Exactly it isn't, which is why I think the figures have been fucked with even more to give us that headline, while it looks like it serves no purpose if list the actual ages of the survey then it should be more accurate. To include people in the ages of 0-18 by using terms like "people under 40" you allow yourself more room to fluff figures to suit a dramatic headline.

You could well be correct in which people are being polled but that doesn't mean those numbers aren't being used for the headline is what I mean, say if you get the results from the survey and it tells you that 25% of people from 20-40 are virgins, that isn't a huge headline is it? but as you've done yourself you can deduce that the survey wasn't done on anyone under the age of consent because they are going to be presumed to not be having sex so the can still be added into a result if you want to as 100% virgin it's just when the headlines are pushing the below 40 mark I'm always skeptical because it allows them room to add in extra multiplying factors which make the headline more.... headliney.

Lets say you ran a survey to see how many men had 1 testicle instead of 2, you survey a large range of males and find that the number is slight say .... why did I get into this line lol but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monorchism yeah it's a thing it happens but if the figures from that were remotely high say 5% it still wouldn't give you a great headline, but it could still be manipulated into a grand headline given that injury and testicular cancer are reasons for the removal of them if you wanted to suggest the situation was far more common you could pose the results of your scenario that the % of men with 1 or fewer gradually increased with age, in fact by the age of 60 over 50% of all people are missing one or both testicles. Dramatic increase, now it has eyebrows raised... by the age of 60 you might have lost a testicle! Now you're clicking and talking about it. The reality is the wording has been altered, 50% of people of all ages are missing testicles, they're called women, they don't need to be surveyed to include them in the people who are missing said part of the body but if you phrase it as I've done above no misinformation has been done by me, simply inclusion of people I know to be on the side of the scale that I want to represent as being larger than it is.

I'm just saying, never look at the headline from a survey  like this and skip over an "oversight" such as including the ages 0-18, very rarely are figures omitted or submitted to a survey analysis unless they're there for a good reason.

Earth isn't over populated yet.  We have tons of untapped resources and we don't take advantage of engineering insights that would further reduce scarcity. 

Earth isn't over populated yet.  We have tons of untapped resources and we don't take advantage of engineering insights that would further reduce scarcity. 

Lots of different causes, mostly related to the issues of Japanese society.

...Maybe the Food...

Are you calling the Japanese soyboys?

(This is a joke and I’m actually a vegetarian before people feel offended)

Exactly it isn't, which is why I think the figures have been fucked with even more to give us that headline, while it looks like it serves no purpose if list the actual ages of the survey then it should be more accurate. To include people in the ages of 0-18 by using terms like "people under 40" you allow yourself more room to fluff figures to suit a dramatic headline.

You could well be correct in which people are being polled but that doesn't mean those numbers aren't being used for the headline is what I mean, say if you get the results from the survey and it tells you that 25% of people from 20-40 are virgins, that isn't a huge headline is it? but as you've done yourself you can deduce that the survey wasn't done on anyone under the age of consent because they are going to be presumed to not be having sex so the can still be added into a result if you want to as 100% virgin it's just when the headlines are pushing the below 40 mark I'm always skeptical because it allows them room to add in extra multiplying factors which make the headline more.... headliney.

Lets say you ran a survey to see how many men had 1 testicle instead of 2, you survey a large range of males and find that the number is slight say .... why did I get into this line lol but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monorchism yeah it's a thing it happens but if the figures from that were remotely high say 5% it still wouldn't give you a great headline, but it could still be manipulated into a grand headline given that injury and testicular cancer are reasons for the removal of them if you wanted to suggest the situation was far more common you could pose the results of your scenario that the % of men with 1 or fewer gradually increased with age, in fact by the age of 60 over 50% of all people are missing one or both testicles. Dramatic increase, now it has eyebrows raised... by the age of 60 you might have lost a testicle! Now you're clicking and talking about it. The reality is the wording has been altered, 50% of people of all ages are missing testicles, they're called women, they don't need to be surveyed to include them in the people who are missing said part of the body but if you phrase it as I've done above no misinformation has been done by me, simply inclusion of people I know to be on the side of the scale that I want to represent as being larger than it is.

I'm just saying, never look at the headline from a survey  like this and skip over an "oversight" such as including the ages 0-18, very rarely are figures omitted or submitted to a survey analysis unless they're there for a good reason.

Ganon, it bothers me somewhat that you are still talking like your "toddlers included" scenario is a plausible explanation.  I typed japan 2015 national fertility survey into Google and literally the first result was a link to the survey's homepage.  The first link on that page, "Highlights", which is also the second Google result, contains proof that your idea is totally without merit in this case.

NEVER-MARRIED MALE RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE NEVER HAD INTERCOURSE WITH THE OPPOSITE SEX (2015) on page 6

It literally took me longer to put together that table than it did for me to find the information in it.  Why didn't you find it first?  Or do you still maintain that your claim has merit?

An equally likely explanation:  An additional 40% of young Japanese are homosexual. 

Japanese people are less horny than westerners, and it surely comes from their hormones too, not just the society. I'm pretty sure that the average Japanese guy has way less testosterone than the average white or black guy (it would explain why some of them are so effeminate and "herbivores", complete opposite to an "alpha male"). Genetics are maybe a factor, but yeah, their food is completely different from us, I wouldn't be surprised if it played a role. 

They don't eat that much soy, but they eat way less meat, dairy and proteins in general, that could be a factor... 

Although, meat and dairy products tend to be bad for testosterone. Vegetarians have an average of 8% higher testosterone than those who eat meat, and vegans have 13% higher. In fact, those who are doing the all meat diet have been experiencing extremely low testosterone levels: (former) Dr. Shawn Baker, for example, a guy who obviously had high testosterone originally, got some bloodwork; not to mention it’s a source of estrogen.