Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.
worldpopulationreview.com
USA is not even at top 10.
The point here, is not 'are women having more or less sex', it's who are they having sex with.
I found this an interesting article on that topic:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bioe.13134
Findings.
1. Between 2002 and 2018, 18-24 year old females (same age range at both time points) reporting no sexual partners in the past year did not change. For men, an increase in the numbers having no sexual partners in the last year was reported.
2. A 2021 study examining 'recently of age' (Gen Z) men, reported that men were more likely to be sexually inactive than Millenial men of the same age were a few years earlier.
3. However, those men who are having sex, are having more of it than they have in the past. The top 20th percentile man for sexual activity had a body count of 12 in 2002. In 2012, that was 15. For the top 5%, the same trend is seen; 2002, 38, 2012, 50.
4. Despite findings 2 & 3,
median sexual partners for men is unchanged, just as it is for women.
5. Overall conclusion. Women still have sex as much as they always have, both on average, and when split out by percentiles. Behaviors around overall promiscuity have not changed for women at all. However, what has changed, is
who they sleep with. Young women are increasingly choosing to sleep with a more limited group of sexually successful (I'd infer 'high status') males. The Gini index analysis supports that conclusion.
This does appear to support
@rookhawk's assertions that women are aggressively pursuing 'high status' men, and have perhaps an over-inflated sense of their 'realistic' partner for a relationship. It also supports Tate's views to a degree as well, unfortunately.
The only point in his analysis that I can find fault with is this idea that women are somehow more promiscuous than they've been in the past. The data doesn't seem to support that assertion...
On a personal level (i.e opinion, not facts here), I do think there's some truth to the points
@skydiver386 lays out as well. For successful men, they don't need to marry. Women are pursuing them, they can get sex when they want it, and there is little benefit to marriage, especially if chances are they can do a bit of 'trading up' or 'swapping out' themselves, so long as they don't make a firm financial commitment, which, in many ways, is what marriage amounts to. So long as you aren't interested in kids, anyway.
For unsuccessful men, a bigger cohort now than in the past, they aren't winning nearly as much as they did 10/20/30 years ago, so whilst they might want to marry, their opportunities are more limited. Especially as all the women who realistically are 'fair' partners for them in terms of what each partner brings to the table, are trying to punch well above their weight in the hopes of landing a figurative 'whale'. I think that's one of the root causes for the incel stuff, and also why Tate and his ilk do get the traction they have amongst that cohort. These guys aren't stupid, they can tell the game is rigged against them, they know they're losing, they want someone to blame, and Tate gives an easy explanation that gives them agency, without having to admit that they're just as much 'the problem'.
…..you've worked hard for your $ no reason you can’t enjoy the fruits of your labor.
