Oxygen - Water - Food - Sex

The Four, Basic...

Noonday Heat by Henry Scott Tuke, 1903

To hear journalists and researchers talk, Gen Z and youngers' views on sex are akin to a Victorian midwife.

No one else is a whole heap better. Barring folks like Dan Savage and Rebecca Yarros, us 'elders' seem content to either shrug or applaud.

Are the studies wrong, flawed? Maybe. They could definitely do better.

Are members of the younger generation who participate in the studies *gasp* lying? In some cases, probably.

Have we, those who follow such things, too narrowly defined "sex"? To a large degree, YES.

---

A Basic... What

Don't pop a gasket my ace fam*. Just stick with me.

From solo, physical pleasure to orgiastic pleasure cruises, the vast and overwhelming majority of human beings need or are driven to feel a form of physical, sexual stimulation. The vast majority of us by interaction with a fellow human. (Note: I wrote stimulation not intercourse.)

I could find you a study on that, or I could send you back to a basic biology course. (I know; I know. But, in the end, hormones are hormones. There's a much deeper conversation to be had about how that impacts the level of need or drive for sexual stimulation and may play a role in sexual orientation.)

"TM, you're being reductive."

No. I'm not. I'm taking a subject we've spent far too much time mummifying in mystery, guilt, criticism, archaism, religion, and plainly bad information and calling it what it is:

A basic need. Sex, however you wish to define the set of acts, is a basic, natural, human need.

But the Research

Alright, Professor, I heard you after the first sentence.

You probably based your opinion primarily on extrapolations from or expansions on the PSID-TAS. Preeminent and long-running, the PSID is a great study with a very large sample size. I'm not discounting the wealth and overall validity of information gained.

Still, the TAS isn't a psych exam. There isn't a fail safe mechanism controlling for respondents lying. Like all studies, a standard margin for error is factored and one moves on.

Regardless, my point stands that the TAS and various other surveys and discussions of sexual activity seem, even if unintentionally so, always bias toward:

• Binary male / female relationships (and)

• Narrow definitions of what constitutes sex

Personal example:

Back in the 1900s, my high school administered an anonymous, bubble-sheet-answer-only survey of the type discussed above. No name, identifying information, or electronic fingerprints of any kind.

I was 17 and a little Jesus Freak at the time. I LIED.

Q: Had sex? | A: No | True Answer: Yes, started when I was 15.

Same for ever having smoked, ever having drank, ever having tried marijuana... You get the picture.

I lied because maybe, maybe someone could determine which survey I filled out. I lied because I had a particular image of myself in my head, based on my religion, and even admitting it in a little bubble would shatter that image.

The same holds true for people today.

The unwritten codes like 'keep your socks on', 'no kissing', and 'if it's only oral / in the butt...' exist for a reason. Ask two people, who are literally, equally, sexually active, to quantify their activity, and you stand the chance of receiving very different answers based on what they believe counts as sex and how willing they are to admit to particular acts based on other deeply-held moral or religious beliefs.

Devolution or Evolution

Sans exhibitionists and Edmund White, most folks tend to keep their dangly bits and quims, and what they do with them, fairly private.

Freely, I admit to mostly believing (and in times past practicing) more like Mr. White. Not everyone finds or desires such an exhaustive freedom. This appears true of our younger, more cautious generations. The seeming lack of sex might be attributable to a generational redefining of sex and what 'counts' as such, along with an unwillingness to blab about it to random social scientists.

Take a look at all the risqué content creators out there. Not even the self-made porn stars. Just those with rather juicy thirst traps. For each of them, tens of thousands are following. If we factor in all the NSFW paid providers, well... damn.

Supposing sexual activity really is declining across the board, all those influencers and creators could be part of the problem. Not that they mean to be. I'd wager my house that most have quite the opposite intention, if this topic even crosses their minds.

C'mon. Insta and TikTok aren't really the problem.

Not entirely. But influencers and frequent, popular posters who fall into the mentioned categories are a diminutive percent of a social medium's population. However, their outsized influence over one's perception, both personally and of larger social issues, cannot be overstated.

Someone who doesn't have the smoldering looks of the peeps they follow may assume everyone else does and think they don't have a shot. Why try, right? Conversely, someone with similar smoldering looks may assume that anyone without the same isn't worth pursuing.

Age-old issue, exploded exponentially by modern social media.

So, it's safer and easier to use one hand to click 'like' and the other to... well, as Trekkie Monster puts it: "The Internet is for porn."

Simply put, sex is a basic need, but the ways we obtain sexual gratification are evolving. A version of 'post-nut clarity', a calming of the raging hormones and blind desire, is more frequently coming solo. Though, plenty of those still in the game and inclined to such know: nothing beats having a partner.

Why Care / What Next

The issue is more complex than our younger generations having less sex--if that's the case. With sex so readily available, I see a three-fold issue.

1. Choice Paralysis

2. Apathy as a result of convenience

3. Desire for safety

Unlike us heathen Millennials and Xers, youngers aren't trysting in the azalea bushes beside the football field as much. Smart. Good way to catch poison ivy somewhere you really don't want it. This doesn't make them undersexed prudes.

Further, it seems sexual activity is primarily seen by researchers as male--female and/or anal--vaginal penetration. The view ignores sex a whole and discounts the quite large amount of same-sex sexual encounters regardless of professed orientation.

I'd need an entire, different blog post to really discuss the three bullets above. (It'll happen.) Suffice for now, we, the willing heathens, need to take to social media and assure the youngers that their views on sex are fine. It's okay to 'do it' any legal way they want. Make sure they understand how to feel-and-be safe without scaring the hell out of them, but they can't experience many of the types of sex they post about without taking a risk on another person.

Because...

Sex is not one thing with one purpose. Whatever one's choice of sexual activity is, the act is supposed to be fun, supposed to be enjoyed, supposed to be guilt-free, and at least biologically, needed.

*Aces, asexual individuals, exist on a spectrum. Aces are not blanketly celibate or opposed to the idea of sex with another person. In fact, many asexual individuals practice some form of sexual stimulation. Aces views on their personal, sexual activity are often more nuanced and complex than that of most other recognized sexual orientations.