Let me first say: impeccable article from The New Yorker. It's the only mainstream bastion of proper editing and spelling left maybe The Economist, too. I mean, that's cool I guess, and no judgment, but from where I stand, dealing with bills, conflict resolution, changing diapers, attending PTA meetings, having to put kids through college, etc. But maybe that's just me. I get that there's an agenda at play here the very next sentence gets into abortion , but this is provably false.
Young people are having less sex than ever[1]. In fact, many psychologists and sociologists are worried about a potential population bust. The root cause is unknown. The whole article read to me like an ode to post post modern drifting in and out of superficial encounters. I ended up reading the whole thing while waiting to see if there was going to be a prod issue tonight. I'm definitely not the New Yorker's target audience. The Guardian has the nickname Grauniad coined by Private Eye, a far better publication because of its frequent spelling errors.
I had a girlfriend who became a sub-editor, and she was told not to use a spellchecker because it would lead to negligence and hence, mistakes. I understand their logic but I think it's wrong, just use all the tools at your disposal and be diligent. Root cause unknown but we know where people are meeting more and more. Physical attractiveness is about all that matters in those venues. Your average man is not considered physically attractive to almost any women these days.
So, is it a surprise that sex is going down when the only ways of meeting are relying on physical attraction are going up? It's more like it requires an emotional apathy or detachment. At least that's what I've heard from my friends who engage in such casual encounters.
A Hookup App for the Emotionally Jaded. Anecdata: My grandpa had 9 kids. When asked for the reason, he would say that in his times there was no TV. Now we have computers, tablets, phones and thousands of ways of consuming content.
