this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
83 points (97.7% liked)

News

23270 readers
3739 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

For what researchers say is an array of reasons — including technology, heavy academic schedules and an overall slower-motion process of growing up — millennials and now Gen Zers are having less sex, with fewer partners, than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations did. The social isolation and transmission scares of the COVID-19 pandemic have no doubt played a role in the shift. But researchers say that’s not the whole story: The “no rush for sex” trend predates the pandemic, according to a solid body of research.

UCLA has been tracking behavioral trends for years through its annual California Health Interview Survey, the largest state health survey in the nation. It includes questions about sexual activity. In 2021, the survey found, the number of young Californians ages 18 to 30 who reported having no sexual partners in the prior year reached a decade high of 38%. In 2011, 22% of young people reported having no sexual partners during the prior year, and the percentage climbed fairly steadily as the decade progressed.

California adults ages 35 to 50 who participated in UCLA’s 2021 survey also registered an increase in abstinence from 2011 to 2021. But with the percentage of “no sex” respondents rising from 9% to 14% during that time frame, the increase was not as pronounced.

The broader trend of young adults forgoing sex holds true nationally.

The University of Chicago’s General Social Survey — which has been following shifts in Americans’ behavioral trends for decades — found that 3 in 10 Generation Z males, ages 18 to 25, surveyed in 2021 reported having gone without sex the prior year. One in four Gen Z women also reported having had no sex the prior year, according to Jean Twenge, a San Diego State University psychology professor who reviewed the data for her book “Generations.”

In an age where hook-ups might seem as unlimited as a right swipe on a dating app, it’s easy to assume that Gen Z “should be having the time of their lives sexually,” Twenge said.

But that’s not how it’s playing out. Twenge said the decline has been underway for roughly two decades.

She attributed the slowdown in sexual relations most significantly to what she calls the “slow-life factor.” Young people just aren’t growing up as fast as they once did. They’re delaying big milestones such as getting their driver’s licenses and going to college. And they’re living at home with their parents a lot longer.

“In times and places where people live longer and education takes longer, the whole developmental trajectory slows down,” she said. “And so for teens and young adults, one place that you’re going to notice that is in terms of dating and romantic relationships and sexuality.”

A slight majority of 18- to 30-year-olds — about 52% — reported having one sexual partner in 2021, a decrease from 2020, according to the UCLA survey. The proportion of young adults who reported having two or more sexual partners also declined, from 23% in 2011 to 10% in 2021.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fiat_lux@kbin.social 61 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I really dislike the phrase "failure to launch". They're not failures, they're not defective machines. They're people who, at least in part, are choosing not to have sex or be in a relationship. And if they aren't doing it by choice, then it most definitely isn't their responsibility for not "launching" into the roles they are expected to conform to.

Strange but true: Being in a romantic relationship is not a requirement to be a valid or great human being.

[–] ericlewisauthor@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This was a phrase mostly used for shaming men who didn't measure up to some princess's standards, just shy of 'incel.' Maybe the unintelligentsia has decided to use it more broadly now for anyone they want to mock.

[–] fiat_lux@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I only first heard it 20 years ago, I heard the phrase started in the 80's though. I heard it mostly used by older generations discussing why their children hadn't moved out after high school. Discussions which seemed to always ignore the increased generational cost of living gap and extreme rents at the time, while expecting young adults to be in full-time education. It was not used in a gender-specific way, probably because where I lived there had been changing expectations about women's independence and educations.

I can imagine that for other communities, which still expected that women would get married off young, stop working, and start having children, that there would have been additional expectations for the men they married to be able to provide for them.

I have women in my family who worked in organisations with rules which said that women had to resign when they got married. They were common rules for the time, along with no-divorce marriages. Were I a young woman back then, I would have been very selective about my long-term survival prospects too, faced with the choice of who I needed to rely on. If i were a young man back then, I also would have hated struggling to afford an extra group of people when being at the bottom of the pay/experience ladder.

tl;dr 'Incels' has a vastly different connotation to me and strict gender roles hurt everyone in different ways