of it. Here in Australia mobile plans will typically come with unlimited domestic calls, or a minimum monthly charge that allows for quite a few free calls before they start costing, and texting is still pretty popular with young people.

Many low income people in the US don't get mobile plans. They buy cheap phones from Walmart and go in whenever they've got some money to add minutes on them.

 

[SmokingFap]

Probably a mistake wading in here, but Jason Pargin, under his David Wong pseudonym, wrote an article for Cracked back in 2012 called "6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You A Better Person" that is worth reading for anyone wondering why they're having difficulties attracting a date. He's writing as a man for a mostly male audience interested in figuring out their relationship woes, but it's worth reading if you're a woman, just to get a handle on how an awful lot of men approach reality, and why they do so the way that they do.

If you don't want to read the whole thing, then just focus on point 4: "What you produce does not have to make money, but it has to benefit people." This is where he talks about "nice guys" and the problems they face, why it seems they never get anywhere. As he puts it, "Don't say that you're a nice guy -- that's the bare minimum. Pretty girls have guys being nice to them 36 times a day. [. . .] Does that break your heart? OK, so now what? [. . .] It's up to you, but don't complain about how girls fall for jerks; they fall for those jerks because those jerks have other things they can offer. [. . .] Saying that you're a nice guy is like a restaurant whose only selling point is that the food doesn't make you sick."

Basically, people want partners who are interesting, not just kind, who have passions about doing things beyond just existing. You can be the nicest, kindest person in the world, but there's someone else out there who is just as nice and who knows how to play the guitar, or is practicing creative writing, or works in animal welfare, or is studying to become a surgeon. There isn't any trick to getting into someone else's pants (unless you're a sociopath). You can't make someone interested in you, but you can make yourself into someone more interesting, and that should the point.

A bit TL;DR, but your last paragraph was very good.

 

[Britva415]

People are really overthinking this phone thing. Young people began the transition from phoning to texting twenty years ago, for the simple reason that texting is cheaper.

It's not cheaper today. Both text and talk are unlimited - it's the mobile data which is metered now.