[arandomusername]

Well, birth rates are below replacement rates in most western countries where pornography is consumed more than elsewhere. Also, more people are single, more men are not sexually active, high divorce rates, etc.

Ofcourse, correlation does not imply causation. But personally I do think pornography contributes to some of the above in some ways.

[shagie]

https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-release...

Why are we limiting this to western countries?

This is clearly a problem with (checks list) Bhutan, Maldives, Puerto Rico, Nepal, South Korea, Saint Lucia, Taiwan, Carbo Verde, Djibouti, and Bosnia. I'm missing the list of "most western countries" there in the most critical ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility#Caus...

Is the reduction in fertility possibly more influenced by things like... https://www.statista.com/statistics/259518/birth-rate-among-... https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/02/why-is-th...

Or https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/05/07/family-...

> The more education a mother has, the fewer children she will have on average in her lifetime. While fertility drops somewhat with each additional level of education, the biggest fertility gap occurs between women who lack a high school diploma and those who have completed high school.

> Moms ages 40 to 44 who lack a high school diploma have about 2.9 children in their lifetimes, on average, while those with a high school diploma or some college have about 2.4 kids. Mothers at the end of their childbearing years who have a bachelor’s degree or higher have about 2.2 children on average.

Though I would certainly not say that one should be encouraging teenage pregnancy nor hindering the education of women in an attempt to boost the fertility rate.

Blaming the declining fertility rate in western nations on pornography seems to miss the more obvious causes.

[arandomusername]

There are other factors contributing to it, absolutely. I'm not disputing that.

What do you think are the main factors for highest % of men not being sexually active (compared to historically), highest % of people living alone (in US).

[shagie]

Economic stability (and the lack thereof) makes it difficult to start / grow a family. This also extends to difficulties in family planning. The result of this is that it can be economically safer / more stable to live alone in an apartment than it would be to spend money on courtship, expectations of a wedding, and house.

Lack of social support for families with children. Once you have a child, the costs and demands on the family are significant. This extends to things like reducing the support for WIC, difficulties in finding childcare (and its expense). Again, the outlook for having a child is a lot of money.

The difficulty of maintaining a family and a career (side bit - telecommuting is a step in the right direction for white collar jobs). Having a stay at home mother / wife is difficult in today's world. Both the expectations of "that's not what I want to do" and the income that isn't there. Supporting a couple on a single blue collar isn't viable, and supporting a family is way out of the question.

And so, yea, guys aren't sexually active. The social, medical, and economic risks are too high for all people involved.

Under this model, porn isn't the cause, but rather the symptom of the social and economic difficulties faced by individuals. Attempting to "treat" the symptom (of people watching porn) isn't going to make men more sexually active any more than a box of tissues next to the bed treats the flu instead.

Me? why am I a single male living alone? Because when I was in the SF Bay in the '90s and early '00s, the ratio of single women to single in the 20 to 29 age bracket was about 80 to 100 (map from 2015 http://visualizing.nyc/bay-area-zip-codes-singles-map/ - its better now than it was in the '90s ). The only place in the US that was worse were Air Force bases in Alaska. Put that down for two decades and then adding the "well, I got no money" after the dot com crash and '08 ... and I'm certainly not looking to start a family with some (un)lucky lady.

This story writ large of economic insecurity combined with misaligned demographics ( https://jonathansoma.com/singles/#2/3/2/0 ) in places where young men go to work. And while now I'm in https://jonathansoma.com/singles/#7/8/2/0 - I'm a cranky gray beard that is certainly not looking to start a family.

In an alternate universe with today's technology I would have stayed in my college town and worked remotely in tech and hooked up with that cute young woman (back then) from one of my classes rather than going our separate ways when I got a job ... though if I was 21 today that would be back to the "can't afford it" category.

The thing to do is to make the ability for someone to plan a family for the next 20 years something that can be done. Until one can look to the future and be able to feel some assurance that they'll be in a better situation than they are today, the risks and uncertainty of "settling down" are enough to stifle many of dreams of a family.

[wkat4242]

> And so, yea, guys aren't sexually active. The social, medical, and economic risks are too high for all people involved.

I don't really see how you equate being sexually active with reproduction though. In this day and age they are very different things. And many men and also many women (though I believe less, they often have an urge to have them) simply don't want kids. Doesn't mean that they can't have a relationship or a healthy sex life.

[shagie]

Up four comments in the chain we're replying and you get:

> Well, birth rates are below replacement rates in most western countries where pornography is consumed more than elsewhere. Also, more people are single, more men are not sexually active, high divorce rates, etc.

The implication is that porn is hindering the replacement rate of a population.

This gets into various other dog whistles (if you poke at dead comments you'll find even more overt ones). https://icsr.info/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ICSR-Report-Sle... (page 22 is where the section on pornography begins) (the publisher of the document is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Centre_for_the_S... )

[wkat4242]

> Well, birth rates are below replacement rates in most western countries where pornography is consumed more than elsewhere.

Are those bad things? I think it is great for the population to shrink a bit for environmental reasons. It's not like humanity will go extinct tomorrow. We have way too many people on this planet competing for scarce resources already. And that's with more and more poor countries rising in welfare and wanting their microwave ovens and fridges too.

> Also, more people are single, more men are not sexually active, high divorce rates, etc.

It's just that we have more freedom. Couples that married young and were forced to stay together to appease the community were super common in the 50s. We don't have to anymore. And I don't think divorces are a problem as such. I don't think marriage is important. I've had a more than a decade-long relationship and we never thought of getting married.

And kids are just difficult to have now. These days it's necessary for both partners to work and that doesn't fit well with having kids. It's a big hassle. I never wanted them in the first place and I'm glad I didn't. That doesn't mean that people don't have sex.

I see a lot more sexual freedom too. Swinging, sex-positive parties, polyamory etc. Many couples I know share their intimacy, as do my partner and I. I don't think this is due to porn but rather due to a more relaxed attitude to sexuality, which I consider a really good thing. These things can strengthen bonds as well. I know several married couples that would have not been able to stay together if they weren't so liberal to let off steam once in a while.

[arandomusername]

Yes, those are bad, horrible things. It's why a lot of governments are trying to incentivize them to go up.

> It's just that we have more freedom

Partially, yes, explains no kids/somewhat divorce rates, but does not explain men not being sexually active, as every man (that's not asexual) wants to bone. And irregardless of marriage, more people are single/not in a relationship.

> . I don't think this is due to porn but rather due to a more relaxed attitude to sexuality, which I consider a really good thing. These things can strengthen bonds as well

I disagree. Studies show that those that have more sexual partners are more likely to divorce [1]. Personally, and that's just personally, I could never have the love of my life fuck another man.

[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673

[wkat4242]

> Yes, those are bad, horrible things. It's why a lot of governments are trying to incentivize them to go up.

It might be a bit bad short term like with the boomer wave getting old and nobody being there to take care of them. But in the long term we'll get over that bump and it's way better for the planet. It won't support infinite growth.

> Partially, yes, explains no kids/somewhat divorce rates, but does not explain men not being sexually active, as every man (that's not asexual) wants to bone.

It's still their choice though. If they don't have a partner they can always just pay for it once in a while. I also do sometimes between relationships, no big deal.

> I disagree. Studies show that those that have more sexual partners are more likely to divorce [1]. Personally, and that's just personally, I could never have the love of my life fuck another man.

I understand, it's very personal. I like it myself. But I find it can have a stabilising effect because you can never cover all your partner's needs equally well. I don't think it's bad if relationships don't last anyway. I'm still best friends with most of my exes. It just moved into a different phase. I didn't get married anyway and I've never wanted kids.

I don't think you can blame porn for all that though. I think it's more of a symptom of the higher sexual freedom we have now, than a cause.

[seadan83]

Could people be spending more time single due to spending more time inside on the internet rather than a stronger causative effect of porn consumption.

Out of cohorts that consume no porn, to what degree are those variables you cited different? If those cohorts are introduced to porn, do those numbers change? In those cohorts, is there full honesty about usage? It's very difficult science to fo.

There are studies that show porn use particularly in women will lead to higher divorce rates [1] though, it is noted the relationship is curvilinear, as porn use goes to a high level, the effect of separation decreases. Are people unhappy in marriage seaking out porn, or is porn causing the unhappy marriage? Are people who are likely to be divorced later more likely to seek out porn? Correlation and causation are incredibly hard to tease out. Is it the porn's fault? Who knows, in some specefic cases - probably, but generally speaking it is not supported by data. If supported by data, to get that causation claim, then a dose and effect relationship needs to be identified as well as a clearly articulated mechanism of action.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28936726/

[arandomusername]

True, it's very difficult to attribute the reasons for big social movements, so I am doing some speculating. I do agree that internet contributes as well. My belief that it is a mix of reasons, and pornography is one of them, as it gives complacency. Just rub one out instead of making an effort on meeting potential partners & improving yourself to make yourself suitable.

Interesting study. I agree that it's very difficult to find the causation.

[seadan83]

Indeed. That speculation is where we get into trouble as human beings (we like to see rabbits in clouds, we're evolved to see patterns where often there are none). And of course - in sociology, and all the variability of human behavior and the overall human experience - sociology is perhaps the toughest field of any to create any form of scientific knowledge at all. For example, the "great replication crisis". I appreciate your being open to dialog and having had a reasonably pleasant exchange. Thank you

[wkat4242]

> Just rub one out instead of making an effort on meeting potential partners & improving yourself to make yourself suitable.

It's not nearly as satisfying as the real thing though. For me it can never be a replacement. Just an addition.

[arandomusername]

For a lot, it's enough for them not to have to go out of their comfort zone and put in effort. It's a lot easier to open up a site than it is for an average guy to get laid.

[wkat4242]

> It's a lot easier to open up a site than it is for an average guy to get laid.

Well, yes, absolutely. It's quite difficult actually. Especially if your only goal is "to get laid" and don't want any other commitment. There's apps like tinder of course but even then it's quite difficult to stand out for men. I certainly don't manage that.

Personally I think it's more fair on the lady in question to just pay for it in those cases. Where both parties know what to expect and there is no pretense of more. No messing with hearts.

When it comes to that it's not like it difficult (though I suppose in the US it's illegal in some states, where I'm from it's quite normal).