To think the young are less interested in sex, relationships and children

[Dappy777]

Is it just me or do young people seem less interested in relationships than we were? It isn't so much that the young aren't settling down, more that relationships no longer seem the focus point of their lives. Rather than seeing relationships as life's central joy, they're increasingly viewed as a danger – something that might bring you happiness, but probably won't, and could even ruin your life. There seems to be a similar view of children. The young also seem less interested in sex. Statistically (and how the hell they measure this I don't know) the young really are having less sex.

I might be talking complete nonsense, but if it's true, I wonder why. I guess internet porn would partly explain the loss of interest/desire in young men. Also, when society loosens up about sex, and we're saturated with sexual images, sex no longer feels sexy. As for the declining interest in relationships/family, I'm not so sure. I suppose fear about the future, especially climate change, could partly explain it (why bring a child into a dying world, that kind of thinking). Then I suppose the internet has lifted the lid on the reality of relationships and child-rearing – how difficult they can be, and how much of a toll they can take on your health.

Has anyone else noticed this? I know young people still form relationships, have sex, and raise children. I'm just talking about their general attitude to it all. They seem so much less enthusiastic, so much more reluctant and cynical. Sex and relationships and children are viewed more as 'problems' you need to cope with.

@EmpressaurusKittyBella Holiday homes don’t affect everywhere. Divorced people needing two homes are. Buying homes to rent out as a private landlord is the only way many people get a home so they are vital because the state doesn’t build enough.

@JHound A declining birth rate is a huge economic problem. It means we have an aging population and won’t have enough working to pay taxes to provide what’s needed. There will inevitably be lower productivity and we will continue with high immigration to try and get work done. So it’s not a good economic model on any front.

You could even describe it as outsourcing reproduction to the Global South. Easier to entice their brightest and best.

Holiday homes don’t affect everywhere. Divorced people needing two homes are. Buying homes to rent out as a private landlord is the only way many people get a home so they are vital because the state doesn’t build enough.

Yes, I rented for years, I just don’t think that potential homes should be allowed to be left empty when someone could be living in them.

You can’t be suggesting that people shouldn’t get divorced because then they’d need two homes. That’s even more unreasonable than the idea that people should get into a relationship because it makes it easier to buy somewhere, or have children because society needs them to.

I think when you're going into £9k- £15k per year you're going to not do anything that might mess it up tbh.

My DGD is 18, not chosen the Uni route, is doing an Apprenticeship. Barely drinks and no interest in relationships at all. Very different from my kids at the same age.

Gosh, I was snogging behind the bikeshed at 11. Rural comprehensive school.

@EmpressaurusKittyBella No not suggesting no divorce but it’s a massive drain in housing. It’s equivalent to second homes. We also live in a free country. We are allowed to make choices.

I think it's easier to be happy if you live at (parents') home - even if you don't have a BF/GF.
If they did leave home, perhaps unreliable flatmates, who cleans the loo, all the money it costs, everyone in their friendship circle paired up - coming home to an empty flat etc This is encouragement to stay home rather than leave.

I've been married 40+ years and we have had our moments. But now in our 70s I don't fancy living alone, what if you have a fall, you need someone to steady the ladder when you change the light bulb, to help you get to places if you can no longer drive. So it's not that marriage is wonderfully blissful - it's just much more practical and easier at this stage - and staying with mum and dad is easier in your 20s.

That’s a ponzi scheme.

We need to restructure society instead of depending on ever increasing population growth. That is not sustainable.

As of 2022, Pew Research Center found, 30 percent of U.S. adults are neither married, living with a partner nor engaged in a committed relationship. Nearly half of all young adults are single: 34 percent of women, and a whopping 63 percent of men.
Not surprisingly, the decline in relationships marches astride with a decline in sex. The share of sexually active Americans stands at a 30-year low. Around 30 percent of young men reported in 2019 that they had no sex in the past year, compared to about 20 percent of young women.
Only half of single men are actively seeking relationships or even casual dates, according to Pew. That figure is declining.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/

These figures were floating round the intent for USA a while ago. The article suggest various reasons but a lot is young men doing less well and not measuring up. I image some of that also huge stress levels and long work hours in USA.

The fertility level are partly political issue - I can't find it now but saw article with stats from research that said for every 2 UK kids born a third would have been welcomed - I suspect that from people who already have kids rather than percentage who just don't want them- but it's too expensive too much work - as as PP say to risky with relationships commonly not lasting.

If it was made a bit easier birth rate would likely go up a bit - but politically there no support and lots of hostile as parenthood is seen a lifestyle choice - so we'll continue to import labour and have more of population work longer - so later retirements- so have workers to tax to support dependents more of who will be older dependents.

@JHound Try telling that to the elderly who need healthcare and help at home! All modern societies expect tax income from younger people to pay for the greater services needed by the elderly and others not earning. . Plus education for their dc and everything else the state needs to spend money on. It’s never ever been anything different. You might want to revise how economics works and what society wants, but it won’t happy . Neither will we be Communist! When you are older you might understand how economics works for everyone and we are all invested in it, whether you like it or not.

What is interesting is when you look at the age profiles. I thought the reason why so many more young men were single compared to young women was because women dated older. But looking across the ages that does not seem yo be the case.

It seems more likely that some of the young women in relationships are with men who view themselves as single…

I will happily tell that to the elderly.

Ever increasing birth rates is an unsustainable Ponzi scheme. It’s not supportable in the future so we have to find newer ways of funding the welfare state.

All the panic in the world is not going to scare people into having (more) children.

They are NOT ever increasing! The birth rate is falling too quickly. We need more babies here and especially to better educated parents. It’s obvious. We cannot keep getting others in to do our work and pay tax.

@StMarie4me Unfortunately, £9-15K a year is a drop in the ocean for uni costs here in the US, but my DD and her friends still like a good frat party!

But yes, most of them are veggie or vegan and they definitely take their studies more seriously than many of my contemporaries in the 1990’s. She lives in a flat with other girls and they’re all focused and career-oriented. They date, but I think only one of them has a partner and DD says it’s not serious.

They are NOT ever increasing! The birth rate is falling too quickly. We need more babies here and especially to better educated parents. It’s obvious. We cannot keep getting others in to do our work and pay tax.

But how do you see that happening? Assuming you’re not thinking along the lines of the Handmaid’s Tale or penalties for people who don’t want / can’t have kids. A society where people feel pushed to have children even if they don’t want them would be abhorrent.

Are you thinking of stronger incentives for parents?

I don't think everyone does have an urge to procreate though.

Some do, certainly. But for millennia women procreated largely not through choice. Procreation was a fairly shit deal for the vast majority of women throughout the vast majority of human history.

Now women have the tools at their disposal to be more than baby factories, and the ability to support themselves, its hardly surprising some of them are choosing to step off that roundabout. And its not the responsibility of the individual to prop up the needs of a society which hasn't managed its demographic trends properly.

I don't like the argument that says people have a responsibility to have children to support the elderly. Why should young people who don't want children have to put their needs aside for people three generations older than them?

Procreation was a fairly shit deal for the vast majority of women throughout the vast majority of human history

Indeed but that's indicative of society not biology.

It's basic science...each species wants to replicate itself. Of course, there's always outliers who won't feel any urge to do so...but ultimately we are no different from any other species.

@brassandswitch

We need relationships and partners to reproduce. That's what we are here for,

I'm not having children and that is my choice. We are not 'only here to reproduce'. What about women who have fertility problems. Not everyone can have children and not everyone wants them.

@Comedycook

It's basic science...each species wants to replicate itself. Of course, there's always outliers who won't feel any urge to do so...but ultimately we are no different from any other species.

At a population level species want to reproduce yes, but I disagree about humans being different, We are very different from other species: we are far more intelligent than most mammals and get satisfaction in much more sophisticated ways than just meeting basic needs and procreating.

It's hard to say how much of the urge to procreate is genuinely innate and how much of it comes down to social conditioning: I would argue that for most women in most situations in human history there wasn't really a Plan B so it was hard to imagine life without just having babies. You basically knew you would either have kids or die and you made peace with having kids as your predestined "role" and that informs the way a lot of women approach motherhood today.

So I'm not sure that people not wanting to reproduce are necessarily "outliers". They may just be people who have realised there's a much wider array of choices open to them than there were for their parents and grandparents. It's not an accident that generally speaking the more affluent and educated a population becomes, the fewer children women want. Because the more educated they become the more they realise it's not always great deal and comes with many strings attached.

At any rate, I think its a great thing that people don't feel its the only option open to them these days.

Incentive can bring births rates up slightly but not to replacement levels. Would give more a slump than cliff with aging population but population will still decline and still have fewer workers to dependent ratios.

As I said early there some evidence people would have more kids if it was even slightly easier - seem similar data from France from parents who have more if it was affordable. The focus is always on women who don't have any kids - though in UK ONS figures indicate a consistent figure there.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/conceptionandfertilityrates/bulletins/childbearingforwomenbornindifferentyearsenglandandwales/2020

While average family size has decreased, two children families remain the most common family size across both generations, with 37% of women born in 1975 and 44% of those born in 1949 having two children. For those born in 1975, 27% had three or more children and 17% had only one child, compared with 30% and 13% respectively, for their mothers' generation.
...

The percentage of women who remained childless in 2020 by the end of their childbearing years, has remained fairly consistent since the late 1950's, with 18.1% of the latest cohort born in 1975 having no children. This suggests that women are delaying childbearing rather than not having children.

China sort of shows though once smaller families become the cultural norm it's very hard to get bigger families - there's a lot of social pressure against it as well as continued financial pressures against.

Research is increasing linking house prices/rents with decrease in number of children. We had a previous housing crisis in UK - apparently we got out of that one by there being political consensus that private sector wasn't going to sort it out and doing a massive building program including massive council house program. There's no consensus at moment though Labour do seem to want to try and sort planning out.

It's not just us - there only a few countries with fertility rates above replacement levels now.

Conversely, fertility is below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) in 152 of the 235 zones that now account for 63% of the world population (vs. 45% in 2000)
Mapping the massive global fertility decline over the last 20 years

Discussion round this usually suggests more homosexual relationships in young women and more relationships with older more secure men - but yes I did wonder if that was a miss match in commitment levels between women and men.

Anecdotally on internet there seems to be more walking away by young women stories realising they are "miss right" now and not long term commitment often after begrudging commitment offered when man realises he's getting on a bit or all his mates are settling down - in which case I think that's a bloody marvelous thing - and that's the heterosexual women getting more picky argument in article.

On the subject of population decline, just a few quick points:

1. Yes, the birth rate is declining in Europe, but it isn't falling everywhere. Africa's birth rate is so high the African population is going to double (right in the middle of a climate crisis).

2. If the world's population does start to fall, it will be falling from a staggering height. In 1900, there were a billion humans. By 1960 that had trebled to three billion. It's currently eight billion and predicted to hit ten billion by mid-century. My village has been destroyed by endless house building, and the traffic round here is unbearable. Tourist sites like Venice are pretty much no-go zones in the summer. So far as I can see, the real problem is overpopulation.

3. Serious work is being done on slowing and even reversing ageing. In fact, I have heard it said that reversing ageing may prove easier than halting it. This is no longer sci fi nonsense. Serious money is going into all this. Pretty soon we'll have the first generation of drugs to slow the ageing of the body and reverse some of the damage (senolytics), then medical nanobots and god knows what else. Pretty soon people will be healthy and active (and productive) well into their 100s. Lifespans of 130-150 will be the norm.

China is a great example. At first, it worked great, because people could work more and save more with only one child. So it got a huge economic boost from those young and productive workers. Now, there are fewer women to have children and the population is forecast to be cut in half by the end of this century. By then, half the population will be over 65. Right now, there are four workers for every pensioners, by the end of the century it will be one for one, or worse. Think about how that works. One person supporting all the benefits and health needs of that other person. It will happen in Africa too. Living longer just amplifies the problem, since few will want to or be able to work for 100 years. I think we'll see systematic assisted dying before that. A smaller population could be positive in some ways, like using fewer resources. But earlier era like the Black Death showed that innovation and productivity caught up to exploit those remaining resources more efficiently. The riches started a new wave of population growth. The losers will be us alive now, the people getting squeezed by the declining fertility rate.

Casual sex and to some extent relationships in terms of opportunities to meet others went hand in hand with drinking for me in my youth. I guess now that they're abstaining from alcohol and going out and partying/clubbing less, there's far less opportunities to meet and mingle, and less risky behaviour. It's a good thing but I do wonder if there'll be an en masse mid life crises.

". Pretty soon people will be healthy and active (and productive) well into their 100s. Lifespans of 130-150 will be the norm." Hmm maybe, but currently life expectancy is actually declining in the UK @Dappy777