4 ms·

No. Teens are disturbingly non-horny these days, and it's carrying over to adulthood. I blame the relative lack of genuine human interaction and microplastics.

maxbond 3y ago
How did you come to this conclusion? What did you think about the part of the article discussing the much larger NSFG survey? What about the part discussing volcels?
- busterarm 3y ago
  Have you looked at young people fashion lately? Their clothes are deliberately unflattering. Your grandmother would consider their looks conservative.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    The young people I've seen recently would've fit in at my school. We didn't dress all that provocatively either. I don't think we should conflate how people choose to dress with whether or not they're having sex - Victorian fashion was more conservative than today, but they had plenty of sex. I think fashion just ebbs and flows, independent of our sex lives.
    - lelanthran 3y ago
      > I don't think we should conflate how people choose to dress with whether or not they're having sex I think GP was correlating provocative dressing with horniness, not with how much sex they were having. It doesn't seem like an extraordinary leap to make.
      - maxbond 3y ago
        You can substitute "horniness" into my comment and the point stands. The Victorians were plenty horny and raunchy too. Fashion is about doing something different. If everyone is wearing skimpier and skimpier clothes, it's natural that wearing conservative clothing will become the way to stand out. We should expect this to ebb and flow independent of our sex lives. Not to mention everything presented in the linked article, and that I don't know how people around you are dressing, but people around me are dressing about as conservatively as they always have.
        lelanthran 3y ago
        > Not to mention everything presented in the linked article, and that I don't know how people around you are dressing, but people around me are dressing about as conservatively as they always have. The thing is, I'm not in the age range that anyone cares about: I'm old enough to already have had all the children a person might want, so don't really socialise much with youngsters in a non-family situation. Since I am unlikely to see how they are dressed when they are going out for the night, I think my opinion on whether the youngsters around me are dressing more or less provocatively is probably irrelevant.
        busterarm 3y ago
        Victorian clothing was considered flattering to shape and form. It's not about how much skin is showing. Zoomer fashion is about de-accentuation. Looking goofier/dumpier/lankier/etc. Baggy in the wrong places.
        maxbond 3y ago
        Help me understand what the difference is between what you're saying and the fretting that one generation always does about the aesthetic choices of the next generation? To me it sounds like you're saying, "young people are dressing differently, and that's a problem, because they should dress the way I did when I was their age."
        busterarm 3y ago
        You're reading way too into it. The topic was about zoomers not having as much sex. My point was effectively "of course, this is self-evident, look at how they dress!" because the clothes they wear are a deliberate choice to not be viewed sexually. De-emphasizing sexuality equates with having less of it. It's a kind of puritanism. Sex, especially when you're young, is often spontaneous and driven by sensory stimulus.
        maxbond 3y ago
        Again, no, it isn't. I'll refer you to the other comments where I made the case. Inferring how much sex a person is having from their clothes is "reading too much into it," people generally don't advertise their sex lives.
- rpmisms 3y ago
  Observation, and being part of the culture. Surveys are a decent model of reality, but they miss the flavor. Volcels are victims of the culture.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    I think you might be proceeding backwards from your premises here, rather than proceeding from the evidence. Saying that people voluntarily being celibate are victims is a bit of a red flag. Do you think not having sex is an illness?

maxbond 3y ago

How did you come to this conclusion? What did you think about the part of the article discussing the much larger NSFG survey? What about the part discussing volcels?

busterarm 3y ago
Have you looked at young people fashion lately? Their clothes are deliberately unflattering. Your grandmother would consider their looks conservative.
- maxbond 3y ago
  The young people I've seen recently would've fit in at my school. We didn't dress all that provocatively either. I don't think we should conflate how people choose to dress with whether or not they're having sex - Victorian fashion was more conservative than today, but they had plenty of sex. I think fashion just ebbs and flows, independent of our sex lives.
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > I don't think we should conflate how people choose to dress with whether or not they're having sex I think GP was correlating provocative dressing with horniness, not with how much sex they were having. It doesn't seem like an extraordinary leap to make.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      You can substitute "horniness" into my comment and the point stands. The Victorians were plenty horny and raunchy too. Fashion is about doing something different. If everyone is wearing skimpier and skimpier clothes, it's natural that wearing conservative clothing will become the way to stand out. We should expect this to ebb and flow independent of our sex lives. Not to mention everything presented in the linked article, and that I don't know how people around you are dressing, but people around me are dressing about as conservatively as they always have.
      - lelanthran 3y ago
        > Not to mention everything presented in the linked article, and that I don't know how people around you are dressing, but people around me are dressing about as conservatively as they always have. The thing is, I'm not in the age range that anyone cares about: I'm old enough to already have had all the children a person might want, so don't really socialise much with youngsters in a non-family situation. Since I am unlikely to see how they are dressed when they are going out for the night, I think my opinion on whether the youngsters around me are dressing more or less provocatively is probably irrelevant.
      - busterarm 3y ago
        Victorian clothing was considered flattering to shape and form. It's not about how much skin is showing. Zoomer fashion is about de-accentuation. Looking goofier/dumpier/lankier/etc. Baggy in the wrong places.
        maxbond 3y ago
        Help me understand what the difference is between what you're saying and the fretting that one generation always does about the aesthetic choices of the next generation? To me it sounds like you're saying, "young people are dressing differently, and that's a problem, because they should dress the way I did when I was their age."
        busterarm 3y ago
        You're reading way too into it. The topic was about zoomers not having as much sex. My point was effectively "of course, this is self-evident, look at how they dress!" because the clothes they wear are a deliberate choice to not be viewed sexually. De-emphasizing sexuality equates with having less of it. It's a kind of puritanism. Sex, especially when you're young, is often spontaneous and driven by sensory stimulus.
        maxbond 3y ago
        Again, no, it isn't. I'll refer you to the other comments where I made the case. Inferring how much sex a person is having from their clothes is "reading too much into it," people generally don't advertise their sex lives.
rpmisms 3y ago
Observation, and being part of the culture. Surveys are a decent model of reality, but they miss the flavor. Volcels are victims of the culture.
- maxbond 3y ago
  I think you might be proceeding backwards from your premises here, rather than proceeding from the evidence. Saying that people voluntarily being celibate are victims is a bit of a red flag. Do you think not having sex is an illness?