Forgot I had this and I haven't seen many people talk about it - this is data from the Match/Kinsey Institute 2022 sample of singles. Data on who goes on dates and relationships.
Here are some charts from this dataset I made. 🧵
Important going into this thread - these are singles, so not the ~70% of Americans in relationships. Also, this sample is 59.1% female and 39.8% male. Data is from the codebook and I don't have a gender breakdown yet.
First, most singles report not wanting and not actively seeking a relationship.
This is consistent with the recent Pew data as well (second image). Many singles simply are not looking.
Most singles report having been in a romantic relationship 0 to 1 times in the past year. This distribution is also consistent with GSS data on sexual behavior (second and third images).
This is how many dates singles went on in the last year. About half went on none. Note these may be dates with the same person - second, third dates, etc.
And here are how many unique first dates singles went on, or dates with different people. "No response" here probably reflects the 0 dates responses in the past chart.
Aside from that - extremely few singles going on multiple dates with new people.
Here is how people met their dates - mostly offline. Dating apps and social media together accounted for 25% of dates. Top response (cut off in the resized chart) is "though a friend."
How many dating sites have singles been on in the last year? For 62% - none at all.
Here are some questions that looked at how dating attitudes have changed.
Singles are less willing to meet someone quickly online.
Singles are also less eager to meet a partner at all.
Again consistent with the recent Pew data.
Half of singles feel enthusiastic about dating - the other half either don't or feel neutral.
What is the ideal sexual relationship? For most singles, sex in a monogamous relationship. Meanwhile 20% report wanting no sexual relationship at all.
And here is how many romantic relationships singles had in the last year. Similar trend with dates and sexual behavior. Most people between 0-1. Most singles remaining single or exiting a relationship.
Very few going through multiple relationships in a short period of time.
Here is my analysis of this and how it relates to all of the other large datasets we have on sex and relationships. Important - because the trends we see here converge across all of these as well.
There are people pushing "promiscuity narratives" - the claim that everyone (or in particular most women) are having wild and unrestricted sex. For example:
This is not supported by any of the data out there. It is entirely made up.
What we see instead is that most people who are not in monogamous relationships are seeking monogamy.
Further, a large number of singles - about half of men and women - have dropped out of dating all together.
A promiscuous cohort remains: the so-called "promiscuous 10%." A distribution of men and women with high sexual partner counts who are mostly sleeping with each other.
These are the ones who report wanting casual sex.
This is reflected not only in all of the self-report data on relationships and sexual behavior, but also in non-report measures.
For example, sexually transmitted disease rates. These are the ones with high rates of transmission.
The effect of online dating has also been overstated.
As we see, most people do not meet their dates on apps. About half never use apps. True in this dataset and in the recent Pew 2022 data (excepts from that here).
Further, the rollout of Tinder did not predict more self-reported sexual behavior, nor an increase in STD transmission. Here again we see reports and non-report data converge.
Memes like the "80/20 rule" derived from Tinder swipe behavior - the observation that most male profiles don't get much attention - have never shown that 20% of men are having sex with 80% of the women.
It never measured that.
Further, given that half of singles are not on apps, and app use ratio is 3 men for every 1 woman, if every female app user paired off with one man, 66% of male app users would be left with no dates.
Most women aren't on apps and there are not enough women for male app users.
The point - apps aren't why you are single. They aren't responsible for the birth rate crisis and they aren't associated with an uptick in promiscuity.
Most singles are living lives without any sexual activity at all.
Most people are not having regular casual sex.
Perhaps more worrisome than the fiction of "I can't mate because Chad stole my girlfriend" is how many young men and women seem to have dropped entirely out of dating.
Not forming relationships, not seeking relationships, not having sex.
We have to ask in that case how much of the mating crisis is self-inflicted. Like Calhoun's rats in the behavioral sink: a loss of the motivation, ability, or desire to form relationships and have sex at all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. The Red Pill seems to get little unique recognition and is synonymous with incels.
2. Incels represent a critical entry-point into other manosphere communities (consistent with low romantic success driving men into the manosphere).
3. PUAs (pick up artists) have low centrality and node weight. They are kind of their own thing and not closely related to participation in other manosphere communities.
4. High overlap between communities, such that some can’t be easily categorized (blue in the network chart)
As I have written in the past, the manosphere has drifted away from male self-improvement, how to be more “alpha,” and the PUA or dating-focused communities of yesteryear.
Now the manosphere is mostly male social justice grievances.
Keywords across communities: PUAs are still talking about seduction and dating, incels are talking about the redpill.
MRAs are defined more by what they are against than what they have to offer - it’s predominantly ranting about feminism.
There is something sinister about expressed resentment and dislike of “normies.” Real antisocial vibes. Even more so than the “anti-Karen” discourse. With Karens, the debate is over if an enforcement boundary is overstepped. Maybe a real debate can be had in some of those cases.
With resentment toward normies, it’s simply a dislike of actual normal people. Yet normal people are the backbone of society. A lot of the time it looks like the useless fringe complaining about the people who actually make things function.
Hating the normal has always been a trait of losers and outcasts. It’s an immediate red flag. It’s general negative emotionality and also specific hostility toward both the mundane and the wholesome.
It’s the mindset of the unpopular kids in high school who couldn’t play sports or make it into clique groups and so, resenting their peers, experiment with every bizarre ideology and identity that the less popular adolescents do.
Delinquents think this way, they also hate the normal and society around them, but delinquents aren’t even at the bottom of this youth hierarchy. The ones at the very bottom don’t get into gangs or really edgy youth subcultures. They get into sneaky and covert ways of lashing out. Maybe they adopt a victim mentality and embrace some kind of social justice ideology where the normies (see: normal society) are oppressive. They fantasize about social collapse or revolution as their anti-normie revenge. Maybe they just become online trolls. The Internet gives them a way to lash out without any possibility of repercussions (and indeed the modern use of “normie” arose from these kinds of communities).
There is a sort of narcissism in the “anti-normie.” They feel superior, but it’s the very fragile superiority of the narcissist who isn’t recognized as superior by anyone else. They don’t get their narcissistic supply from the world around them very often. They feel very smart - their beliefs and hobbies are so much better than the normies, too! Of course anime is better than Friends. Why yes, your fringe political beliefs would totally make society better than that thing everyone else voted for. The normies don’t see the secret truths in all of the conspiracy theories that they believe; normies are very dumb but the anti-normie is very wise.
They have never had their IQ tested, but they are very certain they could not possibly be “midwits,” even if every life milestone they have experienced is associated with lower or average intelligence. If a psychologist looked at them and said “mental illness” the psychologist would just be dismissed as a normie psychologist.
They are misfits and will relate to the aesthetics of cultures and times not their own, because they don’t thrive in the here and now. This is the “men looked better in the 1920s, I should buy a fedora” effect. But it also manifests in social desires: “we should live like we did in the 1920s because I would thrive more in that environment and culture than I do now.”
They will relate to past misfits, too, and make them their heroes. This is also a narcissistic fantasy. “Actually Napoleon wasn’t a normie, see how smart the non-normies are, just like me.” In reality the normies, however, aren’t even exclusively average people. They are also the typical overachievers. When I looked at the lives of the recent Nobel Prize winners, they were every bit as normie as you might imagine. Wife, kids, house, and dogs.
And that’s the general rule for the normie: the normie is the functional and productive member of society. The further one drifts from the normie, the less likely they are to thrive. This is what fuels resentment of the normie. They see the wife, kids, dog, career, and lifestyle of the normie and think, “I want that, but I don’t have that.”
Who is the normie? To this person, “heteronormative male college kids.”
Teenager posting about his parents on the nihilism subreddit, of course, hates normies:
Just in time for National Orgasm Day, Caitlin and myself have new research up on the orgasm gap and short-term partner traits. Results in this thread. 🧵
First, the orgasm gap:
Men experience more orgasms in casual sex, especially during a first encounter.
Women who have an orgasm with a short-term partner are more likely to go on to have sex with them again in the future.
So - that first encounter matters!
Why is this? Overlapping hypotheses for the evolution of the female orgasm is its role in mate selection and mate retention.