Demographics of inceldom: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Demographics of inceldom (edit)

Revision as of 23:51, 25 July 2021

4,784 bytes removed ,  25 July 2021
m
Reverted edits by Altmark22 (talk) to last revision by Bibipi
(→‎Women decide over celibacy rates: rewrote this section, adding much more detail, improving the sentence structure, and making the argument presented more nuanced. sorry, but I had to delete some existing text because it would not fit with my rewrite. section may be a tad long now, thinking of even making a distinct hatfield and clark article)
Tag: Reverted
m (Reverted edits by Altmark22 (talk) to last revision by Bibipi)
Tag: Rollback
Line 325: Line 325:


Some findings suggest men with poor mating performance (e.g. experiencing singledom) are more prone to depressive symptoms, but other findings suggest that poor mating performance is related with equally lower well-being for both sexes (see [[adverse effects of inceldom]]). Yet, the difference in libido and coyness should imply that women, but not men, can get sex easily if they wanted. Women exhibit also a more [[fake depression|childish neuroticism]] overall which is also often not taken as seriously. There is a chance that both men and women are, however, substantially selected for [[arranged marriage]], so even though women might be able to get into a relationship easier, their behavioral dispositions might ultimately prevent them from doing so, possibly also driving them into an adverse condition (see [[evolutionary mismatch]]).
Some findings suggest men with poor mating performance (e.g. experiencing singledom) are more prone to depressive symptoms, but other findings suggest that poor mating performance is related with equally lower well-being for both sexes (see [[adverse effects of inceldom]]). Yet, the difference in libido and coyness should imply that women, but not men, can get sex easily if they wanted. Women exhibit also a more [[fake depression|childish neuroticism]] overall which is also often not taken as seriously. There is a chance that both men and women are, however, substantially selected for [[arranged marriage]], so even though women might be able to get into a relationship easier, their behavioral dispositions might ultimately prevent them from doing so, possibly also driving them into an adverse condition (see [[evolutionary mismatch]]).
===Women decide over celibacy rates===


{{see_also|[[Briffault's law]] and [[Hypergamy]]}}
{{see_also|[[Briffault's law]] and [[Hypergamy]]}}
Several lines of research have supported the hypothesis that women, being the [[sexual selector]]s, play a decisive role in determining when sex will occur in relationships.
Cohen and Shotland (1996) examined the sexual behaviors of introductory psychology students. They found a correlation between when people thought sex should start in a given relationship and when they began having sex, which was non-significant for men, but very high for women (r = .88, p < .01).
This data means only women decide when sex occurs, at least in  the sorts of relationships that examined in this portion of the study, which were exclusively "relationships with a high level of closeness and mutual physical attraction."<ref>https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499609551846</ref>
This female ability to effectively defer male sexual access may differ in short-term relationships, which may be more often defined by higher levels of male sexual coercion and a lower/non-existent emotional connection between partners.
Furthermore, in the famous Hatfield & Clark study from 1989, 75% of men accepted explicit sexual invitations from random real-life women, whereas 0% of women accepted such offers.<ref>https://www.sciencefriday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/gender-differences-in-receptivity-to-sexual-offers.pdf.</ref>
However, aggregated together with Hatfield and Clark's (1990) follow-up experiment, a total of 6.7% of women did accept an offer to visit the strange man's apartment, a strong indicator of genuine interest in a potential casual sexual encounter.


The Florida study also showed that both genders accept dates at a similar rate. The discovery that women accept dates at a similar degree when the offerer is reasonably physically attractive but outright refuse direct sexual offers suggests they use dates as a vetting mechanism. Even relatively promiscuous women (the women who accepted the offer to visit the man's apartments, presumably) appear to default to coyness in response to crude sexual passes. However, some would argue that this coy refusal takes the form of a [[shit test]] and that a man who pushes this issue further would meet with luck in some instances.
Cohen and Shotland (1996) found a correlation between when people thought sex should start in a given relationship and when they actually began having sex, which was low for men (r = .19, n.s.), but very high for women (r = .88, p < .01), meaning only women [[sexual selector|decide]] when sex occurs.<ref>https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499609551846</ref>


However, there have been attempts to replicate this study; however, some were non-naturalistic, making their findings tentative.
Further, in a 1989 peer-reviewed study that took place at Florida State University, 75% of men accepted random sex-invitations from random real-life women, whereas 0% of women accepted such offers.<ref>https://www.sciencefriday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/gender-differences-in-receptivity-to-sexual-offers.pdf.</ref> This combats the notion that men have choice in casual sex matters when they are not high-status, due to 0% of women accepting random-sex no-strings offers in a setting high in casual sex. That men have no choice in casual sex matters also makes overall celibacy rates seem to be mostly a product of women's choices than mens.  The Florida study also showed both genders accept dates at a similar rate.  That more women accept dates rather than direct-sex invitations suggest they use dates as a vetting mechanism, whereas men less so.
Of the naturalistic replications, Guéguen (2011) found much higher acceptance rates for the indirect approach than Hatfield & Clark in a city on "the Atlantic coast of Britanny."
He found that having the male rater be of high vs. low attractiveness had a moderate-to-large effect (''d'' = 0.72) on whether women would accept the offer to visit his apartment alone or not. This difference was not significant for the explicit sex offer, likely owing to the low sample size.<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21369773/</ref>


Further, Baronowski & Hecht (2015) also replicated Hatfield & Clark's findings in Germany across several conditions (campus and party setting.) They found a lower effect for sexual attractiveness on and higher effect for "perceived sexual skills," however, these two constructs were significantly overlapping and theorized to represent sub-factors of a higher-order construct.<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25828991/</ref>
There have been attempts to replicate this study in practice or theory, however all appear to have been non-naturalistic studies, unlike Hatfield and Clark, making them ultimately not interesting. They also vary in conclusions.  There is agreement with Hatfield and Clark,<ref>https://interpersona.psychopen.eu/article/view/121/html</ref> while others point out the original study was about low-information sex invitations, or invitations where the man only disclosed they were human, or, "children of God", so to speak. I.e. they also hypothesize women will only accept casual sex invitations after vetting the social status or "sexual skill" of men, whereas men accept regardless, making women ultimately the [[sexual selector|sexual selectors]].
They found that no women accepted a direct offer of casual sex in the campus context. Only one accepted a casual sex offer in the party environment (though possibly a fluke.)
Baumeister summarized on the sex difference in sex drive: "Given the mismatch between men's and women's desires, most men are doomed to experience chronic sexual frustration. […] They are doomed to be horny."<ref>Baumeister & Tice, 2001</ref>
Barowski & Hecht also conducted a follow-up experiment to attempt to examine if the common counterargument to the Hatfield and Clark finding of women refusing casual sex more because they have more concern about their physical safety with strangers compared to men. Subjects told they would be taking part in a dating study and then were presented with photos of people who had also seen their picture. They were then told the people in the photos either wanted a date or sex with them. The research team would then actually arrange and film their meeting, leaving them to have the date or a sexual encounter.
These results ''strongly'' imply women are the ''gatekeepers'' of sex<ref>https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf</ref> and hence decide over celibacy rates.
All of the male subjects agreed to have a date or sex with at least one woman, replicating Hatfield and Clark's findings in that regard.
However, it contradicted Hatfield & Clark's finding somewhat. The women in this study did not exhibit a significant difference in the number of men they chose to have a date with compared to having sex with (2.8 vs. 2.7).
This finding suggests that women may be [[female sneakiness|quite deceptive]] regarding how they accept offers for casual sex. With the right man and in the proper context (i.e., when they feel their personal safety and reputation is assured against damage), they may be much more willing to engage in illicit sexual encounters, though still to a lesser extent than men.
 
Thus these studies vary in conclusions.  Most agree with Hatfield and Clark that men are consistently more open to casual sexual offers than women, regardless of the context in which these offers occur.<ref>https://interpersona.psychopen.eu/article/view/121/html</ref>  
Ultimately, women are still the [[sexual selector|sexual selectors]] in all of these results. Very few men refuse random romantic overtures from women, it seems, apart from some mated men. However, one study, these sorts of men were noted to be apologetic in their refusals to the women when they rejected them on account of already being partnered.
 
These findings all converge on the ultimate conclusion that men, nearly universally, have a strong drive to maximize mating opportunities whenever they can.
Women typically exhibit coyness in response to male approaches, seeking to defer the man's offer and receive higher investment from them in the form of a prolonged [[courtship]], acting as a way to test his commitment to her and his general suitability as a mate.  
However, many women do seem reasonably open to no-strings-attached sex when their sexual pleasure is more assured (i.e., they find the man more attractive and believe he is highly sexually skilled), when the encounter is covert (protecting them from [[gossip]]), and when they believe their physical safety is more secure.
 
The distinguished social psychologist, Professor [[Roy Baumeister]], sagely summarized the sex difference in mating drive: "Given the mismatch between men's and women's desires, most men are doomed to experience chronic sexual frustration. […] They are doomed to be horny."<ref>Baumeister & Tice, 2001</ref>
Ergo, women, at least in modern society, are essentially the ''gatekeepers'' of sex<ref>https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf</ref> and hence they decide the celibacy rates.


===Have women become sluttier?===
===Have women become sluttier?===
Line 593: Line 572:
The high level of sexlessness among Australia youth seems to indicate a general slowing in [[life history]] speed, with people increasingly deferring sex and reproduction beyond their 20s, leaving many men in their late teens and 20s completely sexless. In contrast, sexlessness sharply decreases in the mid-20s onwards among women, likely as they increasingly settle down into (often serially) monogamous relationships, as many men of the same age bracket are still sexless, perhaps due to female economic [[hypergamy]] related choosiness and other factors.  
The high level of sexlessness among Australia youth seems to indicate a general slowing in [[life history]] speed, with people increasingly deferring sex and reproduction beyond their 20s, leaving many men in their late teens and 20s completely sexless. In contrast, sexlessness sharply decreases in the mid-20s onwards among women, likely as they increasingly settle down into (often serially) monogamous relationships, as many men of the same age bracket are still sexless, perhaps due to female economic [[hypergamy]] related choosiness and other factors.  
Similar to the trends found in other developed nations, there is a reasonably large gender gap (favoring women) in terms of the proportion of the population who has attained a Bachelor's degree or above, particularly among the younger generation, which may partially explain male sexlessness in these age brackets, as women have a general sexual preference for men with an equivalent or higher level of education than themselves, at least in regards to long-term relationships.<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Women_prefer_men_with_high_income_and_high_educational_status</ref> However, it is important to note that rates of male social withdrawal and underemployment do not seem particularly pronounced in Australia compared to other countries.<ref>https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/education-and-work-australia/latest-release</ref>
Similar to the trends found in other developed nations, there is a reasonably large gender gap (favoring women) in terms of the proportion of the population who has attained a Bachelor's degree or above, particularly among the younger generation, which may partially explain male sexlessness in these age brackets, as women have a general sexual preference for men with an equivalent or higher level of education than themselves, at least in regards to long-term relationships.<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Women_prefer_men_with_high_income_and_high_educational_status</ref> However, it is important to note that rates of male social withdrawal and underemployment do not seem particularly pronounced in Australia compared to other countries.<ref>https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/education-and-work-australia/latest-release</ref>
In some Australian states, the amount of young people attaining driver's licenses has seen a secular decrease,<ref>https://chartingtransport.com/2015/03/09/trends-in-drivers-license-ownership-in-australia/</ref> mirroring trends found in other developed nations.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20150310235505/http://www.eng.monash.edu.au/news/shownews.php?nid=2&year=2015</ref> This may provide weak evidence of an overall slowing of the attainment of developmental milestones which is likely correlated with sexlessness rates and later age of first marriage.


On the city level, a survey conducted in 2016 by the lifestyle magazine Body and Soul found the highest number of adult virgins over the age of 31 (male and female combined) was in Melbourne with almost 4% of the population over 31 being virgins. In this survey, 5% of people of both sexes surveyed nationwide reported losing their virginity after the age of 25.<ref>https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/health/body-soul-daily/sex-lives-of-australians-revealed-in-national-bodysoul-survey/news-story/1295bc6b2f76cbc9d4200e97d2ebc756</ref> No details about the general methodology and any in-depth information pertaining to the characteristics of the respondents to this survey were provided.  
On the city level, a survey conducted in 2016 by the lifestyle magazine Body and Soul found the highest number of adult virgins over the age of 31 (male and female combined) was in Melbourne with almost 4% of the population over 31 being virgins. In this survey, 5% of people of both sexes surveyed nationwide reported losing their virginity after the age of 25.<ref>https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/health/body-soul-daily/sex-lives-of-australians-revealed-in-national-bodysoul-survey/news-story/1295bc6b2f76cbc9d4200e97d2ebc756</ref> No details about the general methodology and any in-depth information pertaining to the characteristics of the respondents to this survey were provided.  
Retrieved from "https://incels.wiki/w/Special:MobileDiff/63010"

Navigation menu