I might be making a reputation for starting controversial discussions on this site. That’s okay, I guess.
I want to to talk about sexless people today. It’s something I could relate too for a long time. Something that’s still really a part of me.
Here’s some data:
Apparently most single people aged 22 - 35 have 60 - 100 sexual encounters per year. I wouldn’t know; can’t relate to that figure at all. For me it’s more like twice if lucky.
So I was curious, just how many people are going completely cold turkey sexless, without wanting to be celibate? Turns out there is data on this topic. So let’s look at it.
So it seems around 20% of all men who are unmarried are going totally sexless. I don’t know about you, but that seems like a pretty high number in my opinion. For women it appears to be about 15%. That’s also surprisingly high, but not quite as much.
Historically both sexes were about even around 15%.
The above chart only accounts for people who have been sexless in the past 12 months. It isn’t a chart separating out virgins who have never had sex. For those people, the following data applies.
Those who live at home with their parents are twice as likely to be involuntarily virgins. Aka. Community college students (this was me 18 -21).
It also increases in frequency among highly educated people. The more education one has, the more likely they are to be involuntarily virgins.
Grad students have the highest rates of virgins who’d rather not be at around 10%.
Fortunately most virgins are a small portion of the population, never exceeding 10% of their respective biological sex’s population.
But what about non-virgin men aged 22-35 who are unmarried? 20% of them had no sex in the past 12 months. So who’s having all the sex? The number of women having no sex in the past 12 months remained constant post 2009.
So there is a kernel of truth to the idea that as male celibacy continues to rise post-2009, female celibacy has not risen. Therefore, somebody has to mathematically make that happen.
I’ve heard some social-economists recently take interest in modeling sex as a capitalistic market where women own sex as a resource and try to sell it to men. The comparison made sex like real-estate that needed to be leased.
Property owners advertise their properties to try and attract potential tenets, but they also try to get the best tenets for their rooms in order to keep maintenance low and to reduce financial risk.
I’ve heard economists use this analogy to explain the ‘not asking for it’ movement. The idea is as follows: promiscuous clothing is not an open invitation for sexual behavior, rather it is advertisement and marketing of a real estate property whereby better marketing attracts better potential tenets. In the end only a limited number of applicants can get a lease in a building with finite rooms. So it is with sex.
A way I like to think of this analogy is that sex is like a credit card. If you have no credit it’s hard to get a credit card. It’s the paradox of needing to have credit before being able to get credit. Women are like that too.
No past experience or negative past experience reduces your credit score and makes it more difficult to get credit cards.
Would love to hear thoughts on this. I’m open to controversial comments and healthy debates in the comments section. As usual, ✌🏻.