Here's the long run trend in STIs I could find data for offhand. You can see there's a LOT of variation over time.
You might suppose STIs are a kind of nice objective measure of sex.
But is it really?
The obvious note here is that STIs don't arise randomly w/r/t sexual behaviors. They spread most in periods where a larger share of the population is having sex with more partners.
But multi-partner sexuality is not necessarily the biggest driver of sexual frequency! Monogamous people actually have more frequent sex than uncoupled people, so rises in average number of partners *could* actually be correlated with *less* sex overall!
Like if you suppose coupled-status causally influences sexual frequency (up) and number of partners (down), then increases in number of partners could sometimes be correlated with lower sexual frequency, especially if coupled-status is declining!
Right now, coupled status is indeed declining: marriage is getting more delayed, and the few surveys that ask about dating or cohabiting relationships seem to be showing less of those too.
So if people have less access to monogamous, low-transmission-risk, coupled sex, they may substitute to non-monogamous, high-transmission-risk uncoupled sex, which also tends to be less frequent.
As a result, you'd get 1) lower sexual frequency, 2) higher number of sexual partners, 3) higher transmission of STIs.
Finally, a note that while we have seen case rates rise across all age groups, and the absolute increase is highest among young people, the relative rate of increase has been fastest among those 55 and older.
The biggest increase is right where we'd expect: people below the median age of first marriage. That's where you'd expect a big boom if it's a change-in-coupling issue.
But the increase among older people is in relative terms quite a big faster.
I'm not 100% sure what's driving that, but the extent to which horny-retirement-community has become a meme in society kinda points to a host of potential social dynamics that could be altering later-in-life coupling behaviors.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Just want to note that this is how absolutely nuts the "Christian nationalism" discourse has become, that suggesting (correctly) that the US was historically a Christian nation is seen as "Christian nationalism."
The US still has treaties IN FORCE TODAY which legally declare the country a Christian nation!
It's quite literally the law!
Now, those treaties are very old and clearly those terms are no longer seen as operative--- but it is nonetheless very clearly the case that the US *at a minimum historically was* a "Christian nation" in both practical/social and also literal/legal terms.
You can't argue that 1) Rufo has been open about wanting to take control of the levers of power and also 2) that boosting Rufo is a deceptive plot to take over power, since the plot is very much public.
and tbh, I feel like Rufo's work is a model conservatives should really be emulating, since all it consists of is the standard form of politics for the left since about 1900. time we got in the game!
I've argued elsewhere that what conservatives need to do is gain *administrative* control over the apparatus of the state to contest the administrative control progressives wield. Love it or hate it, that's what Rufo is shooting for.
feels like the extent to which Democrats are at risk in the midterms because they did not do popular things (leave, permanent CTC, etc) and are associated with unpopular things (school curriculum change, etc) is actually what's underreported
one of the things I sincerely appreciate about the right, or at least did appreciate before the last few years when a mass psychosis infected it, is that we used to be pretty good about acknowledging a reason we often lost elections was because people disliked our ideas.
there's a whole family of rightist rhetorical tropes: "the two santa clauses," etc, about how Democrats promise goodies and Republicans offer the hard reality, etc, etc. true or not, it was a useful self image where we generally believed when we lost it was because...
one of the really important things to understand about ancient warfare is:
1) modern humans are exposed to such a huge amount of military history we have an astonishing reservoir of tactical ideas they didn't have
2) the main problem isn't ideas, but organization and resources
pretty much everybody who confronted a disciplined formation like this in fact did have ideas on how to beat it: but finding the right battlefield to be conducive to your ideas, getting enough soldiers in one place to pull them off, preparing the field correctly...
never point a gun at something you aren't prepared to kill. doesn't matter if it's unloaded, especially since the prosecutor did not himself check to verify that it was unloaded. you always check! always! literally always!
pulling this stunt on any range in america would get you kicked out immediately and quite plausibly banned for life.
So first the theory. The argument is that wars are a major test of "state capacity," i.e. the ability of the state to marshal resources to achieve large tasks. A key component of the wartime test of state capacity is the ability to recruit manpower for the army. #NBERday
One possible threat to state capacity is a populace which is deeply divided and regards one another with hostility, such that state-based projects like "the nation needs to win the war against some other nation" may have a hard time motivating pro-state behavior. #NBERday