Japan losing interest in sex, relationships, and having kids

[Ganoncrotch]

curl-6 said:

Ganoncrotch said:

Look having read the majority of the terribly written article that a lot of those figures are drawn from https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/young-single-people-in-japan-aren-t-having-sex-and-the-reason-is-proving-fatal which is where a lot of the OP's links cite as being the ones who looked deeper into the numbers, the analysis and interviews done by that outlet are done pretty much to get hits for the site, which they've done with fairly decent success, keep in mind that one of the links in the OP is also a 2 year old article based on something different but it's a good clickbaity title none the less.

I'm not going to waste more of my own time on this trash survey/article though but I will say this, you think that they asked any amount of 18 year old males if they had sex or not... and got an honest answer? from that point on you should know that the numbers in the survey are going to be no real indication of the real world, I would almost point out that the % of 18 year olds who might be doing a survey legitimately.... are going to be those who aren't having sex... because normal 18 year olds have better things to be doing than fill out surveys.

I couldn't find the actual data from the survey btw after checking through 2 of the articles but all I could find was %'ages and certain age groups along with qualifiers such as "of that age group who weren't married, X% was single and X% of those hadn't had sex" so if you have 100 people, 50 of which are married, 25 of which are in relationships then the % of the people who you are talking about being virgins is only 25% of the initial 100, even if 100% of that group are virgins... it's 25 out of 100 people, this is why % isn't the best way of tracking the real figures.

notice OP has left out some portions of quotes which state this, but in the original articles (which are really not worth the time of reading)

"Many aren’t having sex either. In fact, around 44 per cent of unmarried women and 42 per cent of unmarried men admit they are virgins, according to The 2015 National Fertility Survey, which is a kind of sex and relationship census conducted by the government every five years."

So yeah it's based on 44% of unmarried men which does not mean that nearly half are virgins... even if the survey was 100% correct it would mean that 44% of a certain % are virgins and again.... a large % of the unmarried will be minors.

I'm pretty shitty at maths, but for the 18-34 male demographic, if 70% are single and 42% of those who aren't married are virgins, then even if we assume for the sake of argument that the 30% who aren't single are all married, we're still talking 42% of 70% being virgins, which still gives us a figure of 29.4%, an alarmingly high figure when you consider 18-34 is usually a demographic is when most men and women are in their sexual prime.

True, it's not quite the "nearly half" the Daily Mail ran with as their headline but again, still a dire statistic.

Also, a "National Fertility Survey" isn't going to be polling preteens asking how much sex they're having.

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.