https://****************/Sexual_revolution_caused_incels_hypothesis
There are a lot of problems with this article.
Marriage mostly started declining during the conservative Reagan era and not the hippie or sexual revolution decades,[9] now with 79% of men never married by age 25.[10]
The divorce rate exploded in the 1960s because of feminism and no fault divorce laws, and the average age of first marriage also began to increase around that time. It had decreased in the immediate aftermath of World War II because economic prosperity was allowing more men to satisfy women's standards in the context of a society where monogamy was still being socially enforced.
A lot of the marriages that took place after the 1960s were not first marriages. Serial monogamy is de facto polygamy, and contributes to sexual inequality, as women and attractive/high status men are much more likely get married more than once than lower status males.
So while the sexual revolution probably increased the number of young unmarried men, those who advocate this theory must also prove it also translated to increased celibacy before conservative sexual mores were put into place in the 1980s, such as abstinence education and fearmongering of sex, due to the burden of proof.
Statistics on the rate of sexlessness in the general population only began to be collected in the late 20th century, so there is no way to conclusively prove that there were less sexless men in the 1950 or before than there are today. However, the theory that the sexual revolution of the 1960s made it easier for most men to get sex is completely false. The sexual revolution has actually resulted in less sex for most men. Every single generation after the Silent Generation has seen a decline in sexual frequency.
This study uses the General Social Survey to examine how the portion of sexually inactive (defined as having had no sexual partners since your 18th birthday) among young adults (age 20-24) that were born from 1990-1994 compares to cohorts that were born in earlier decades.
The 1930s cohort that came of age in the 1940s and 1950s had the most sex. Every single generation after that has seen a decline. The portion of sexually inactive jumps from 6.31% among those born from 1965-1969 to ~11.5% among those born from 1970-1979, remains steady for those born from 1980-1989, and jumps again to 15.17% for those born from 1990-1994.
The reason is likely going to be mostly
the decline of marriage, but not wholly, since some groups are unaffected despite a marriage decline because of women with higher incomes having higher standards and female mate choice copying leading to more polarisation. Since 1980 educational hypergamy declined, but the tendency for women to marry men with higher incomes than themselves
has persisted, and the percentage of women with careers has been increasing continuously since the 1960s. It's not just the sexual revolution, but also other social changes brought about by feminism that contribute to the increase in inceldom.
A man who is in the top 1% of sexual frequency today would have only been in the top 25% in the 1930s cohort.
Sexual inequality has probably grown in a manner that is worse than the increase in material inequality, because it involves most men getting less, despite male desire likely not changing.
Hypergamy used to be mitigated with socially enforced monogamy. Now that this is no longer the case, we are reverting to our most natural state, in which more and more men are left out.
During the 1850s for example, when only around three out of every 1000 couples were divorced, 77% of men below age 25 were unmarried in the Southern United States, which then dropped to about 68% in 1870.[8]
The relatively high age of marriage in the early modern West was caused not by patriarchy, but rather by its decline. It's disingenuous to imply that the Western European Marriage pattern (EMP), which is the demographic pattern that is marked by comparatively late marriage, is evidence that patriarchy causes inceldom. Even feminists have acknowledged that its emergence was a sign of the decline of patriarchal authority over women and their increasing social status. As patriarchy began to decline, it became more important for men to cater to women's expectations and demands rather than to their fathers', and more women gained the freedom to act on their hypergamy and to delay marriage until their mid to late twenties, and sometimes indefinitely.
"
The EMP emerged in north-western Europe because of a combination of three socio-economic and ideological factors: first, the stress on consensus instead of parental authority for the formation of a marriage; second, the position of women in the transfer of property between husband and wife and between parents and children; and third, the accessibility to, and size of, the labour market....
The fact that both the man’s and his future wife’s consent was necessary for marriage meant that it was a contract between ‘equals’ since neither one could impose consensus upon the other partner. This means that in principle the bargaining position of women in such a marriage pattern is relatively strong: a woman could (try to) select the kind of husband that suited her. In the more romantic interpretation of the EMP, marriage was based on the love between the two partners, which must have had a strong equalizing effect also—assuming that love presupposes a certain degree of equality between the partners. This equalizing effect was also visible in the way in which partners dealt with their property." (
source)
It could be argued that EMP was a precursor of feminism, and it's surely not a coincidence that it emerged in the same countries of Western Europe from which feminism would emerge centuries later. Before the EMP became dominant in Europe, females were not usually given the privilege to delay marriage beyond puberty.
- Frayser (1985) summarized historical and crosscultural patterns of marriage prior to the twentieth century and estimated that, on average, girls from ages 12 to 15 were married to men from ages 19 to 21. This practice of pubertal marriage, condemned in the modern West, nevertheless has been basic to humans, as Whiting et al. (2009) also concluded in their seminal cross-cultural review of marriage patterns.“ (source)
It's not in men's collective interest to allow women to delay marriage until they are past their prime; not just because it results in more young men being celibate, but also because older women tend to have lower quality children.
This study found that the offspring of women who gave birth in their 30s had reduced reproductive success compared to the offpring of women who gave birth in their 20s or earlier.
Only around 10%-13% of men between 18-30 reported celibacy in individual years in the mid 2010s,[11] and given around 77% of that same demographic was unmarried prior to the sexual revolution and were forbidden from pre-marital sex, it stands to reason there were fewer young incels in the mid 2010s than than before the sexual revolution. .
Men were not "forbidden" from premarital sex before the sexual revolution. That is nonsense. Prostitution was more common and more affordable in the 19th century than it is today, and men were less likely to be prosecuted for hiring prostitutes. Even in early 20th century Russia, which was more religious than contemporary America, it was considered normal for men to hire prostitutes.
"In 1909 in Moscow a brochure was published with the results of a statistical study conducted among students of Moscow State University. The results of the survey showed that about 60% (almost two-thirds of students at the university) satisfied their sexual needs with prostitutes, 12% slept with other people's wives, a fifth with servants, and only 15% were in committed relationships. Almost half of the respondents lost their virginity in brothels. Moreover, at the beginning of the century it was common to rent one sex worker for two or three men, which means that a significant part of urban residents had experience of group sex. (source)
In the 19th century, women were stigmatized for promiscuity and expected to remain virgins until marriage, men weren't. In today's society, single men only have sex about twice a month on average. That's not much at all, and not much better than getting sex from prostitutes.
Today, the vast majority of both genders reproduce, and the modern variance between male and female reproduction is only 7%, not 60%.[19]
The source given here is not reliable for such a claim. It is based on survey data from the National Survey of Family Growth rather than complete data for the entire population. As far as I know, there are no statistics on male childlessness in America.
In Norway, which is a feminist country that does keep statistics on male childlessness rates, 29.5% of men are childless at age 40, compared to only 15.2% of 40-year old women. The rate of male childlessness has greatly increased since the 1960s. It seems that the sexual revolution has reduced the reproductive success of many men.
"Among men born in 1950, 14.8 per cent did not have children at the age of 45. For men born in 1971, 23.7 per cent were childless at the same age. At the same time, 29.5 percent of men born in 1976 were childless at the age of forty; up from 16.3 per cent in 1950. The corresponding figures for women at the age of 45 are 8.4 and 15.2 per cent, respectively - also increasing, but not nearly as sharply. In the population as such, almost every fourth man in Norway is childless in the year he turns 45. These men can of course still have children, unlike most women, but few become a father for the first time at that age. A significant proportion of Norwegian men enter old age without descendants, without this being a situation they have wanted to be in." (source)
