7 ms·

Lots of these points hit home - but why blame older people for your generation having less sex? Baby boomers didn't make casual sex illegal, nor have they bough

Lots of these points hit home - but why blame older people for your generation having less sex? Baby boomers didn't make casual sex illegal, nor have they bought up all the sex. Until covid, if young people wanted to have sex with each other they were perfectly free to. Isn't it simply that masturbation and pornography have become relatively more attractive propositions than they were in the past?

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Baby boomers didn't have to spend hours in extra curricular activities in HS plus getting 5.0 QPAs to maybe get accepted into a good college so they can have a semi decent chance at a good living. My dad was able to go to a steel mill and make huge amounts of money plus overtime and insanely good benefits. Housing was extremely affordable. Very low debt from trade school. Women wanted to have kids and settle earlier. Women today care about their careers. People don't want to get into relationships with people saddled with debt and making no money. While materially there are a lot of benefits to our modern world, no one is really free. To get sex nowadays, you better be attractive. Because on Tinder there are thousands competing with you instead of 20 in that one bar. Most people get very little likes, get depressed, and give up. I don't blame them. It's soul crushing.
- glazyrin 6y ago
  None of these really make much sense. Sex is free and not that time-consuming. You can work hard at college and still find time for sex. You can be in debt and have sex with other people in debt without incurring further debt. Women getting married and having children later should mean more opportunities for casual sex, not fewer. Boomers have not forced younger people to find hookups on tinder. The argument about competition makes no sense. Everyone can't be outcompeted. If a generation has chosen only to have sex with its most attractive members, how did that happen? Why does it leads to less total sex? Why is this the fault of older people?
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Your entire comment is a strawman. Either way, your first comment is false. Sex is not free. I can't go outside and instantly have sex. I need a partner who is willing - which is, again, not free. > Women getting married and having children later should mean more opportunities for casual sex, not fewer. You're conflating "should" with "What is." You think it "should" mean more opportunities - but you haven't given any evidence that it actually should, and society shows that there is less sex. So this is false. > Boomers have not forced younger people to find hookups on tinder. The argument about competition makes no sense. Everyone can't be outcompeted. The argument makes perfect sense if you would get over your need to protect boomers, which is an odd strawman. People don't want to settle. Now that they see they have potential access to more attractive mates, they are less likely to settle for someone less attractive and in turn others are less likely to settle for them. The benefits of having a partner just aren't there anymore, and the younger generations are far more risk averse (not just with sex: “It’s part of an overall trend toward less risky behavior since 1990, including not only sex but alcohol use, risky driving, and criminal activity,” Dr. Arnett told Healthline.") than the lead fueled baby boomers. Young people can't consent until 18. While boomers aren't forcing anyone to use tinder, society has impressed these things upon youth. It's unfair to say that children and adolescents have free agency. They don't.
    - glazyrin 6y ago
      This is the comment you're replying to: > why blame older people for your generation having less sex? If you think it is the responsibility of older people that younger people aren't having as much sex, then why? If not, then what are you challenging? I didn't say that there was more sex going on, not that student debt was great, not that Tinder was awesome. Your whole argument seems to be 'there is less sex available because fewer people want to have sex'. This is, of course, a somewhat one-sided view of the situation. It does not contradict my suggestion that younger people are choosing to have less sex. Nor does it disprove the theory that the availability of alternatives to in-person sex has made it less attractive.
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
- mbg721 6y ago
  A degree from a state school in something reasonably marketable will still provide a decently comfy lifestyle in most of the US, and there are still plenty of single women who aren't spending all their time looking for someone a little bit snazzier on Tinder. Sure, it might not be quite as easy now, but I think the benefits of baby-boomerdom are a little exaggerated.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    This attitude is what continues to kill us as a nation. "Everything is fine! remember this!" but if you look deeper most of it is not true. Things are not well for this nation. The capitol was just stormed. Those statistics are easily gamed. For one, salaries aren't that high in the cheap COL areas and there aren't any jobs or room for advancement in Tusla. Sorry, that's just the facts. There are plenty of shitty places to live for cheap. But there is no hope of ever advancing or growing yourself - which is extremely important for a nation - advancement. > and there are still plenty of single women who aren't spending all their time looking for someone a little bit snazzier on Tinder. This is irrelevant- less people are partnering up and less people are having sex. Single women exist - they're working and focusing on their careers, not settling down. > The dollar's buying power is less than what it was 20 years ago, meaning what you earn doesn't stretch as far as it once did. Government statistics show that while household income has been steadily increasing, it has failed to keep up with the pace of inflation. In addition, the cost of buying items like houses and automobiles has increased at a rate that outpaces the rise in inflation. - From the BLS So let's be clear - it costs way more now to buy a house and a car. You need to spend 4 years not working (and not saving) and going to school to make an OK salary while taking on tens of thousands of debt (avg debt is 30k). Healthcare is extremely expensive. Computers are replacing more and more tasks. And what about people who aren't smart enough for engineering school? Which is most? Costs are rapidly outpacing gains for the common man. And we're surprised people are anxious and don't want to marry and have wanton sex all the time? They can barely pay the bills.
    - mbg721 6y ago
      There are some real problems (such as healthcare and education costs), sure, but so many of the things that cause anxiety are self-inflicted. 1950s-level tech and medicine would be cheap, but you can't buy that today at any price. Relationships are harder because of changing social norms, not because we're too poor. The Capitol storming was a dumb stunt that's being milked for all the political capital it's worth. The movie "Network" has all the same anxieties, (our country has been bought by the highest bidder, the air isn't fit to breathe, etc.)--if things are broken, they've been broken for 50 years, so I'm not convinced that the kids aren't all right.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Actually, the right college degree can be an entry ticket to a good high skilled career. It's the low skill jobs that are disappearing. Most dating apps are garbage because they are basically a competitive esports game except with the pretense that they are there to help you. They are not the real world. Don't fall for that garbage. Women can't vet men over the internet so it basically boils down to how good you look in a picture. >My dad was able to go to a steel mill and make huge amounts of money plus overtime and insanely good benefits. Housing was extremely affordable. It's because inflation was still doing okay back then. Inflation eats away at capital unless it is invested productively and by productively I mean primarily by gainfully employing people and providing value. For the average worker that is very good because they do not have much savings and even if they did their savings grow much slower than the savings of the rich. Once everyone is employed the cat and mouse game begins. Workers can go for the best paying employer and that drives their salaries upwards. Higher salaries reduce the relative value of assets because you have to pay people more for the same work but the value of your assets does not increase fast enough to catch up. With deflation you don't have to do anything to increase the value of your assets. You just wait and watch wealth inequality grow. A quick solution is to simply increase capital gains taxes and reduce dividends taxes. Deflation gains will be taxed more. Productive income will be taxed less.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

Baby boomers didn't have to spend hours in extra curricular activities in HS plus getting 5.0 QPAs to maybe get accepted into a good college so they can have a semi decent chance at a good living. My dad was able to go to a steel mill and make huge amounts of money plus overtime and insanely good benefits. Housing was extremely affordable. Very low debt from trade school. Women wanted to have kids and settle earlier. Women today care about their careers. People don't want to get into relationships with people saddled with debt and making no money. While materially there are a lot of benefits to our modern world, no one is really free. To get sex nowadays, you better be attractive. Because on Tinder there are thousands competing with you instead of 20 in that one bar. Most people get very little likes, get depressed, and give up. I don't blame them. It's soul crushing.

glazyrin 6y ago
None of these really make much sense. Sex is free and not that time-consuming. You can work hard at college and still find time for sex. You can be in debt and have sex with other people in debt without incurring further debt. Women getting married and having children later should mean more opportunities for casual sex, not fewer. Boomers have not forced younger people to find hookups on tinder. The argument about competition makes no sense. Everyone can't be outcompeted. If a generation has chosen only to have sex with its most attractive members, how did that happen? Why does it leads to less total sex? Why is this the fault of older people?
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Your entire comment is a strawman. Either way, your first comment is false. Sex is not free. I can't go outside and instantly have sex. I need a partner who is willing - which is, again, not free. > Women getting married and having children later should mean more opportunities for casual sex, not fewer. You're conflating "should" with "What is." You think it "should" mean more opportunities - but you haven't given any evidence that it actually should, and society shows that there is less sex. So this is false. > Boomers have not forced younger people to find hookups on tinder. The argument about competition makes no sense. Everyone can't be outcompeted. The argument makes perfect sense if you would get over your need to protect boomers, which is an odd strawman. People don't want to settle. Now that they see they have potential access to more attractive mates, they are less likely to settle for someone less attractive and in turn others are less likely to settle for them. The benefits of having a partner just aren't there anymore, and the younger generations are far more risk averse (not just with sex: “It’s part of an overall trend toward less risky behavior since 1990, including not only sex but alcohol use, risky driving, and criminal activity,” Dr. Arnett told Healthline.") than the lead fueled baby boomers. Young people can't consent until 18. While boomers aren't forcing anyone to use tinder, society has impressed these things upon youth. It's unfair to say that children and adolescents have free agency. They don't.
  - glazyrin 6y ago
    This is the comment you're replying to: > why blame older people for your generation having less sex? If you think it is the responsibility of older people that younger people aren't having as much sex, then why? If not, then what are you challenging? I didn't say that there was more sex going on, not that student debt was great, not that Tinder was awesome. Your whole argument seems to be 'there is less sex available because fewer people want to have sex'. This is, of course, a somewhat one-sided view of the situation. It does not contradict my suggestion that younger people are choosing to have less sex. Nor does it disprove the theory that the availability of alternatives to in-person sex has made it less attractive.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
mbg721 6y ago
A degree from a state school in something reasonably marketable will still provide a decently comfy lifestyle in most of the US, and there are still plenty of single women who aren't spending all their time looking for someone a little bit snazzier on Tinder. Sure, it might not be quite as easy now, but I think the benefits of baby-boomerdom are a little exaggerated.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  This attitude is what continues to kill us as a nation. "Everything is fine! remember this!" but if you look deeper most of it is not true. Things are not well for this nation. The capitol was just stormed. Those statistics are easily gamed. For one, salaries aren't that high in the cheap COL areas and there aren't any jobs or room for advancement in Tusla. Sorry, that's just the facts. There are plenty of shitty places to live for cheap. But there is no hope of ever advancing or growing yourself - which is extremely important for a nation - advancement. > and there are still plenty of single women who aren't spending all their time looking for someone a little bit snazzier on Tinder. This is irrelevant- less people are partnering up and less people are having sex. Single women exist - they're working and focusing on their careers, not settling down. > The dollar's buying power is less than what it was 20 years ago, meaning what you earn doesn't stretch as far as it once did. Government statistics show that while household income has been steadily increasing, it has failed to keep up with the pace of inflation. In addition, the cost of buying items like houses and automobiles has increased at a rate that outpaces the rise in inflation. - From the BLS So let's be clear - it costs way more now to buy a house and a car. You need to spend 4 years not working (and not saving) and going to school to make an OK salary while taking on tens of thousands of debt (avg debt is 30k). Healthcare is extremely expensive. Computers are replacing more and more tasks. And what about people who aren't smart enough for engineering school? Which is most? Costs are rapidly outpacing gains for the common man. And we're surprised people are anxious and don't want to marry and have wanton sex all the time? They can barely pay the bills.
  - mbg721 6y ago
    There are some real problems (such as healthcare and education costs), sure, but so many of the things that cause anxiety are self-inflicted. 1950s-level tech and medicine would be cheap, but you can't buy that today at any price. Relationships are harder because of changing social norms, not because we're too poor. The Capitol storming was a dumb stunt that's being milked for all the political capital it's worth. The movie "Network" has all the same anxieties, (our country has been bought by the highest bidder, the air isn't fit to breathe, etc.)--if things are broken, they've been broken for 50 years, so I'm not convinced that the kids aren't all right.
imtringued 6y ago
Actually, the right college degree can be an entry ticket to a good high skilled career. It's the low skill jobs that are disappearing. Most dating apps are garbage because they are basically a competitive esports game except with the pretense that they are there to help you. They are not the real world. Don't fall for that garbage. Women can't vet men over the internet so it basically boils down to how good you look in a picture. >My dad was able to go to a steel mill and make huge amounts of money plus overtime and insanely good benefits. Housing was extremely affordable. It's because inflation was still doing okay back then. Inflation eats away at capital unless it is invested productively and by productively I mean primarily by gainfully employing people and providing value. For the average worker that is very good because they do not have much savings and even if they did their savings grow much slower than the savings of the rich. Once everyone is employed the cat and mouse game begins. Workers can go for the best paying employer and that drives their salaries upwards. Higher salaries reduce the relative value of assets because you have to pay people more for the same work but the value of your assets does not increase fast enough to catch up. With deflation you don't have to do anything to increase the value of your assets. You just wait and watch wealth inequality grow. A quick solution is to simply increase capital gains taxes and reduce dividends taxes. Deflation gains will be taxed more. Productive income will be taxed less.