Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Causes of celibacy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Causes of sexlessness and inceldom
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
** High BMI or being overweight<ref name="haydon2013"></ref> | ** High BMI or being overweight<ref name="haydon2013"></ref> | ||
** Premature birth<ref>https://www.newsweek.com/babies-premature-romantic-partners-sex-parents-adults-1448938</ref> | ** Premature birth<ref>https://www.newsweek.com/babies-premature-romantic-partners-sex-parents-adults-1448938</ref> | ||
** [[medcel|Disease]], though in | ** [[medcel|Disease]], e.g. in a German sample, those with poor general health were only around 40% as likely to have had sex in the past four weeks compared to those in good health,<ref>https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/215850/Gesundheit-sexuelle-Aktivitaet-und-sexuelle-Zufriedenheit</ref> though in a student sample, immunocompetency was not linked to mating performance<ref>https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.160603</ref> | ||
** Low social status or peer status,<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Men.27s_social_status_accounts_for_62.25_of_the_variance_of_copulation_opportunities</ref> with the socially excluded having very low status. | ** Low social status or peer status,<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Men.27s_social_status_accounts_for_62.25_of_the_variance_of_copulation_opportunities</ref> with the socially excluded having very low status. | ||
** Physical disability. In a sample of physically disabled individuals, 47% did not have a partner, while in a matching sample of non-disabled individuals, 30% did not have a partner.<ref>Taleporos, G., & McCabe, M. P. (2002). Sexuality and Disability, 20(3), 177–183. doi:10.1023/a:1021493615456</ref> | ** Physical disability. In a sample of physically disabled individuals, 47% did not have a partner, while in a matching sample of non-disabled individuals, 30% did not have a partner.<ref>Taleporos, G., & McCabe, M. P. (2002). Sexuality and Disability, 20(3), 177–183. doi:10.1023/a:1021493615456</ref> | ||