We’d kicked off a discussion earlier this month on why young men, in a sharp departure from their historical birthright of horniness and reasonable ability to gratify those urges, were not getting laid or even dating all that much. Since this conundrum is kinda-sort acknowledged in the mainstream press but not discussed in detail, reader observations, which sometimes included details of encounters and relationships, were extremely helpful.
The picture that emerged (and again, across all young men and women, there is bound to be a lot of variation) was of men often finding women more exacting about sex, as in desiring it more often than men do and being demanding about male performance and appearance, including very tightly circumscribed and difficult to discern ideas about what acceptable flirting v. gross come-ons amount to. Women (and men too, truth be told) still are attached to the old normal of women marrying/dating up, when with young women now outdoing men in educational attainment, means even more demand for a smaller pool of relative alphas. Yet most women also want fidelity.1
This dynamic seems to be so widespread that calling it “reverse Lysistrata” is not much of a stretch. Those who remember your classics will recall that in the Aristophanes comedy, Lysistrata organized a sex strike in Athens and Sparta to try to end the Peloponnesian War. Obviously, we don’t have anything so programmatic in play here.
But men dropping out to a meaningful degree from dating and marriage (and college) does have some similarity, in that men are withholding sex over they unhappiness with new gender norms and their enforcement not just by women but often institutions. One obvious illustration: for a man on campus to have sex with what in the stone ages of my youth was called a co-ed is now incredibly risky. What in the past might merely have been bad date/bad sex can be escalated by a woman into a rape accusation, even if the issue was poor communication, as opposed to the use of force.
It’s been nagging at me how to take this examination further. In our last post, we linked to an article in Cosmopolitan that confirmed that getting even good anecdata is hard; the author had great difficulty finding 30 men in relationships or actively dating to talk to her, and many were gay. So the reader input was actually significant relative to the very limited in-depth knowledge on this topic. Therefore, please forgive the musings below as what consultants call a forcing device: presenting preliminary information and theories for the client to react to and correct as needed.
In this post, we’re going to hone in on the decline in the social and relative economic status of men, since not only is it an issue for men in and of itself, but serves as a force multiplier for some of the other impediments. But we don’t want to diminish the notion that this is a tangled problem.
At a very high level, there’s great disconnect in gender role expectations, particularly as far as dating, sex, and marital duties are concerned. Readers described a number of proximate to the dating dearth: the difficulty of meeting people in casual settings (and workplace encounters are now fraught), the general horribleness of dating, the rise of mean girl behaviors freely directed at men, helicopter parenting producing emotionally immature adults, excess reliance on phone-mediated communication greatly eroding in-person skills, and ubiquitous screens also retarding the development of social skills. Other contributing factors extent of porn use among teens (by implication, it’s no longer all that bad a substitute for the real thing), high levels of erectile disfunction, due at least in part to taking SSRIs and other meds, and endocrine disruptors in water.
But the big overarching issue seems to be the diminished social status of young men and the demonization of manliness. For instance, there’s no “heroic masculinity” or “wholesome masculinity” as a counter to “toxic masculinity.” Although some cited #MeToo (with some disputing its importance in the bigger picture), publicly hating on men as an acceptable posture well predates that; #MeToo’s vehemence indicated that there were still levels of pent-up hostility that a not-trivial number of women felt the right to express.
And yes, dampened male libido and pursuit of relationships has political and economic implications.
Economists and policy-makers around the world are distressed about falling birth rates in advanced and even not-so-advanced economies. For instance, the birth rate in Thailand is 1.32 per woman, well below sustainment levels.
Mind you, given the fact that current population levels are above what the planet can carry on a sustained basis, in terms of resource demands and rising lifestyle expectations, fewer people ought to be a good thing. But nearly all societies are organized around the premise of economic growth, which in turn is a function of population and productivity growth. Even though Japan (which admittedly started from a high level of development and income) has managed a shrinking (and therefore also aging) population gracefully, most leaders and pundits reject the idea of learning from their example. Instead, there are calls and schemes for how to get women to have more babies, with not enough willingness to admit that the very sorry state of relations between young men and young women play a big, if not central, role.
And as an aside, it’s not as if this sort of thing is happening only in the US. Readers discussed how they see similar patterns in Europe, Japan (early to this tendency) and South Korea. Another Thailand data point: a female cab driver asked if I was single. When I said yes, she immediately started recounting (as a married woman with kids) why being married was lousy: she still had to perform household chores and child care when she was also working part time. She also said 80% of the young Thai women felt the way she did and were not interested in getting married.
In the US, young men have lower social status than men of a generation ago. And that’s being institutionalized with fewer men getting college degrees. In 2020, over 58% of college were female. And graduation rates are higher for women than men.
Some reader comments on young men’s status and aggressive female enforcement of what they perceive to be their rights:
Reed RichardsJune 11, 2025 at 6:36 pmI coach and referee youth basketball, mostly middle school and also live very close to a large middle/high school that I occasionally volunteer at for events. Im in the age range of most of the parents and many of them say their sons openly talk about how theyll never pursue a committed relationship because they find most of their female counterparts obnoxious and combative. Most cite the negativity against men and boys they see on social media, negative experiences in school and what they feel are impossibly high standards largely tied to money and looks. I personally do not spend much time on apps but some of the clips I have been shown are seriously disturbing, anti-hetero male rhetoric that I cant even understand what the source is. Presumably none of these boys are sexually active or ever have been so I would find it hard to believe a bad kiss or something would spark all of this. IMO social media and late stage capitalism are having the biggest negative effects, it simply costs too much for most young men to pay for the types of dates that have been traditionally expected. And with social media you have people of all ages interacting in ways they never did in the past, youve got men and boys of all ages essentially comparing notes and drawing the conclusion that a relationship with the average woman is a juice not worth the squeeze.
In other words, women want it both ways: they want men to pay for their company, consistent with traditional gender norms, while also seizing on an apparent new right to dictate male behavior, including in intimate settings.
Similarly:
XXYYJune 11, 2025 at 1:08 pmSpeaking for myself at least (male), I would suggest the #MeToo movement has done a lot to damage sexual relationships and relationships in general. Most of the media and personal discussions coming out of women over the last decade or so have been to the effect that men are terrible, they have no consideration for women, and the fewer men that women have to deal with or be around the better. I have heard comments about how terrible men are even when I am sitting right there! There is of course no upside to trying to dispute these remarks since you just end up sounding like you’re defending rapists and Harvey Weinstein.
The upshot for me has been perpetual uncertainty about talking to women, asking them out, or doing much of anything for fear of crossing some hidden line, which can lead not only to ostracism but also HR interventions and even firing. I’ve occupied various supervisory roles at work, and now strongly prefer to only have men in my group for everyone’s peace of mind.
I have exactly zero history of any actual problems with women in the workplace or anywhere else; it’s all strictly in my head. But nevertheless, it’s still a thing, and I now see women as a source of unpleasantness and even danger. We have mandatory annual trainings where we are warned against doing a large variety of things that could be misinterpreted as harassment or worse.
I very much doubt that this is the entire explanation for the things talked about in this post, but it is something that has changed in many societies recently. The more one goes on and on about the opposite gender being a danger and an unwelcome presence, the more that gender will seek peace of mind by keeping a safe distance. I’m certainly not saying that women should put up with abusers for the sake of better relationships, but such relationships do require welcoming openness and the expectation of a good outcome in order to happen.
And:
GeorgeJune 11, 2025 at 6:47 pmI believe the situation is far worse than what the surveys are picking up…
I don’t pretend to be hip and with it, I never was, but by and large the STEM students I take classes with will generally warm up in conversation even though I’m twice their age. I’ve had a couple of heart-to-heart conversations with men who appreciate advice from a older stranger. Most of the student body comes from well-to-do middle class or higher families (I am white, grew up in the ghetto, raised mostly by a single mother and occasional drive-by parenting from a weak father. Not a recipe for success, but I do what I can). Of the men I talk with well enough to be nodding acquaintances, most are not in any kind of relationship, and do not expect any romantic success….They’re fit, smart or smart-ish, good-looking (as a straight man, I’d say these are 7.5-9.0s in most cases), and dress well…
The women? Good lord almighty. I struggle for words that do not immediately spiral into variations of prostitute. The girls are MEAN, all of the time. Resting bitch face does not even begin to encompass it. They are mean to the 5s, they are mean to the 8s, they are mean to the 9s. Maybe the 9.5s are cleaning up on social media and tinder-type apps, but there are damn few real-life interactions. I was here for a good 3 months before I observed a single display of public affection (a couple hugging on a bench between classes. It was a freshmen GE class, I think they may have been high school sweethearts). I have overheard one flirtation at the library. The campus is dead otherwise. Most of the campus are well-to-do. Most are fit. The women are dressed scandalously whenever the weather is above 70F. But they’re always mean and cold. “Frigid sluts” is the phrase that comes to mind, as paradoxical as that may sound. The women are begging to be approached, but are simultaneously threatening to end the life of any sub-10 male that dares speak in her presence. It is horrid to witness. I am terrified of being accused of stare rape by one of these thong-flaunting women, and I can’t be the only one.
Of the men, I can affirm there is no locker room banter of any kind anymore. Probably online, but never in person.
Even worse:
Michael FiorilloJune 11, 2025 at 10:48 amEvery reason given in the comments makes sense, but to some degree I distill it down to, Who Needs Males?
They’re increasingly not needed for work, or reproduction, so it stands to reason that there would be psycho-social-physio consequences.
And this behavior is producing what is sometimes called dickus shrinkus:
Corr(s,r)June 11, 2025 at 7:46 amLower status males are supposed to have low libido. Ask a primatologist
Yves SmithJune 11, 2025 at 9:18 amIs telling men generally that they engage in “toxic masculinity” lowering their status? That would seem to be the intent. Probably does not work on the intended targets but might affect the rest to some degree.
Corr(s,r)June 11, 2025 at 9:36 amTrashtalking differentiates men efficiently – quite contrary to the literal or public intent indeed, but informatively for the mating purpose (?!)
Adam1June 11, 2025 at 1:37 pmI think this is the sweet spot!
1) Socioeconomically men are being reduced/marginalized because they were the top wage earners 30 years ago. In our, now, Neoliberal order anyone making “top” wages who are not part of the chosen elite class are making too much money.
2) The “Liberal” paradigm is that “toxic masculinity” is everywhere and has broken men and men should be ashamed of themselves and should just go away if they can’t fix themselves.
Should we be surprised young men who have no control over #1 and are just broadly painted by #2 don’t start to internalize a “Low Status” and “Low Libido” reality.
And to IM Doc, these same men are so defeated and lost before they even get into bed with a partner it should be no surprise that some freak out. And I mean this from the perspective of how polarizing the world has become. #1 has been an ever-wrenching issues since at least the 1980’s, but #2 has become so intense.
A friend of mine’s wife has a running joke which seem fitting in most liberal circles… when she see’s a man with a “jacked-up”, mudded-up truck she wants to ask the guy, “how small is “it” really?”
I revisited a talk seven years ago, between Camille Paglia and Jordon Peterson and strongly urge readers to listen to it in full (the points made are so colorful that IMHO not much would be lost by consuming it in snippets). Even though Peterson has become even more controversial in recent years, the points he makes in this discussion are solid, even prescient.
Another reason for given this conversation a good listen is the way it covers the way the American embrace of a naive version of postmodernism have damaged historicism and connoisseurship with a fixation on power relations as the lens through which everything must be viewed, thus forcing everything into victimizer/victim storylines. But there are lots of juicy tidbits, in the form of Paglia rants and factoids, such as how the idea that there are leftists in academia is a fraud (they are all rank careerists who are very protective of their status and hate the working class); the rushed and poorly thought-ought creation of women’s studies programs; the way that faculties rolled over to the takeover by boards and administrators, with a successful revolt at Bennington the exception that proves the rule.
No doubt readers will find part of this discussion to quibble with. For instance, I’m generally leery of “men versus women” stereotypes, since in classes as big as “men” and “women”, the differences within a class will be bigger than the differences between class. For instance. Peterson goes on about how women are more agreeable than men. Yours truly is most decidedly not agreeable 🙂
Nevertheless, he is on to something in his discussion of how men and women fight. He contend that with men, there is always the threat of escalation to blows if things get out of hand. Yet when men get into fisticuffs, they usually make up.
Yours truly has commented on the role of male physical dominance too, and how women are further conditioned not to fight back even when they can (a pet peeve is on crime shows, how all women save female ninjas simper and cower before a violent man, when in many cases, they have viable self-preservation moves, like kicking him in the groin or trying to gouge his eyes out. I can go on longer form but will spare you).
Unlike Peterson (if I read him correctly), I see the pose of female agreeableness as a function of nurture rather than nature. Most men can beat the shit of out most women. Thus women who are trying to get their way won’t get far with confrontation (the man has escalation dominance) but instead resort to manipulation. It also seems, from reader comments, that the sort of emotional bullying that was once a teen girl speciality is now being deployed on adult men.
Peterson points out that men have no way to “fight” with women or even stand up to them these days. Getting physical, particularly in a professional setting, is a complete loser. And he adds (and Paglia provides more support) that the new answer to this conundrum is to get men to conform to female modes of behavior, and that this ultimately is destructive to many men (as in per his a cause of more men turning their backs on educational advancement).
Paglia argues that men and women historically lived nearly entirely in very separate realms and women exercised power in their sphere. I think she wildly romanticizes women doing laundry and cooking together.
Surveys at the onset of Peak Feminism (as in during the 1960s; I think of Peak Feminism as the 1970s; for instance, it was then that gender stereotyping in toys was at its lowest) found that the happiest group in the population was married men. Next was single women. Below that was single men. Married women were the least happy. This festering discontent with a subordinate role was the big impetus for women’s liberation. The fact that women, having breached the citadel, have kept trying to increase their power beyond the point of maximum advantage has now created a new set of problems.
The fact that the professional women Paglia knows are unhappy does not mean that being in mixed-gender environments is the main or even a major cause. Neolibearlism produces social isolation and weakened community ties, and greater inequality. All of those make people mighty miserable, particularly those high up in status hierarchies, where a fall from your perch can be pretty far.
There’s a lot more meat in this discussion, including the detrimental role of nuclear families and how the denigration of motherhood has led to a loss of understanding that the mothers of boys develop, of the fragility of men. Again, I urge you to listen to it in full. Paglia is extremely energetic and entertaining. Even if you don’t agree with many of the things she and Peterson say, their opinions will help you sharpen your own.
____
1 It is perverse that with all this supposed women’s liberation, women are not (much) comfortable with, say, marrying someone smart from the working classes who is also a hunk, but having an affair with the pool boy or tennis pro is OK. I spent a bit of time with a family in Bali where the husband had three wives. They seemed to get on reasonably well because they each were running one of his businesses, and so had their own spheres of influence. European have, or at least had, a clear understanding of the role of the mistress versus the wife, which was another solution of how to have high-status male earning ability and protection shared among more women. There is the problem of what happens to the resulting number of unattached men. The military was one answer.
