The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

[7Wannabe5]

According to this chart, the very affluent US and Japan are at the bottom of the heap when it comes to sexual frequency.

http://chartsbin.com/view/uya

The AARP has alerted its members to the dangers associated with this trend.

http://www.aarp.org/relationships/love- ... ealth.html

Yet, no solution for this complex problem seems to be at hand. Beyond the associated physical health issues, IMHO this deficit is likely also correlated with the rise of the overall societal level of grouchiness which results in bizarre and frightening edge pool effects such as the political success of Donald Trump. It's pretty clear that the situation is approaching a critical tipping point when chubby 51 year old women who barely bother to clean garden dirt out of nails or attempt pull-ups are being practically besieged with requests from highly placed executives, yacht owners and others in possession of extremely low digit ratio.

[Toska2]

Hmmm updated six years ago, a recessionary time.

Delayed leaving the nest syndrome? Women desiring less sex because of age, previous experiences and being OK with celibacy? The rise of single parents making it harder to find a partner? The 60's and 70's artificially raised the bar of frequency (for Americans)? Something something about mice becoming asexual with overpopulation pressures. Lack of social skills from isolation? The realization that other activities are fun like warrior runs, mmorpg and mountain biking? Your success is n=1? Women devoting to their career?

I'd be happy to help but living out of a compact car is going to put a damper on the ashes.

[C40]

I would guess that Trump supporters actually have the most sex compared to the supporters of other candidates. Trump supporters more often come from low income people with little education. I believe these same people also have the most children. Sex does not always equal children of course, but I'd guess there is correlation.

It's the "rich", smart people who are working all the time are having less sex.

[7Wannabe5]

Toska2 said: I'd be happy to help but living out of a compact car is going t o put a damper on the ashes.

Well, Zalo seems to be doing okay for himself working out of a dorm room, and I live in a rather dangerous area and share an apartment with my sister (who is almost always home) and her dogs.

I think some of the suggestions you made are likely factors. IMO it definitely has something to do with affluenza.

ffj said: Wait, what? You mean to tell me a woman who seems to enjoy sex has no trouble attracting multiple men who want to reciprocate the same desires? Has it ever been an issue for a heterosexual woman to find a sexual partner? Maybe for her :

It was an issue for me the entire 19 years I was married. I'm still a teensy bit of a "biscuit hoarder" in this realm because of that terrible, terrible experience. However, it is true that I have never had problems attracting partners either before or after that absolutely miserable period. What I am speaking to is more my current bafflement with how easy I am finding it to attract many very attractive partners who inform me that it is difficult for them to find even reasonably attractive partners. Of course, as Toska1 noted n=1.

I agree that it is possible that I was being just a wee bit derisive with my Trump-related comment

[7Wannabe5]

C40 said: It's the "rich", smart people who are working all the time are having less sex.

I agree. That is what I am observing directly. The interesting thing is that it is not the case that these people have anything like debt locking them in.

[Peanut]

ffj said: Wait, what? You mean to tell me a woman who seems to enjoy sex has no trouble attracting multiple men who want to reciprocate the same desires? Has it ever been an issue for a heterosexual woman to find a sexual partner? Maybe for her :

It was an issue for me the entire 19 years I was married. I'm still a teensy bit of a "biscuit hoarder" in this realm because of that terrible, terrible experience. However, it is true that I have never had problems attracting partners either before or after that absolutely miserable period. What I am speaking to is more my current bafflement with how easy I am finding it to attract many very attractive partners who inform me that it is difficult for them to find even reasonably attractive partners. Of course, as Toska1 noted n=1.

But it was difficult because you were married then, right? Or did you mean the husband was inattentive?

[7Wannabe5]

@Peanut: I meant that I was married to a man whose sex drive right from the get-go was about 1/20th of mine. Other men were irrelevant at the time because I was not inclined towards infidelity, although I did at one point suggest opening up the marriage to polyamory. I know of many other women who are much more attractive than me in similar situations, and only one of them is married to a man who dropped out of Catholic seminary.

[Peanut]

Wow that surprises me. I guess I always figured the conventional wisdom about male sex drive is true. Maybe the women I know just haven't shared their frustrations on that front.

One of my old professors was a priest in training who ran off with a nun. It's like a roleplay come to life.

[7Wannabe5]

@Peanut: Right. Women who find themselves in that situation often do not discuss it because of combination of "shameful" and "odd." Also, it is typical to develop more than a bit of a Stockholm Syndrome. When I was first dating after I divorced my ex, I truly thought that men who were blatantly hitting on me were only doing it because they felt sorry for me. In retrospect, it is kind of funny. Then I met an artist, award-winning museum photographer who also did work for many bands such as the White Stripes, and he was a fantastic lover who absolutely loved my body type, and then I was 80% recovered. About 8 more guys telling me my ex was an insane idiot took me back up to about 95% of the confidence I had when I was a 16 year old on the beach Also helpful to observe the fact that my ex has maybe gone to the effort of getting laid once or twice in the 8 years since we split.

[jacob]

Not sure why this is a complex problem or even a problem? The entire AARP list of issues can be solved by light exercise such as 2mph walking, except the mostly non-lethal prostate issue which apparently is solved by masturbating in one's twenties. Not sure why this "deficit" is a problem either? Are we in some kind of race with other countries? Is sexual frequency an Olympic discipline? Is AARP worried that there won't be enough suckers to pay into SS? Is 7.1 billion people and counting not enough people for the planet?

FWIW, the US and Japan are also the top two countries in terms of time spent watching TV.

[7Wannabe5]

jacob said: The entire AARP list of issues can be solved by light exercise such as 2mph walking

Not true. It is much, much more complex than simply viewing the exertion of sexual activity as light exercise. Your body knows that you are or aren't having sex on a variety of levels. Physiological depression or anxiety lowers sex drive, and it is also true that lowered sexual activity increases depression and anxiety. Sex drive "naturally" decreases as hormone profiles change with aging, and it is also true that lowered sexual activity will hasten the aging process. If I had a penny for every time I've heard a man over the age of 40 say "You make me feel like a teenager.", well, I would certainly be a little bit further down the road to financial independence. Seriously, the older men I date are mostly quite affluent, quite fit and quite well able to access any needed or desired level of medical care, nutrition, recreation, whatever...they just aren't having enough sex, and when they start having enough sex they visibly perk up and improve functioning in a variety of ways, like plants that needed water.

Of course, what constitutes "enough" sex varies with the individual. I think it is mostly determined in the womb, like digit size, and it drops to around 1/3 of maximum by age 60. So, at the higher end of the spectrum, a man who felt the urge to ejaculate approximately 3X/day at age 19, would still probably want sex about once a day at age 59, and towards the other end of the spectrum, once a month would be down to 4X a year. Of course, the desire for frequency is complicated by the desire for variety or quality in partners and such factors as whether one has a preference for less frequent "10 mile runs" vs. more frequent "2 mile runs", current physical/mental health status etc etc., so this isn't a straight-forward calculation. When I was considering entering into monogamous contract with older men with varied relationship and sexual experience, I would ask them "What have you found to be your desired sexual frequency with your partner after 3 years in committed monogamous relationship?" and it takes most men about half-a-second to come up with this answer.

Is sexual frequency an Olympic discipline?

Of course, sex is much more important and interesting than something as deathly boring as organized sports It's more like dancing. Often the emotional and social context is more relevant than skill or performance, like when you are dancing with your beloved partner of 30 years at your anniversary party. Sometimes it's more like you were just assigned a new partner on "So You Think You Can Dance" and you slap each other 5 afterwards because it was so much fun to dance with each other and damn that lift was finely executed. Other times it's more spiritual or transcendent like lyrical ballet, and you are together and yet alone with the music. Etc.etc.etc. I have a very hard time comprehending why some people don't enjoy it all that much, but usually when I question them further it turns out that they suffer from some sort of horrible level of self-consciousness or shame. For instance, many women are loathe to assume some positions because parts of their bodies they believe to be too fat would be on display, and some men train themselves in a dysfunctional manner to absent themselves in order to delay ejaculation.

Anyways, although in theory it is possible that I could partner with 4 men around my age with average/high drives, in practice I am finding it to be impossible simply due to scheduling and communication difficulties. Therefore, some more of my female peers are going to have to step up to the plate if they care about the overall health, longevity and happiness of their male peers. The primary puzzle to be solved in this thread is why they either do not care or do not find it to be in their own self-interest to make themselves available.

[GandK]

Of course, what constitutes "enough" sex varies with the individual. I think it is mostly determined in the womb, like digit size, and it drops to around 1/3 of maximum by age 60.
...
The primary puzzle to be solved in this thread is why they either do not care or do not find it to be in their own self-interest to make themselves available.

Thinking through this issue... I haven't had many partners, but I can say from my own experience that my sex drive varies enormously depending on my partner's. Specifically: if his sex drive is significantly higher than mine, mine drops (irrespective of his skill level, BTW). And if our drives are roughly equal or if mine is higher, my sex drive increases. Broadly speaking, the more often I am approached physically, the less sex my body seems to think it needs, and vice versa. Maybe this is the sexual version of the plenty/scarcity mentality? And if it's not just me who feels this way, you may be running into males with high drives who have made themselves over-available to their primary mates.

Also, men sometimes treat their wives like their caretakers, which brings out the mothering instinct, which IME is the #1 libido killer for women. Absent a very specific fetish, Mommy and Lover cannot exist in the same space. It's like Esther Perel says: being wanted is sexy, being needed is not.

[enigmaT120]

I was wondering how the scheduling and communication issues worked, thinking it would be complicated. I guess I'm not always wrong! I'm not lazy physically but I have a low tolerance for hassles.

[Ego]

I was wondering how the scheduling and communication issues worked, thinking it would be complicated. I guess I'm not always wrong! I'm not lazy physically but I have a low tolerance for hassles.

Someone needs to make an app for that.

[jacob]

Also, men sometimes treat their wives like their caretakers, which brings out the mothering instinct, which IME is the #1 libido killer for women. Absent a very specific fetish, Mommy and Lover cannot exist in the same space. It's like Esther Perel says: being wanted is sexy, being needed is not.

Ditto "Wife and Lover in the same space". Apparently two of the best ways to stop having sex is to: 1) Get married; 2) Have [enough] children.

This makes sense insofar that if the biological goal is to procreate, that goal has been met at that point.

Looking at more detailed statistics the twofer of being "married with children" generally means having far less sex than average. Conversely, being an actively dating polyamorist probably means having far more sex than average. Sexual frequency likely depends a lot on the environment/structural limits one finds oneself in although personal hormone levels also play a role. Indeed personal biochemistry might lead to a preference for said structures.

Issues that apply to most other interests apply to sex as well:
* Decreasing marginal returns. It's more fun in the beginning than it is later on.
* Acquisition costs. If "fun sex" is the cost of tying the knot and not an inherent driver, the fun will likely go away after the acquisition has been made.
* Other things become more interesting/preferred which further decreases the interest in sex (the ingenuity gap)

[7Wannabe5]

GandK said: Thinking through this issue... I haven't had many partners, but I can say from my own experience that my sex drive varies enormously depending on my partner's. Specifically: if his sex drive is significantly higher than mine, mine drops (irrespective of his skill level, BTW). And if our drives are roughly equal or if mine is higher, my sex drive increases. Broadly speaking, the more often I am approached physically, the less sex my body seems to think it needs, and vice versa. Maybe this is the sexual version of the plenty/scarcity mentality? And if it's not just me who feels this way, you may be running into males with high drives who have made themselves over-available to their primary mates.

Also, men sometimes treat their wives like their caretakers, which brings out the mothering instinct, which IME is the #1 libido killer for women. Absent a very specific fetish, Mommy and Lover cannot exist in the same space. It's like Esther Perel says: being wanted is sexy, being needed is not.

Yes. These are very common suggested causes for the problem of sex death in long-term relationships. The first doesn't just apply to sex. A couple can start out with one person in the 40th percentile towards messy and the other in the 60th percentile towards neat, and 10 years later it will be the war of total slob vs. uptight germaphobe. However, since people tend towards being particularly sensitive in the realm of sexuality, this polar division is even more commonly experienced. I would note that some types seem to vary in this regard, probably INFP being the most sensitive and ESTJ being the most impervious. The neediness can develop as part of this deepening cycle because rejection is hurtful, so that tends towards causing either more needy/clingy or more cold/distancing behavior. One solution that sometimes works is to simply make a statement along the lines of "I do not intend to remain in a sexless marriage. Either we start having sex on a regular basis, or I will begin to look elsewhere." (and not be bluffing), and part of the reason why this works is that it is not and can not be seen as the statement of a needy child, but rather that of an adult prepared to fulfill his own druthers. This method does not tend to work as well when it is the wife who is the high drive partner because even low-drive men tend more towards having oppositional defiant (cut off nose to spite face) reactions to ultimatums.

enigmaT120 said: I was wondering how the scheduling and communication issues worked, thinking it would be complicated. I guess I'm not always wrong! I'm not lazy physically but I have a low tolerance for hassles.

Yeah, the main difficulty is of the "when it rains it pours" variety. It has literally happened that I have had three text messages from three different men requesting my company for that evening come rolling in within a 5 minute span.

jacob said: Looking at more detailed statistics the twofer of being "married with children" generally means having far less sex than average. Conversely, being an actively dating polyamorist probably means having far more sex than average. Sexual frequency likely depends a lot on the environment/structural limits one finds oneself in although personal hormone levels also play a role. Indeed personal biochemistry might lead to a preference for said structures.

True-ish. My recent ex and I lived together for around 3 years and we were both self-aware high drive, so our verbal contract was "Just say 'Yes'" and we continuously had sex around 8X/week (That's why I'm pretty sure I could handle 4 high average guys my age if it weren't for the scheduling hassles.) If he hadn't driven me out of my freakin' mind with some of his other behaviors, I think we would still be going strong. I think we surpassed the total encounters of my 19 year marriage shortly after the first year mark. Of course, he was also supporting me in a lifestyle that allowed me to lounge about in a robe until mid-afternoon many days, so...

I definitely agree that it is my personal high-drive biochemistry combined with my easy-going personality type that is behind my preference for polyamory. I think I first had the thought that maybe I ought to have more than one boyfriend when I was around 15 years old. One of the things I really appreciate about my older lover who is overtly polyamorous himself is that he truly accepts me as I am with no reservations or judgment.

Issues that apply to most other interests apply to sex as well:
* Decreasing marginal returns. It's more fun in the beginning than it is later on.
* Acquisition costs. If "fun sex" is the cost of tying the knot and not an inherent driver, the fun will likely go away after the acquisition has been made.
* Other things become more interesting/preferred which further decreases the interest in sex (the ingenuity gap)

This really has a lot to do with perspective on relationships and sex. If you stop thinking in terms of monogamy, you also stop thinking as much in terms of acquisition or possession or fail/succeed quest or mission. Your sexual and/or romantic relationships become more like all your other adult relationships. Like if you are a person who is really into martial arts and finance then you might have a lot of relationships that have something to do with those interests. My one lover and I have a relationship that is at least as much based on our mutual obsession with the practice of permaculture as it is about sex, but I know I would not possibly be able to live with somebody with his personality type. But, what if you could have hawt sex with your new golfing buddy and a continuing deep affection for a member of your book group and a mad crush on that girl who keeps coming in to buy paint at the hardware store where you work part-time etc, etc, so that all your interests and partners were changing and mish-mashed forever?

OTOH, I'm not really suggesting that polyamory is the ingenious solution to the known problems of egalitarian marriage and mating among the affluent. I think a greater level of awareness of the complexities of human sexuality might serve as well.

[GandK]

* Decreasing marginal returns. It's more fun in the beginning than it is later on.

This is not my experience. My enjoyment of sex has always been a reflection of how good I feel about my marriage/relationship when I climb into bed, no matter how long we've been together. Based on my reading, I believe mine is the normal experience of NF females.

[Jean]

I have a huge sex drive, I think most male do, and I accepted me never having enough sex as a part of life.
It feels that all the men between 15 and 60 are competing for about a third of the women between 18 and 35, and as it's probably simililar to a winner takes all game, men are doomed to be frustrated and inclined to warmonging and raping.
The end of monogamy as a norm is the main cause of this situation. This is due to birth control, and unlawing it would be more efficient in limiting mass murders than a magical disapearance of every gun.
Or we could stop as a society considering not having enough sex as the ultimate loser stygma.

[jacob]

Data science-based dating strategies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6wG_sAdP0U
http://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/

[7Wannabe5]

@Jean: I think there is some degree of truth in what you are communicating and I empathize with your frustration, but why a regressive solution rather than a progressive solution? If women, not just men, are truly freed from the stigma of having multiple partners then it should result in more access for everyone. Of course, this is not really a new concept. As far back as the 8th century BC, the Khorramites (heretical Muslim/Zoroastarian sect, name roughly translates as "the ribald or joyous ones") were described thus by contemporaries:

...believe in communal access to women, provided that the women agree, and in free access to everything in which the self takes pleasure and to which nature inclines, as long as no-one is harmed thereby

and:

They say that a woman is like a flower, no matter who smells it, nothing is detracted from it.

Another possible solution would be the legalization and de-stigmatization of sex work. Anyways, I formed enough intimate acquaintance with Iranian women to be able to inform you that reducing the economic power or freedom of women absolutely does not insure men of healthy sex lives. Even in cultures where women are trained/told to never deny their husbands sex, there is nothing to stop them from exhibiting their complete lack of enthusiasm for the encounter. Also, beyond the population issues likely to be caused by banning birth control, any reading of pre-feminist women's literature will inform you that popping out 4 babies in 4 years can be a pretty serious desire kill.

@jacob: Interesting links. Being rather nerdy myself, I did a bit of similar research to maximize the appeal of my profile, but nothing approaching the projects of those two.-lol. Also, I must be pretty much the opposite personality type of Amy since what everybody in my circle of acquaintance always tells me is that I am not picky enough. Anyways, this is the first paragraph of my profile:

The traits that I seek in a man are the three I's: Intelligence, Initiative and...hmm... what was that third 'I'? Let me think. Insouciance? (No, although it might be attractive in the right context.). Inhibitions? (No.No.No.). Imagination? (Good trait but I have enough (too much?)of my own.)...Okay, now I remember! Biceps! (rhymes with 'I' so close enough. I'm not looking for anything Schwarzneggian here just a show of sinew will do.)