January 4, 2016

Heterosexuality still declining among young women

In this old post I showed that since the early 1990s, young women have grown more and more sexually experimental with other women. There was no similar steady trend among young men: women's sexuality is more fluid than men's, at least when women are under 30 and more risk-taking. So whatever cultural causes are at play here will affect female more than male behavior.

That post covered data through 2010, but there have been two additional waves of the General Social Survey in '12 and '14 that we can check to see what's been going on since.

In short: young women are still more experimental than they were even at the end of the last decade.

Before I used three related variables to measure heterosexuality -- the sex of your sex partners over the past year, over the past five years, and how many men / women you've been with since turning 18. I'll stick with the last one -- how many women has a woman been with since turning 18 -- because that reveals earlier experimentation that may not have continued up through the date of the survey.

I'm also restricting the respondents to white women, to control for changing racial demographics among young people over time. "Young" here means aged 18 to 29 (same picture if you use 18 to 24; the wider range is used to boost sample sizes).

As of 2008 and '10, young women were about 89% heterosexual -- meaning they said 0 female partners during their adult lives. In '12, it fell to 87% and in '14 it fell again to 83%. This is down from a high of 95-100% heterosexuality among young women way back in the early 1990s.

Now, some of those who answered "zero women since I turned 18" have experimented with girls before turning 18, but not after. That adds in another several percentage points to the 17% who have behaved bi-curiously in adulthood. The more relevant variable is how non-heterosexual she has been after reaching sexual maturity. If she messed around with guys in high school but has been celibate from 18 to 25, she's still not a virgin.

So perhaps 20-25% of young women these days have experimented with other women during their sexually mature lives. The only silver lining there is that they're still a numerical minority.

It's true that such experimentation declines during their 20s, and is nearly done with by age 40. So at least early deviance doesn't last into mature deviance. On the other hand, whatever warping effects there are of being sexual with someone of the same sex, will persist well into middle or old age. It only takes those handful of times to yield the effects.

That could be disease-related. Men get oral/throat cancer from going down on women whose reproductive tract is infected with HPV (which gives the women cervical cancer). Bi-curious young women who go down on other women expose themselves to this risk, too -- something that wouldn't have happened if they had only been with men, who don't transmit HPV through fellatio. And it may only take a handful of bi-curious episodes to infect her. Remember that the data above are the number of women she's been with -- they don't say how frequently or infrequently she was sexual with another woman.

Then there are the psychological scars of same-sex experimentation. On the one hand, women are good at rationalizing and suppressing acts of their past that would lead to present cognitive dissonance or anxiety. On the other hand, that time when she repeatedly hooked up with other girls in college... seems difficult to forget. Women also experience sexually related psychological pain more forcefully than do men, especially if it involves feelings of vulnerability, naivete, and being taken advantage of.

And don't kid yourself -- the other woman, who's probably lesbian or girl-leaning bisexual, knows that this bi-curious girl is just going through a phase, is unsure, awkward, etc., but is not about to pass up an opportunity to add another notch on the bedpost. That feeling of being gullible and taken advantage of, in the most physically vulnerable state she can be in, will be rattling around her mind forever. It only takes once.

Male homos get most of the attention, pro and con, because they're the most flagrant flamers out there (other than the outright trannies). But they're still only 2-3% of men, and bi-curious experimenters add on at most another 5%, neither of which has been getting worse over the past several decades. That's nothing compared to the 20-25% of young women who are flouting normal sexual behavior by messing around with other girls during adolescence and young adulthood, a figure that continues to grow worse over time.

They should therefore be the next big target for attacking laissez-faire sexual norms. To the more rebellious ones, shame them about getting a boyfriend / husband, or keeping their horniness to themselves if they're too awkward around boys. To the more confused ones, meet them half-way and show them how unproductive and ultimately damaging it will be to them, physically and psychologically, to pursue the fool's game of short-cuts toward pleasure.

And of course, mercilessly mock the men who enable these trends by reminding them that girl-on-girl leaves them sexually rejected by not one but two girls, and is the fantasy of a defeatist loser. Also, that trying to sexually resonate with either one of the girls makes them a crypto-tranny (or in medicalese, latent transgender).

This fight should prove easier than the fight against Sodomite marriage, since the other side does not brand themselves with concepts like "love" and "marriage" and "equality," but with "slut" as in "slutwalk," "boo slut-shaming," and so on. And their outside enablers are not middle-of-the-road types, but sexually frustrated dorks who whack off to lesbo porn. Their image in the mass media is not a pretty lie such as the eccentric uncle in a family sit-com, but the ugly truth like Demi Lovato slutting it up in a heroin-dazed music video.

GSS variables: numwomen, year, sex, race, age


  1. I don't think any fight on any front against women's current destructive path against men will be easier than any other. The rot is deeper than anything I imagined even five years ago and it's only going one way.

  2. Misanthropist1/5/16, 5:30 AM

    I think women naturally have a greater tendency to be bi, for various reasons to deal with evolutionary psychology, stronger ingroup bias and being the more biologically valuable sex etc. It is probably something that is hardwired to manifest itself to a greater extent during certain times, such as when they perceive a lack of suitable males.

    Heterosexual women tend to have slightly less aversion to same sex relations than straight men. Though there are some exceptions. I know some women who are fairly grossed out by the thought of having sex with other women, but they are probably less common than straight men who have a strong aversion to sexual relations with men.

    Homosexuality is probably a developmental disorder of some kind, but it is likely more of a disorder among men than among women.

    I doubt that shaming women out of bi tendencies will do much good. The circumstances in which we live now permit relatively greater female sexual freedom than during most periods of time. That will likely change in time. But until then things will continue as they are.

  3. Actress Anne Hathaway has announced her pregnancy, presumably fathered by her husband Adam Shulman. Didn't you call Shulman a crypto-homosexual awhile back?

  4. Random Dude on the Internet1/5/16, 12:07 PM

    The discussion on increased bisexuality with women is interesting. I believe that a lot of it is rooted in mistrust between men and women. Pitting men and women against each other will have some interesting outcomes. Women are having more sex with women and more men are dropping out of the sexual rat race.

    I believe virtual sex will be a thing 5-10 years from now. I don't mean just watching porn on a monitor, I mean strapping on a VR helmet, plugging in a USB fleshlight, and looking at programs that are porn videos that interact with the fleshlight. I'm curious how sexual dynamics will turn out with this. It won't come close to the real thing but how many millions will say "close enough" and skip pursuing women at all in favor of this new technology?

    The reason I bring this up is that even with the Tinder hookups and having sex with other women, girls universally believe that a Mr. Right will be waiting for them at the end of their fun, which is usually in their late 20s and early 30s. However what will happen if neither Mr. Right or even Mr. Good Enough are no-shows? This should be interesting.

  5. Sex education programs and feminist media teach and encourage girls to masturbate and have orgasms and an end in themselves. When you sexualize girls with this kind of propaganda, it probably lowers their inhibitions about trying to make themselves come with the help of other girls.

    A healthy patriarchal society would keep girls inhibited about this part of their sexual functioning until they could explore the female orgasm in marriage with their husbands.

  6. "Didn't you call Shulman a crypto-homosexual awhile back?"

    He doesn't try to hide his gayface, awkward body language when forcing himself to kiss Anne, or carrying around a gigantic man-purse.

  7. I think those who speak of female bisexuality and lesbianism don't really know much about their actual sex lives. I know some lesbians couples and they joke a lot about the absence of sex in their lives.
    I think men have a tough time understanding that, but it's not sex (or what passes for sex in a same-gender relationship that might be drawing these women to one another. What is it? I'd imagine it's loneliness, not wanting to live alone, shared interests, and lack of attraction to men.

  8. Speak of the devil:


  9. "I believe virtual sex will be a thing 5-10 years from now. I don't mean just watching porn on a monitor, I mean strapping on a VR helmet, plugging in a USB fleshlight, and looking at programs that are porn videos that interact with the fleshlight. I'm curious how sexual dynamics will turn out with this. It won't come close to the real thing but how many millions will say "close enough" and skip pursuing women at all in favor of this new technology?"

    Lots of people already do this, it's called pornography. Having slightly fancier hardware won't make much difference, since the horse has already very much left the barn. Also, a lot of people would probably be too embarrassed to have to own/store/clean/maintain large, obvious sex toys.

    Similarly, I'm always amazed when people muse longingly about "will sexbots change dating dynamics forever?" No, they won't, because they'll always be just creepy dead-eyed mannequins for weirdos. But keep your eye on the ball, those dynamics have already changed, because we now have ubiquitous broadband internet porn and it's a massive, massive social problem.

  10. That link to the most popular searches at PornHub shows not only that girl-on-girl is in high demand, but also quasi-incestuous scenes between step-relatives (step mom, step sister, step daughter, etc.).

    This new form of deviance has the same causes as girl-on-girl. Cocooning makes people awkward just thinking about strangers, so their fantasies must put them at ease and be set within the domestic household sphere. That runs against the incest taboo, so simply remove the genetic relatedness and history of being raised by the woman, and bingo, step mom fantasies.

    There was an article somewhere not too long ago that we covered here, about a professor of psychology or family studies or sexuality or etc., discussing how different today's young people are in their dating-and-mating lives. Basically, they trust no one, and will only allow themselves to get into drunken hook-ups with members of their social circle, at a small house party where everyone knows everyone.

    She said that when she floats the idea of the attractive stranger across the dance floor, ships passing in the night, and so on, she just gets blank stares or comments about how awkward and creepy that would be.

    Naive observers would think that's for the best -- less one-night stands with randos.

    But in reality, it's just one piece of their overall awkwardness and social anxiety that keeps them from interacting *at all*, outside of drunkenly hooking up with an acquaintance, and to fantasizing about being seduced by a step-mother in the familiar cocoon of their own household.

    Through quasi-incest fantasies, their minds are desecrating the sanctity of "hearth and home," but at least they aren't drawn to beautiful strangers...

  11. Nearly identical estimates of non-heterosexuality among women these days, as well as it rising over time, according to the newest National Survey of Family Growth:

    "Compared to the same survey taken from 2006-2010, researchers found "significantly higher percentages of women in the 2011–2013" reporting that they had had same-sex sexual contact.

    "In the most recent report, 17.4 percent of women had such contact, compared to 14.2 percent years earlier.

    "Identifying as strictly straight, or having feelings of attraction only to members of the opposite sex, was also more common in men (92 percent) than women (81 percent)."


  12. The fields of sexology and sex education have become politicized into propaganda machines to promote sterility and deviancy, so the media they have published for a generation now have characterized homosexual behavior as "sexual diversity."

    The regular media have cooperated with this agenda by normalizing lesbian and bisexual celebrities like Kristen Stewart.

    By contrast, sexologists have almost completely ignored the male incel phenomenon, even though every few months an incel succumbs to existential despair and goes on a rampage killing. Sex scientists just don't consider incels a form of "sexual diversity" work studying.

  13. College textbooks also have the agenda of framing especially male homosexuality as a form of "intimacy," despite the fact that many gay men seek out and engage in anonymous and dehumanizing sex acts with strangers they meet in public restrooms, seedy night clubs and on sex tourism trips to the world's shit holes.

    Considering that progressives of a philosophical turn write about how our capitalist form of society results in alienation and exploits the vulnerable by abstracting and objectifying their bodies, you have to wonder why they give gays a pass on their alienating and dehumanizing practices, especially when gays go to poor countries to exploit the local impoverished boys.

  14. I wonder how much of the "women seeking sex with other women" is due to them no longer being attracted to what passes for boys in our society.

  15. That would predict that bi-curious girls would be more mature, traditional, and discriminating than strictly hetero girls.

    Other way around, though. Bisexual girls are the closest to faggots that females can get -- more juvenile, experimental, and promiscuous than other girls. They find boys as an entire prospect awkward, and why can't they just go back to the easier time when they only had to interact with girls like themselves?

    It's a retreat from growing up.

    I think bisexual girls are what happens when the gay germ infects a girl instead of a boy, who becomes a flaming homo. Females generally are more developmentally stable, so their symptoms are of the same kind as the fag's but to a lesser degree, and they burn out during her 20s as opposed to lasting the lifespan.

  16. "Sex scientists just don't consider incels a form of "sexual diversity" worth studying."

    Well I'm doing my part to study and explain them. But that's why I don't get the grant money.

    It seems like incels are part of the crypto-tranny phenomenon. They're afraid of approaching girls, and rely exclusively on porn. They're so afraid that even in their fantasies, they have to approach the girl in disguise as another girl -- otherwise the "guy approaching" alarm would go off, and he's busted. Hence girl-on-girl porn being so popular.

    Afraid of approaching girls, refusing to get to know them, stubbornly insisting on a porn-only "interaction" with them -- refusing to grow up. Peter Pan.

    Like outright homos, their disorder stems from emotional / social stunting, but it's at a slightly different stage. The fags are stuck in age 4 or 5, when girls are yucky, gross, ewww.

    The crypto-trannies and incels are stuck more around... age 9 or 10, when they've gotten over their "girls are yucky" stage, but are still too socially inexperienced, fearful, and awkward to actually get anywhere with them. (That's natural at age 9 or 10, you aren't *supposed* to be doing anything that young.)

    They haven't cleared that stage to be in the adolescent stage where they can approach girls, feel thrilled to be around them and flirt with them, and are if anything overly eager to get them in bed (as opposed to, "Meh, I bet she doesn't even deepthroat" a la the incel).

  17. BTW, that's my go-to theoretical framework for sexual weirdness -- getting stuck somewhere in the developmental progression. Maybe due to infection by a germ, maybe sexually related PTSD, maybe whatever else. But something halts the development in a certain stage.

    The different disorders are due to being stuck in different stages.

    It's simple, common-sense, uses only constructs that everyone admits exist, and explains a lot with a little -- it will never sell.

    Oh, of course Freud put sexual neuroses down to developmental warping -- but he was an idiot and Rube Goldberg machine-builder. My framework uses the stages that everyone knows and agrees to, not anal fixation, oral fixation, etc.

    Jewish social scientists try to explain the simple by means of the complex, or the normal by means of the abnormal. The toddler son who giggles when his mother tickles him is actually just barely suppressing his desire to fuck mommy after bumping off daddy.

  18. Helicopter parenting prevents normal progression through the social stages, so even trauma-free Millennials are going to wind up pretty sexually weird.

  19. >Afraid of approaching girls, refusing to get to know them, stubbornly insisting on a porn-only "interaction" with them -- refusing to grow up. Peter Pan.

    Some incels on the internet claim they have approached hundreds of women, and every single one has rejected them.

    Like this guy, for example:


  20. The long-haired incel featured in this documentary, "Shy Boys: IRL," also claims he has approached lots of women with no success:


    So something else seems to be going on here than your characterization of incels as modern-day Boo Radleys.

  21. C'mon now, the typical incel has approached zero girls. I'm guessing less than 1 in 1000 of them have "approached a decent number of girls".

    And even when they "approach," they are only doing so physically, as though one you get physically close enough, chemistry magically kicks in. They don't drop their guard emotionally, don't drop their ego-centrism, and girls can tell this is just some selfish dweeb looking to get into her pants as easily as possible.

    Their "approach" is in total bad faith, so it's not what we really mean by approaching girls -- meaning psychologically as well as physically.

  22. This may sound flippant, but I'm serious:
    How much female bisexuality could be chalked up to rising obesity rates? If I could share an anecdote: my sister (34) has a friend (27 or 28) who has always identified as straight and gave no indication she was into girls either as a lesbian or a bi. She is also very overweight and seldom dates. A few months ago this 40 year old lesbian coworker of hers started getting flirty with her. This led to a few makeout sessions and now they consider themselves a couple and are often together. This woman's parents know nothing, living out of state, and this woman refuses to call herself bisexual. When I asked my sister what was up she said, "I think she's just a lonely fat girl taking what she can get."


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."