2 ms·

The suggestion that millennials are having less sex because they are unattractive seems far fetched. I'm not sure what obesity rates among millennials is - but

by vivekd 10y ago

The suggestion that millennials are having less sex because they are unattractive seems far fetched. I'm not sure what obesity rates among millennials is - but I'm sure if enough of them were that fat, it would sort of become the new norm and standards for attractiveness would change accordingly. I think the real explanation is the the curve in the graph, we had 3 for greatest generation, 5 for silents then jumping up to 11 during the boomers, then declining slightly during x and declining further during millennials. I bet if we could extend the graph back historically we would see the vast majority of human generations were closer to the greatest generation in number of sex partners. This looks to me like there was an increase in sexual promiscuity during the sexual revolution, the effects of which are tapering off as humans return to their normal sexual habits.

DonaldFisk 10y ago
> if enough of them were that fat, it would sort of become the new norm and standards for attractiveness would change accordingly. The most attractive women have always, everywhere, had a waist-hip ratio of around 0.7 (http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2013/11/11/curves-ahead-the-science-of-female-waist-to-hip-ratio-and-at.html http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2013/11/11/curves...). That would rule out obesity as the new norm of attractiveness. I assume there is also a formula/ratio for attractive men that rules out their being obese. Also, people are known to lie about the number of sexual partners they have had (http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/12/statistics_on_sexual_partners_cant_be_right_specialists_say/ http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/12/st...). Could that be a factor here? Finally, the article focuses on age of first sex and number of sexual partners, not frequency of sex. It doesn't rule out millennials having more frequent sex with fewer partners. Stop press: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/03/large-number-of-young-people-experience-sex-problems-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/03/large-number...

by vivekd 10y ago

DonaldFisk 10y ago

> if enough of them were that fat, it would sort of become the new norm and standards for attractiveness would change accordingly. The most attractive women have always, everywhere, had a waist-hip ratio of around 0.7 (http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2013/11/11/curves-ahead-the-science-of-female-waist-to-hip-ratio-and-at.html http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2013/11/11/curves...). That would rule out obesity as the new norm of attractiveness. I assume there is also a formula/ratio for attractive men that rules out their being obese. Also, people are known to lie about the number of sexual partners they have had (http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/12/statistics_on_sexual_partners_cant_be_right_specialists_say/ http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/12/st...). Could that be a factor here? Finally, the article focuses on age of first sex and number of sexual partners, not frequency of sex. It doesn't rule out millennials having more frequent sex with fewer partners. Stop press: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/03/large-number-of-young-people-experience-sex-problems-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/03/large-number...