3 ms·

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

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
    > It does not contradict my suggestion that younger people are choosing to have less sex. People make choices based on their situation. Their situation leads them to choose less sex. You're proving my point. > Nor does it disprove the theory that the availability of alternatives to in-person sex has made it less attractive. I don't buy this theory. Masturbation always felt good, and I doubt if you put the option of easy sex next to masturbating most would choose the easy sex. The problem is that easy sex is hard to find. Partners have less time and have more pressures now than in prior times - thus reducing opportunities and reducing overall sex. It isn't just young people having less sex: > From 2000 to 2002, 71 percent and 69 percent of married men and women, respectively, reported having sex weekly. In 2016 to 2018, that dropped to 58 and 61 percent of married men and women, respectively, having weekly sex. Even married men and women are having less sex. Options like pornography aren't people's first choice. They'd probably choose sex if all things were equal. Just like you'd rather choose a steak over chicken tenders - but if you can't get the steak, and it's too hard to get the steak, you settle for the chicken tenders, and here we are.

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
  > It does not contradict my suggestion that younger people are choosing to have less sex. People make choices based on their situation. Their situation leads them to choose less sex. You're proving my point. > Nor does it disprove the theory that the availability of alternatives to in-person sex has made it less attractive. I don't buy this theory. Masturbation always felt good, and I doubt if you put the option of easy sex next to masturbating most would choose the easy sex. The problem is that easy sex is hard to find. Partners have less time and have more pressures now than in prior times - thus reducing opportunities and reducing overall sex. It isn't just young people having less sex: > From 2000 to 2002, 71 percent and 69 percent of married men and women, respectively, reported having sex weekly. In 2016 to 2018, that dropped to 58 and 61 percent of married men and women, respectively, having weekly sex. Even married men and women are having less sex. Options like pornography aren't people's first choice. They'd probably choose sex if all things were equal. Just like you'd rather choose a steak over chicken tenders - but if you can't get the steak, and it's too hard to get the steak, you settle for the chicken tenders, and here we are.