undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmichaelmrose6y ago0 comments

A survey about how much sex respondents are having doesn't tell you WHY they are having less sex.

Historical reproduction ALSO isn't useful when contraception is now a prevalent thing the numbers would in no way match. Regarding the last I couldn't find the claim that 4 to 5 women reproduced for every man so I'm just going to assume you misread. I cannot imagine how this could possibly be so unless you meant within a narrow age range considering men can reproduce for most of their lives and women most do so within a narrow range.

Looking at the same graph at the head of the page in 1998ish there was about 20% of the most effected age range who hadn't had sex in a year. It's now 28 and in fact the graph goes up and down and it seems that other age ranges are less effected.

0 comments

bubblewrap6y ago

The sentence reads "In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man." - in my browser it is directly above one of the charts.

I think by recent history, the mean thousands of years, not the last ten years. So most of the time before contraception was available.

Men being able to reproduce for most of their lives doesn't help much if they have nobody to reproduce with. I guess it helps if you can afford young wives even as you get older.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse