I don't see any real evidence in that article for the claim in the headline. If anything, all the trends she's pointing to go the other way, and the supporting anecdotes she has are clearly called out as unusual exceptions to the rule.
Taking history as a precedent, the pendulum is likely to swing the other way eventually, though it'll still surprise us when and in what form it comes. That's just how these things go. But if (as I've just done...) the author is only relying on the patterns of history to make this claim, and not any actual data, the rest of the article is superfluous.
The 2x differential between GenX sex rates and the current sex rates seems like a pretty good statistic. Can't imagine anything that's affecting that number but the massive distribution of pornography enabled by the advent of the internet, reducing the need for real intimacy, especially given the way that our culture is even more hyper sexualized than back in the 60s and more enabled by dating apps.
There is a pandemic, young people are increasingly struggling to move out of their parents houses, and young people are increasingly not able to afford to go out and socialise as much.
If I wanted to start making guesses, I'd also say that we have better sex ed and better media that reduces the pressure on teenagers to have sex as early as possible.
The trend have been long established before the pandemic was a thing, and although I do think that that the reduction in economic prospects have affected it, that should be somewhat offset with what I have previously stated, which is an increasing predilection for sexual promiscuity in our culture while enabled by greater access via dating apps. The fact that the reverse is happening, that in fact the rate of teenage hookups have dramatically fallen, is, in my mind, an affirmation for the disastrous effects that massively distributed pornography has played in our romantic culture, substituting the drive for romantic courtship and promoting anti social activities.
And anyways, what does reducing pressures on teens to have sex as early as possible (which I whole heartily agree with) have to do with the facts that we were discussing anyways?
Phthalates and other hormone disrupters, both in vitro and as a growing youth, are also a cause. Children are being immersed in chemicals that are harmful, and it is fucking up their hormonal, endocrine, and other systems that guide/form/control our sex.
It's difficult to provide evidence for a prediction (perhaps you just mean data), but perhaps a counter revolution is already here, based on this:
"Between 1991 and 2017, the percentage of high-school students who’d had intercourse dropped from 54 percent to 40 percent. Today, people in their early 20s are twice as likely to be sexually abstinent as Gen Xers were at the same age."
But revolution is also probably the wrong word. I believe the sexual revolution in the 60's was rather sudden, all things considered. The trend depicted in the article just seems like a gradual decline, or perhaps the reversion to some sort of society mean.
This is just a random columnist's assertion that some young people with pretty insecure and controlling views of sex and relationships represent a trend or a "counter revolution". While I don't at all doubt that there are many people who hold these views, I'd refrain from calling it a trend until I see some solid evidence.
There is no better time in the history of civilization to live and that includes the freedom of sexual relationships. You can use the internet to find any type of group interested in exactly what you are, from the most wholesome religious dating to the most open, kink-positive open-relationship group-house lifestyle you can imagine. And these more-less exist in every moderately-sized city in the west, or some form of it. And at parties if people start discussing this stuff no one cares from a judgemental aspect, it’s more like “oh wow cool”. I can’t buy this article whatsoever except there exists a subset of social conservatives at elite colleges who care about abstinence and dressing like puritans. Good for them!
I think freedom to choose per se is generally good, but no guidance about how to choose isn't necessarily: nudges[0] can be very important.
Freedom to eat whatever you want is fine, maybe good, but not having guidance on what kinds of food to eat can be bad. We don't always know what's going to make us happy in the long term, especially e.g. with things that involve trading off immediate pain for deferred benefit (exercising, dieting).
Why does everything have to be a swing between extremes? Why does everything have to be a bitter war? Why can't people just let other people live their lives, as long as they're not hurting anyone?
Clearly there's a lot of value in plain old traditional marriage, being a housewife, being a husband, supporting your kids etc. We likely can't have a civilization unless a certain percentage of people are doing this, and certainly not a very healthy one. But that doesn't mean EVERYONE needs to be forced into it, anymore than EVERYONE needing to be forced into being single, career-focused and sleeping around. If some people want to live wild and carefree, let them without calling them trash. If others want to give up a career to raise kids, let them, without calling them fools and an insult to their gender. Different people require different lifestyles. If we run short on the family types (as we may be doing), incentivize that lifestyle a bit. I hear Japan actually pays people (a little) to have kids. But otherwise, just leave people alone.
> If we run short on the family types (as we may be doing), incentivize that lifestyle a bit. I hear Japan actually pays people (a little) to have kids.
It's not that unusual in the West either, it's just most often done by giving tax breaks to married couples. You probably won't be able to incentivize this kind of lifestyle any time soon, because people will scream discrimination if you tried to, just like they did about the marriage.
I agree with your sentiment - there is value in both sides and the freedom to choose at the individual level is great. The swing between extremes is because of the abuse of power that accompanies each cultural or political period. The article touches on this:
> ‘Voicing any of this stuff openly is just social suicide,’ he says. So much so, in fact, that ‘Narayan’ is a pseudonym: there’s simply no way he can afford to be quoted about this under his real name without risking social censure or even repercussions at work.
When people cannot share their opinions freely, and cannot do so without an extensive impact across their life (for example on work), then only the ideas in power can circulate. That happens until things reach a boiling point - motivating a swing towards other extremes.
Lots of systems get to a place where there are load-bearing components and no one is around to explain how they got there, why they're important, or even that they are load-bearing. In systems that evolve via selection, even going back historically, there might never have been a good justification for those components. There's probably systems where we've had almost exclusively _incorrect_ explanations for why those components are important.
I suspect a lot of human culture is like this. There's traditions and religious rules and other norms, and we don't really know why or even that certain traditions are important. The justifications for things like sexual modesty and religion aren't great, in fact maybe were never good, but the fact that society adopted them among all possible things it could have adopted _may_ indicate that they in fact serve useful purposes, even if we're not currently totally clear on what those are.
So I think as society becomes more rational, we see lots of components with bad justifications, get rid of them, and only then realize that those components were serving important functions that we weren't (perhaps ever) really consciously aware of.
Not to say this is bad: there's a lot of genuine cruft that ought to be removed, and it's good to discover what's cruft and what's actually important, but I think this is an explanation for why you see pendulums like this.
Its kind of weird to see this without something like (1985) in front of it, the sexual counterrevolution already happened.
Even for the reaction against more recent hookup culture (for which “sexual counterrevolution” is a silly name), we’re many years into that, and its been widely observed, too, so the headline here seems to be really leaning hard into predicting the past.
19 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 51.7 ms ] threadTaking history as a precedent, the pendulum is likely to swing the other way eventually, though it'll still surprise us when and in what form it comes. That's just how these things go. But if (as I've just done...) the author is only relying on the patterns of history to make this claim, and not any actual data, the rest of the article is superfluous.
There is a pandemic, young people are increasingly struggling to move out of their parents houses, and young people are increasingly not able to afford to go out and socialise as much.
If I wanted to start making guesses, I'd also say that we have better sex ed and better media that reduces the pressure on teenagers to have sex as early as possible.
And anyways, what does reducing pressures on teens to have sex as early as possible (which I whole heartily agree with) have to do with the facts that we were discussing anyways?
"Between 1991 and 2017, the percentage of high-school students who’d had intercourse dropped from 54 percent to 40 percent. Today, people in their early 20s are twice as likely to be sexually abstinent as Gen Xers were at the same age."
But revolution is also probably the wrong word. I believe the sexual revolution in the 60's was rather sudden, all things considered. The trend depicted in the article just seems like a gradual decline, or perhaps the reversion to some sort of society mean.
Freedom to eat whatever you want is fine, maybe good, but not having guidance on what kinds of food to eat can be bad. We don't always know what's going to make us happy in the long term, especially e.g. with things that involve trading off immediate pain for deferred benefit (exercising, dieting).
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book)
Clearly there's a lot of value in plain old traditional marriage, being a housewife, being a husband, supporting your kids etc. We likely can't have a civilization unless a certain percentage of people are doing this, and certainly not a very healthy one. But that doesn't mean EVERYONE needs to be forced into it, anymore than EVERYONE needing to be forced into being single, career-focused and sleeping around. If some people want to live wild and carefree, let them without calling them trash. If others want to give up a career to raise kids, let them, without calling them fools and an insult to their gender. Different people require different lifestyles. If we run short on the family types (as we may be doing), incentivize that lifestyle a bit. I hear Japan actually pays people (a little) to have kids. But otherwise, just leave people alone.
Angry or condescending judgement is bad, but I don't think advocating for doing things one way over another is.
It's not that unusual in the West either, it's just most often done by giving tax breaks to married couples. You probably won't be able to incentivize this kind of lifestyle any time soon, because people will scream discrimination if you tried to, just like they did about the marriage.
> ‘Voicing any of this stuff openly is just social suicide,’ he says. So much so, in fact, that ‘Narayan’ is a pseudonym: there’s simply no way he can afford to be quoted about this under his real name without risking social censure or even repercussions at work.
When people cannot share their opinions freely, and cannot do so without an extensive impact across their life (for example on work), then only the ideas in power can circulate. That happens until things reach a boiling point - motivating a swing towards other extremes.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...
Lots of systems get to a place where there are load-bearing components and no one is around to explain how they got there, why they're important, or even that they are load-bearing. In systems that evolve via selection, even going back historically, there might never have been a good justification for those components. There's probably systems where we've had almost exclusively _incorrect_ explanations for why those components are important.
I suspect a lot of human culture is like this. There's traditions and religious rules and other norms, and we don't really know why or even that certain traditions are important. The justifications for things like sexual modesty and religion aren't great, in fact maybe were never good, but the fact that society adopted them among all possible things it could have adopted _may_ indicate that they in fact serve useful purposes, even if we're not currently totally clear on what those are.
So I think as society becomes more rational, we see lots of components with bad justifications, get rid of them, and only then realize that those components were serving important functions that we weren't (perhaps ever) really consciously aware of.
Not to say this is bad: there's a lot of genuine cruft that ought to be removed, and it's good to discover what's cruft and what's actually important, but I think this is an explanation for why you see pendulums like this.
Its kind of weird to see this without something like (1985) in front of it, the sexual counterrevolution already happened.
Even for the reaction against more recent hookup culture (for which “sexual counterrevolution” is a silly name), we’re many years into that, and its been widely observed, too, so the headline here seems to be really leaning hard into predicting the past.