This is an interesting piece. I hesitate to press the Like button on it because I don’t care for your proposed solutions, but still did because it shows enough strong points.
First, it’s always good to keep in mind the high likelihood that in any specific instance there are no solutions; only tradeoffs. Fortunately all of your proposed solutions are peaceful, so I won’t argue against any of them except to say, I don’t care for them. Go ahead and pursue them if you wish (away from my community).
The best aspect of this piece is in its identification of an important problem: lack of romantic relationships among young people. I would put this problem in the category of loneliness. Lack of sex correlates with changes in: suicide rate, bisexual identity, trans identity, homosexuality, and the gender ideological divide. So I say this problem is bigger and even more important than you make it out to be.
Solutions that you didn’t mention:
Design spaces with the loneliness problem in mind. Once we recognize the problem of loneliness we can start designing and building homes, offices, schools, and neighborhoods that encourage spontaneous interaction and romantic interaction. For example…
A) Steve Jobs proposed a single gigantic bathroom in his new spaceship building to enhance spontaneous conversation. His suggestion was rejected, but I believe it’s something we should keep discussing. It’s in line with Bryan Caplan’s observations that people are shy.
B) Mooshing rooms. A mooshing room is a private nook designed for two people, one young man and one young woman to make-out within a larger communal room. I once saw such a room in an old home on Wilson St in Bozeman, Montana. It was designed using a fireplace as a room separator. That is, the fireplace formed a peninsula butting against one wall, with the moshing room being a tiny space on one side of the fireplace with a loveseat for two. There was enough privacy to make-out but not enough to have sex.
C) More and larger well-designed communal spaces within neighborhoods to allow parties, game play, live music, book clubs, and co-ed sports.
D) Within HOA communities encourage the prohibition of garages on the front of homes and replace with a community room or community-enhancing front yard that invites spontaneous interaction among neighbors. Require front yards to incorporate features that promote interaction among neighbors, such as gardens, sports and game activities, craft areas, outdoor kitchens, swimming pools, and furniture.
E) Design neighborhoods for walking and biking and that discourage car driving without first walking or biking.
F) Design large gyms into neighborhoods that encourage social interaction and make going to the gym more than just mindless exercise. Encourage neighborhood gyms that promote reading, eating, learning, co-ed sports, self-improvement, arts, music and crafts. In other words, make exercise engaging and more worthwhile. Rather than walking on a treadmill by yourself, encourage people to interact while using treadmills and other gym equipment. Include in gyms, reading rooms, classrooms, and craft rooms.
New co-ed sports in which males are handicapped and the goal of the game is to interact with the opposite sex. For example co-ed basketball in which men can only dribble with their left hand, and cannot block women’s shots. This would promote exercise and interaction. After the game, food and drinks would be served, and ideally players would be encouraged to walk home together or ride share. Hence, make it a rule that no one is allowed to drive to or from the game solo.
More co-ed class requirements. In high school and college require that men take a certain number of classes that women usually take (psychology, primary education, feminine studies, etc) and require that women take a certain number of classes in engineering, military science, physics, etc. The emphasis here should be interaction between the sexes, not to promote more gender equality.
Steal ideas from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that encourage weekly interaction among children and teens. Every Wednesday kids are encouraged to participate in arts and crafts, parties, sports, etc.
Eliminate public schools because they are socially destructive and replace with school choice and creative solutions that promote healthy interaction among children. Some solutions will gravitate toward promotion of healthy romantic relationships among students.
I've been drafting a short story (in my head) about a future where we outfit everyone (or, everyone who opts in) with "augmented reality" neural implants, analogous to AR goggles, but super realistic and pertaining to all sensory modalities (and without the doofy gloves and headsets). The starting costs are high, but after that, the savings are immense. No need to bother with grooming, exercise, or personal hygiene: the implant's "beauty filter" will present all the people you meet as drop-dead gorgeous (or however you want them to appear). No need to spend huge sums on fancy cars: the implant will make your used Subaru look, sound, and feel like Ferrari. Low-cost nutritious goop tastes like Michelin-star cuisine; people living in Soviet-era apartment blocks feel like they're living in Versailles (of if you get tired of that, you tell the AR to "redecorate" in the style/era of your choice). Sort of like the Matrix, except for people still move around and interact in normal-ish ways, and have a greater measure of control over their lives. So there you go: a practical, first-world solution to a real first-world problem.
I think it's possible to learn how to be attractive, at least attractive enough to get a partner (casanova-tier is something else). But at scale, yeah, it's like the economy, is everyone actually capable of escaping poverty?
I also actually think it's really important for men to have something greater than women in their lives, a guy who can't conceive of something greater than women is going to be some level of needy with them, and therefore off-putting.
As a 36 year old virgin (one might even say an incel, except I don't believe in their ideology), I don't find my condition so unbearable. I do have things in my life greater than women, and I guess my introversion works for me here, as it means I'm ok with being alone most of the time. I still care do about this, though I would say it was only in the last year that I overcame my psychological issues enough that I could talk to women I'm attracted to with any consistency.
If I'm able to keep on chugging, I think it's definitely because there is a core to my life that isn't my biological urges. That core is spirituality. Something I didn't have many years ago when I became suicidally depressed over my shyness.
"in a modern, free society, there are only two kinds of women who would be virgins (after a certain age): (a) extremely unattractive women, and (b) women who do not like sex."
You are generalizing too far from your (academic) environment. There are women with strong religious beliefs, women who believe virginity will improve their position on the marriage market since men prefer to marry virgins, women who have internalized traditional sexual beliefs.
I think Michael has, in his mind, defined "modern, free" society in a way that excludes all the cases you mentioned—religious beliefs, traditional views on virginity, and strategic choices in the marriage market—from his argument.
I think Michael badly overestimates how similar the general population is to Colorado philosophy professors and their friends. I know highly intelligent people who are deeply religious, one an ex-colleague.
Yes, having studied in Israel, I can say that academia is largely composed of religious intellectuals and professors. I'd estimate it's about 50% secular and 50% observant. I believe your father had a similar impression when he visited Israel and engaged with Israeli academia in the '70s, but I'd need to rewatch his interview to confirm.
I don’t know how much improving attractiveness as a solution will help the dating problem. You said yourself in the beginning of this post that you have met super-attractive people who are still having a hard time dating.
I think there’s a misdiagnosis here that the problem is too many unattractive men. Whatever the problem is, I think it goes beyond unattractive men.
It's a reasonable hypothesis that expanding the scope of attractiveness comparisons, through mass media and social media, raises standards for attractiveness. I haven't seen anyone test that hypothesis.
(Sorry for the long post, professor Huemer if you're reading this, I disagree because I think you are overestimating how much physical attraction plays a role for women in dating.)
It is a reasonable hypothesis, but I don't think it's likely to be the cause of the dating crisis. Arguably, men on average have gotten more attractive over time, and there seems to be an abundance of attractive people who are still single. Which professor Huemer admits.
Someone else had mentioned an alternative hypothesis. I think the culture war is more likely to be the reason couples are having a hard time finding suitable mates. To explain this, I think it's important to point out some differences in dating between men and women.
First, I think Huemer is overestimating how much physical attraction plays a role in dating for women. Men tend to be more focused on physical appearance, whereas women seek out partners who are likely to be good providers. For the average woman, a good partner doesn't have to afford a $5 million home in the Hamptons, but he needs to be able to take care of his children and family. This mostly stems from our biological makeup.
Given these differences, it is much harder for educated and successful women to find suitable partners than it is for educated and successful men. Why? Because men typically don't care whether their significant other is a "girl boss" or not. In fact, arguably, men tend to prefer the average woman over the successful woman because they know that they will be able to provide for her. In contrast, women tend to want a significant other who is at least equally as successful as she is. Maybe he's not educated, but he needs to be able to pull roughly the same income as she does. Why? Because again, for women, it is more about status and providing than it is physical attraction.
This makes the dating pool for educated and successful men much larger than it is for successful and educated women, and when men have more options, they're probably going to be less likely to settle down as well.
You might ask about all the non-educated and unsuccessful people, but I think the dating crisis still exists for similar reasons. Mainly, that it comes from our culture war, or "girl boss" fad that has permeated throughout American culture. For the lower-class, if the woman can work, take care of the children, cook, clean and put gas in the car, why should the man even bother doing anything at all?
"The results showed that social comparison and perfectionism together had an effect of 30.6% on body image, with social comparison having an impact of 25.5% and perfectionism of 9.9%. The results of this study indicate that the higher the social comparison and perfectionism possessed by beauty content creators, the higher the dissatisfaction with body image."
"This study provides empirical evidence of the contrast effect in a collectivistic culture, demonstrating that exposure to attractive images significantly lowers the perceived attractiveness of neutral images. Gender differences were evident, but relationship status did not influence contrast effects. These findings offer valuable insights for social psychology, marketing, industrial psychology, and community psychology, emphasizing the role of perceptual biases in shaping aesthetic judgments and social interactions."
"This study demonstrates that the more selfies viewing, the more likely to compare their appearance and are more dissatisfied with their bodies, thus reinforcing the consideration of cosmetic surgery."
"The representations of lip enhancements on Instagram reflect a narrower range of lip types compared to clinical findings, including a dramatic shift toward a type 3A lip shape. This standardisation of beauty ideal highlights the need for further exploration of social media's influence on lip enhancement preferences and the associated risks, as well as how these trends shape patient expectations in aesthetic practices."
"Findings of the study reveal that significant positive correlation was found between using social media, comparing physical appearance, body dissatisfaction and drive for thinness. In addition, using social media is a significant positive predictor of comparing physical appearance, body dissatisfaction and drive for thinness. Furthermore, unmarried females reported higher level of using social media, comparing physical appearance, body dissatisfaction and drive for thinness as compared to married. It is recommended that in future research addressed the need for awareness and interventions to mitigate the harmful effects of social media on body image and mental well-being."
that's research on dissatisfaction with one's own body. The same causes might or might not also cause dissatisfaction with one's partners' bodies. My money is on it probably does, but someone needs to actually do the research.
It's probably easier to get federal grant money for research showing that social media causes women to have unrealistically high standards for themselves, than for research showing that social media causes women to have unrealistically high standards for their partners. Or at least it was, until fairly recently.
There seems to be a fundamental logical flaw here (respectfully).
Dating is a zero-sum game. Making more people attractive does not increase the overall likelihood of individuals finding a partner; it only affects an individual's chances within a given distribution. This is similar to Caplan's argument in his education thesis.
If that's the case, and 50% of people are men while 50% are women, why doesn't the market naturally equilibrate? And why is the problem only getting worse?
(As a single 35-year-old, I have a good idea why, based on my dating experience. I'm just curious about your take before I share mine.)
This is a misunderstanding. If everyone wants a partner and there are enough potential partners available, then dating should function like a market where supply and demand naturally balance. In theory, people would adjust their standards to match reality, ensuring that most individuals find a partner rather than remaining single.
However, if standards remain rigid or expectations become unrealistic—such as many people holding out for only the most desirable partners—then imbalance occurs. This leads to a situation where some people stay single despite an available pool of partners, making the problem worse over time.
A key issue is the hidden assumption that 'something better must come along in the future.' If many people believe they can always trade up, they delay commitment, further disrupting the natural equilibrium of the dating market.
Dating, unlike self-improvement or economic growth, is largely a zero-sum game because desirability is relative. If one person 'wins' by securing a highly desirable partner, another must 'lose' by ending up with someone less desirable (or remaining single). Since attraction is not equally distributed, a minority of individuals receive a disproportionate amount of attention, while many struggle to find a match. This dynamic, fueled by high standards and the illusion of endless options, exacerbates dating market imbalances.
Again, that doesn't clear markets. Standards would just go up to reflect that, as people aim for a single partner in western societies (as Michael explained in his post).
The dating market consists of roughly 50% men and 50% women, and since most people seek just one partner, the market can only clear if standards adjust accordingly—not simply by improving general traits.
If everyone becomes more attractive, the relative rankings still remain. People will continue to pursue the highest-status partners they can get, leaving many unmatched unless standards shift. The issue isn't about absolute attractiveness but about how people evaluate each other within a competitive system.
For the market to balance, preferences would need to adjust so that individuals accept partners in proportion to availability, rather than holding out for a top-tier match while others remain single. Without this adjustment, improved general traits don’t solve the underlying problem of misaligned expectations.
You are assuming that all that matters is relative attractiveness. There may be men so unattractive that even a single woman who couldn't find anyone else would not want them. One obvious reason is that what women want is not just sex but a long-term relationship and such a relationship with some men would make the woman worse off tnan no relationship. Similarly for some unattractive women.
David, while this argument has some intuitive appeal, it assumes an absolute threshold below which no woman would choose a man, even if she had no alternatives. That might apply in extreme cases, yet research overwhelmingly shows that hypergamy—the tendency for women to seek partners of higher status or attractiveness—is primarily relative, not absolute.
1. Men are becoming increasingly attractive over time, largely due to advancements in health, fitness culture, grooming, and height increases. Studies indicate that modern men are perceived as more attractive than their predecessors, with greater emphasis placed on muscle tone, facial symmetry, and overall health indicators (Ricciardelli & Williams, 2012; Gangestad & Scheyd, 2005; Sarwer et al., 2003). This suggests that even if an absolute threshold once existed, it is rising, making men today more likely to meet women’s evolving standards.
2. Social comparison in mate selection: Sprecher & Regan (2002) found that mate preferences are shaped by social comparison rather than absolute benchmarks. Women assess potential partners relative to their available alternatives, meaning desirability is determined by competitive ranking within the dating market rather than fixed universal criteria.
3. Mate preference flexibility: Wood & Brumbaugh (2009) found that women's mate preferences adjust dynamically based on the available pool of partners. Their research suggests that mate selection is context-sensitive, indicating that women select based on their relative standing in the dating market rather than adhering to rigid, predefined minimums.
4. Speed-dating experiments confirm relative selection: Todd, Penke, Fasolo, & Lenton (2007) demonstrated that women adjust their mate preferences dynamically, choosing partners based on relative desirability within the dating pool rather than fixed absolute thresholds. This supports the argument that mate selection is fluid and shaped by immediate competition.
5. Computational models reinforce rank-based hypergamy: Conroy-Beam & Buss (2016) demonstrated that mate selection follows a process of relative optimization rather than absolute requirements. Their research on computational mate choice models shows that individuals evaluate potential partners based on comparative advantage within their dating pool, reinforcing the idea that hypergamy operates on a ranking system rather than a strict cutoff.
As economists, this shouldn’t be too surprising. Mate selection follows the same logic as any competitive market—people optimize their choices based on available alternatives. A woman's utility function in dating isn’t binary (meet threshold = accept), but rather a ranking system where relative value matters more than absolute criteria. Just as consumers don’t settle for the first product that meets their basic needs but compare options to maximize utility, women evaluate partners based on comparative advantage. Even if a man clears the baseline, a better option shifts preferences—just like in any market where choices depend on relative, not fixed, utility.
While extreme unattractiveness may, of course, lead to rejection across the board, for most men, mate selection is about relative rank, not a fixed bar. Hypergamy functions as a competitive process, meaning women don’t reject men based on an absolute threshold—they assess them in relation to available alternatives. And as men continue to improve in attractiveness due to societal shifts in health and grooming, the relative baseline also evolves accordingly.
Additionally, if absolute mate standards were the dominant factor, we would expect that as men become more attractive, fewer women would remain single. Yet, the opposite trend is observed: despite men improving in attractiveness (as previously mentioned), women are more single today than they were 20, 50, 100, or 200 years ago
"People will continue to pursue the highest-status partners they can get"
Humans have been found to be satisficers, not maximizers, i.e. they will search until they find one who satisfies their needs but isn't necessarily the best they could possibly get. So average people looking more like the most attractive ones will raise everyone's chances, everything else equal.
Also, I think the term 'highest-status' is overused even for women, but especially men. I have known several men who didn't want to live with very high-status wives. They divorced after their wives entered politics or became professors and stopped making homemade pumpkin jam in their cozy kitchens. These men didn't feel good anymore, they felt lower status compared to their wives, even though the wives were mostly loving and loyal.
It feels like humanity is on a trajectory that will eventually reach population collapse, reverse the trend, and re-introduce third-world problems.
Second-world issues may become a thing, where third-world problems are experienced by a growing number of the population within first-world countries due to inbuilt societal and structural failings.
For example, if West's populations continue to decline, there could be a pension crisis, as too many people are drawing down their pensions compared to the number of people paying in.
This seems to be a many-faced issue I don't think our forebears really thought we'd face.
When workforce participation declines due to an aging and shrinking population, you have fewer real goods being produced relative to the amount of retirement money chasing those goods. Seems inevitable that pensions' real purchasing power will decrease to match the supply of goods. I.e., either lots of inflation will occur or lots of entitlement cuts will occur. Then the old people will wish they'd had kids to help support them in retirement.
You forgot a large solution: Christianity. People who believe in traditional Christianity and follow its teachings are more likely to get married and have happier relationships overall. They abstain from premarital sex, nonmarital sex in general, and report having better sexual relationships overall.
Also, if Charles Murray and Lyman Stone right, the government is partially responsible for the decline of religion, other forms of community, and other forms of impulsive behavior. The welfare state gave more naturally impulsive people an (irrational) excuse to engage in e.g. promiscuity, and Lyman Stone argues that an increase in government education spending has decreased religious identification due to the required secular identification from that. Of course this might be nominally religious people deconverting, but it might be genuinely religious people deconverting too.
religious communities do tend to emphasize marriage, but correlation doesn’t always equal causation. A lot of that ‘happiness’ could just as easily be influenced by expectations—divorce, for example, is generally discouraged and taboo in traditional Christian circles, which might keep couples together even (or at specially) if they’re unhappy. In my view this is actually one of the many problems of religion.
As for sexual satisfaction, self-reporting bias is a real thing, and the pressure to conform to religious ideals can shape how people answer those surveys. Plus, while Christianity encourages marriage, it also promotes strict abstinence, which created its own set of problems.
So while Christianity might offer some structure that makes marriage more likely, there is no reason to believe that it is a viable solution to sexual satisfaction or overall happiness.
For context, my entire upbringing was a very traditionally Christian
I typed out a larger reply that addressed your claims but I accidentally swiped out of it because Apple is too hardheaded to add a basic back button. But in short, researchers have attempted to find other explanations for why traditional morality is so successful, but they have failed. This shouldn’t be surprising considering Christianity has positive effects on other things that you can’t fake (lower suicide rate, less premarital pregnancies, historical scientific and moral progress, etc.) It would be weird if it stopped there! https://ifstudies.org/blog/testing-common-theories-on-the-relationship-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability
The idea that it’s a mere correlation or a mere dishonest survey response strikes me as a myth.
I wouldn’t say it’s a dishonest survey per se, but to accept it wholesale and claim that it’s the answer to the first-world problem of mating wouldn’t be honest. There are confounding variables like selection bias (commitment to marriage as an institution rather than abstinence), unmeasured psychological and social factors (attachment issues), and cultural norms.
To me it really speaks to the power of story; God will save the person who abstains from sex and then marries into a committed relationship keen on avoiding divorce, otherwise he/she risks going to hell. That is a powerful story that may cause a person to abstain from sex and divorce - but it doesn’t tell you anything about that persons well being of that person. The leverage that God (or more accurately, the religious institution) has over that person is enough to explain that this person merely conforms out of fear.
I would push back on your claim that religion has played a role in scientific and moral progress. The Bible literally condones slavery and the killing of innocent children in the name of God, any moral and scientific progress we have today has happened in spite of what the Bible teaches - not because of it.
This is an interesting piece. I hesitate to press the Like button on it because I don’t care for your proposed solutions, but still did because it shows enough strong points.
First, it’s always good to keep in mind the high likelihood that in any specific instance there are no solutions; only tradeoffs. Fortunately all of your proposed solutions are peaceful, so I won’t argue against any of them except to say, I don’t care for them. Go ahead and pursue them if you wish (away from my community).
The best aspect of this piece is in its identification of an important problem: lack of romantic relationships among young people. I would put this problem in the category of loneliness. Lack of sex correlates with changes in: suicide rate, bisexual identity, trans identity, homosexuality, and the gender ideological divide. So I say this problem is bigger and even more important than you make it out to be.
Solutions that you didn’t mention:
Design spaces with the loneliness problem in mind. Once we recognize the problem of loneliness we can start designing and building homes, offices, schools, and neighborhoods that encourage spontaneous interaction and romantic interaction. For example…
A) Steve Jobs proposed a single gigantic bathroom in his new spaceship building to enhance spontaneous conversation. His suggestion was rejected, but I believe it’s something we should keep discussing. It’s in line with Bryan Caplan’s observations that people are shy.
B) Mooshing rooms. A mooshing room is a private nook designed for two people, one young man and one young woman to make-out within a larger communal room. I once saw such a room in an old home on Wilson St in Bozeman, Montana. It was designed using a fireplace as a room separator. That is, the fireplace formed a peninsula butting against one wall, with the moshing room being a tiny space on one side of the fireplace with a loveseat for two. There was enough privacy to make-out but not enough to have sex.
C) More and larger well-designed communal spaces within neighborhoods to allow parties, game play, live music, book clubs, and co-ed sports.
D) Within HOA communities encourage the prohibition of garages on the front of homes and replace with a community room or community-enhancing front yard that invites spontaneous interaction among neighbors. Require front yards to incorporate features that promote interaction among neighbors, such as gardens, sports and game activities, craft areas, outdoor kitchens, swimming pools, and furniture.
E) Design neighborhoods for walking and biking and that discourage car driving without first walking or biking.
F) Design large gyms into neighborhoods that encourage social interaction and make going to the gym more than just mindless exercise. Encourage neighborhood gyms that promote reading, eating, learning, co-ed sports, self-improvement, arts, music and crafts. In other words, make exercise engaging and more worthwhile. Rather than walking on a treadmill by yourself, encourage people to interact while using treadmills and other gym equipment. Include in gyms, reading rooms, classrooms, and craft rooms.
New co-ed sports in which males are handicapped and the goal of the game is to interact with the opposite sex. For example co-ed basketball in which men can only dribble with their left hand, and cannot block women’s shots. This would promote exercise and interaction. After the game, food and drinks would be served, and ideally players would be encouraged to walk home together or ride share. Hence, make it a rule that no one is allowed to drive to or from the game solo.
More co-ed class requirements. In high school and college require that men take a certain number of classes that women usually take (psychology, primary education, feminine studies, etc) and require that women take a certain number of classes in engineering, military science, physics, etc. The emphasis here should be interaction between the sexes, not to promote more gender equality.
Steal ideas from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that encourage weekly interaction among children and teens. Every Wednesday kids are encouraged to participate in arts and crafts, parties, sports, etc.
Eliminate public schools because they are socially destructive and replace with school choice and creative solutions that promote healthy interaction among children. Some solutions will gravitate toward promotion of healthy romantic relationships among students.
I've been drafting a short story (in my head) about a future where we outfit everyone (or, everyone who opts in) with "augmented reality" neural implants, analogous to AR goggles, but super realistic and pertaining to all sensory modalities (and without the doofy gloves and headsets). The starting costs are high, but after that, the savings are immense. No need to bother with grooming, exercise, or personal hygiene: the implant's "beauty filter" will present all the people you meet as drop-dead gorgeous (or however you want them to appear). No need to spend huge sums on fancy cars: the implant will make your used Subaru look, sound, and feel like Ferrari. Low-cost nutritious goop tastes like Michelin-star cuisine; people living in Soviet-era apartment blocks feel like they're living in Versailles (of if you get tired of that, you tell the AR to "redecorate" in the style/era of your choice). Sort of like the Matrix, except for people still move around and interact in normal-ish ways, and have a greater measure of control over their lives. So there you go: a practical, first-world solution to a real first-world problem.
This reminds me of (spoilers!) the plot twist near the end of Stanislaw Lem's *The Futurological Congress*.
I think it's possible to learn how to be attractive, at least attractive enough to get a partner (casanova-tier is something else). But at scale, yeah, it's like the economy, is everyone actually capable of escaping poverty?
I also actually think it's really important for men to have something greater than women in their lives, a guy who can't conceive of something greater than women is going to be some level of needy with them, and therefore off-putting.
As a 36 year old virgin (one might even say an incel, except I don't believe in their ideology), I don't find my condition so unbearable. I do have things in my life greater than women, and I guess my introversion works for me here, as it means I'm ok with being alone most of the time. I still care do about this, though I would say it was only in the last year that I overcame my psychological issues enough that I could talk to women I'm attracted to with any consistency.
If I'm able to keep on chugging, I think it's definitely because there is a core to my life that isn't my biological urges. That core is spirituality. Something I didn't have many years ago when I became suicidally depressed over my shyness.
"in a modern, free society, there are only two kinds of women who would be virgins (after a certain age): (a) extremely unattractive women, and (b) women who do not like sex."
You are generalizing too far from your (academic) environment. There are women with strong religious beliefs, women who believe virginity will improve their position on the marriage market since men prefer to marry virgins, women who have internalized traditional sexual beliefs.
I think Michael has, in his mind, defined "modern, free" society in a way that excludes all the cases you mentioned—religious beliefs, traditional views on virginity, and strategic choices in the marriage market—from his argument.
I do agree with you that these cases should count
I think Michael badly overestimates how similar the general population is to Colorado philosophy professors and their friends. I know highly intelligent people who are deeply religious, one an ex-colleague.
Yes, having studied in Israel, I can say that academia is largely composed of religious intellectuals and professors. I'd estimate it's about 50% secular and 50% observant. I believe your father had a similar impression when he visited Israel and engaged with Israeli academia in the '70s, but I'd need to rewatch his interview to confirm.
I don’t know how much improving attractiveness as a solution will help the dating problem. You said yourself in the beginning of this post that you have met super-attractive people who are still having a hard time dating.
I think there’s a misdiagnosis here that the problem is too many unattractive men. Whatever the problem is, I think it goes beyond unattractive men.
It's a reasonable hypothesis that expanding the scope of attractiveness comparisons, through mass media and social media, raises standards for attractiveness. I haven't seen anyone test that hypothesis.
(Sorry for the long post, professor Huemer if you're reading this, I disagree because I think you are overestimating how much physical attraction plays a role for women in dating.)
It is a reasonable hypothesis, but I don't think it's likely to be the cause of the dating crisis. Arguably, men on average have gotten more attractive over time, and there seems to be an abundance of attractive people who are still single. Which professor Huemer admits.
Someone else had mentioned an alternative hypothesis. I think the culture war is more likely to be the reason couples are having a hard time finding suitable mates. To explain this, I think it's important to point out some differences in dating between men and women.
First, I think Huemer is overestimating how much physical attraction plays a role in dating for women. Men tend to be more focused on physical appearance, whereas women seek out partners who are likely to be good providers. For the average woman, a good partner doesn't have to afford a $5 million home in the Hamptons, but he needs to be able to take care of his children and family. This mostly stems from our biological makeup.
Given these differences, it is much harder for educated and successful women to find suitable partners than it is for educated and successful men. Why? Because men typically don't care whether their significant other is a "girl boss" or not. In fact, arguably, men tend to prefer the average woman over the successful woman because they know that they will be able to provide for her. In contrast, women tend to want a significant other who is at least equally as successful as she is. Maybe he's not educated, but he needs to be able to pull roughly the same income as she does. Why? Because again, for women, it is more about status and providing than it is physical attraction.
This makes the dating pool for educated and successful men much larger than it is for successful and educated women, and when men have more options, they're probably going to be less likely to settle down as well.
You might ask about all the non-educated and unsuccessful people, but I think the dating crisis still exists for similar reasons. Mainly, that it comes from our culture war, or "girl boss" fad that has permeated throughout American culture. For the lower-class, if the woman can work, take care of the children, cook, clean and put gas in the car, why should the man even bother doing anything at all?
https://jurnal.ranahresearch.com/index.php/R2J/article/view/1467
"The results showed that social comparison and perfectionism together had an effect of 30.6% on body image, with social comparison having an impact of 25.5% and perfectionism of 9.9%. The results of this study indicate that the higher the social comparison and perfectionism possessed by beauty content creators, the higher the dissatisfaction with body image."
https://insightsjlss.com/index.php/home/article/view/92
"This study provides empirical evidence of the contrast effect in a collectivistic culture, demonstrating that exposure to attractive images significantly lowers the perceived attractiveness of neutral images. Gender differences were evident, but relationship status did not influence contrast effects. These findings offer valuable insights for social psychology, marketing, industrial psychology, and community psychology, emphasizing the role of perceptual biases in shaping aesthetic judgments and social interactions."
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0318245
"This study demonstrates that the more selfies viewing, the more likely to compare their appearance and are more dissatisfied with their bodies, thus reinforcing the consideration of cosmetic surgery."
https://academic.oup.com/asjopenforum/advance-article/doi/10.1093/asjof/ojaf010/8002727?login=false
"The representations of lip enhancements on Instagram reflect a narrower range of lip types compared to clinical findings, including a dramatic shift toward a type 3A lip shape. This standardisation of beauty ideal highlights the need for further exploration of social media's influence on lip enhancement preferences and the associated risks, as well as how these trends shape patient expectations in aesthetic practices."
https://bbejournal.com/BBE/article/view/1083
"Findings of the study reveal that significant positive correlation was found between using social media, comparing physical appearance, body dissatisfaction and drive for thinness. In addition, using social media is a significant positive predictor of comparing physical appearance, body dissatisfaction and drive for thinness. Furthermore, unmarried females reported higher level of using social media, comparing physical appearance, body dissatisfaction and drive for thinness as compared to married. It is recommended that in future research addressed the need for awareness and interventions to mitigate the harmful effects of social media on body image and mental well-being."
that's research on dissatisfaction with one's own body. The same causes might or might not also cause dissatisfaction with one's partners' bodies. My money is on it probably does, but someone needs to actually do the research.
It's probably easier to get federal grant money for research showing that social media causes women to have unrealistically high standards for themselves, than for research showing that social media causes women to have unrealistically high standards for their partners. Or at least it was, until fairly recently.
1. Not only 2. There are 100s of relevant studies all showing similar results, Google them.
What's your alternative hypothesis?
Shouldn’t he at least mention polyamory, if only to dismiss it?
Are you thinking of that as a solution to the dating problems? Could you say more?
Hey Mike, great piece.
There seems to be a fundamental logical flaw here (respectfully).
Dating is a zero-sum game. Making more people attractive does not increase the overall likelihood of individuals finding a partner; it only affects an individual's chances within a given distribution. This is similar to Caplan's argument in his education thesis.
If that's the case, and 50% of people are men while 50% are women, why doesn't the market naturally equilibrate? And why is the problem only getting worse?
(As a single 35-year-old, I have a good idea why, based on my dating experience. I'm just curious about your take before I share mine.)
Dating is absolutely not zero-sum. If everyone is a more attractive partner, the average person is much better off.
This is a misunderstanding. If everyone wants a partner and there are enough potential partners available, then dating should function like a market where supply and demand naturally balance. In theory, people would adjust their standards to match reality, ensuring that most individuals find a partner rather than remaining single.
However, if standards remain rigid or expectations become unrealistic—such as many people holding out for only the most desirable partners—then imbalance occurs. This leads to a situation where some people stay single despite an available pool of partners, making the problem worse over time.
A key issue is the hidden assumption that 'something better must come along in the future.' If many people believe they can always trade up, they delay commitment, further disrupting the natural equilibrium of the dating market.
Dating, unlike self-improvement or economic growth, is largely a zero-sum game because desirability is relative. If one person 'wins' by securing a highly desirable partner, another must 'lose' by ending up with someone less desirable (or remaining single). Since attraction is not equally distributed, a minority of individuals receive a disproportionate amount of attention, while many struggle to find a match. This dynamic, fueled by high standards and the illusion of endless options, exacerbates dating market imbalances.
Desirability is not entirely relative. It is better for everyone to be thin than for everyone to be fat.
Again, that doesn't clear markets. Standards would just go up to reflect that, as people aim for a single partner in western societies (as Michael explained in his post).
The dating market consists of roughly 50% men and 50% women, and since most people seek just one partner, the market can only clear if standards adjust accordingly—not simply by improving general traits.
If everyone becomes more attractive, the relative rankings still remain. People will continue to pursue the highest-status partners they can get, leaving many unmatched unless standards shift. The issue isn't about absolute attractiveness but about how people evaluate each other within a competitive system.
For the market to balance, preferences would need to adjust so that individuals accept partners in proportion to availability, rather than holding out for a top-tier match while others remain single. Without this adjustment, improved general traits don’t solve the underlying problem of misaligned expectations.
You are assuming that all that matters is relative attractiveness. There may be men so unattractive that even a single woman who couldn't find anyone else would not want them. One obvious reason is that what women want is not just sex but a long-term relationship and such a relationship with some men would make the woman worse off tnan no relationship. Similarly for some unattractive women.
David, while this argument has some intuitive appeal, it assumes an absolute threshold below which no woman would choose a man, even if she had no alternatives. That might apply in extreme cases, yet research overwhelmingly shows that hypergamy—the tendency for women to seek partners of higher status or attractiveness—is primarily relative, not absolute.
1. Men are becoming increasingly attractive over time, largely due to advancements in health, fitness culture, grooming, and height increases. Studies indicate that modern men are perceived as more attractive than their predecessors, with greater emphasis placed on muscle tone, facial symmetry, and overall health indicators (Ricciardelli & Williams, 2012; Gangestad & Scheyd, 2005; Sarwer et al., 2003). This suggests that even if an absolute threshold once existed, it is rising, making men today more likely to meet women’s evolving standards.
2. Social comparison in mate selection: Sprecher & Regan (2002) found that mate preferences are shaped by social comparison rather than absolute benchmarks. Women assess potential partners relative to their available alternatives, meaning desirability is determined by competitive ranking within the dating market rather than fixed universal criteria.
3. Mate preference flexibility: Wood & Brumbaugh (2009) found that women's mate preferences adjust dynamically based on the available pool of partners. Their research suggests that mate selection is context-sensitive, indicating that women select based on their relative standing in the dating market rather than adhering to rigid, predefined minimums.
4. Speed-dating experiments confirm relative selection: Todd, Penke, Fasolo, & Lenton (2007) demonstrated that women adjust their mate preferences dynamically, choosing partners based on relative desirability within the dating pool rather than fixed absolute thresholds. This supports the argument that mate selection is fluid and shaped by immediate competition.
5. Computational models reinforce rank-based hypergamy: Conroy-Beam & Buss (2016) demonstrated that mate selection follows a process of relative optimization rather than absolute requirements. Their research on computational mate choice models shows that individuals evaluate potential partners based on comparative advantage within their dating pool, reinforcing the idea that hypergamy operates on a ranking system rather than a strict cutoff.
As economists, this shouldn’t be too surprising. Mate selection follows the same logic as any competitive market—people optimize their choices based on available alternatives. A woman's utility function in dating isn’t binary (meet threshold = accept), but rather a ranking system where relative value matters more than absolute criteria. Just as consumers don’t settle for the first product that meets their basic needs but compare options to maximize utility, women evaluate partners based on comparative advantage. Even if a man clears the baseline, a better option shifts preferences—just like in any market where choices depend on relative, not fixed, utility.
While extreme unattractiveness may, of course, lead to rejection across the board, for most men, mate selection is about relative rank, not a fixed bar. Hypergamy functions as a competitive process, meaning women don’t reject men based on an absolute threshold—they assess them in relation to available alternatives. And as men continue to improve in attractiveness due to societal shifts in health and grooming, the relative baseline also evolves accordingly.
Additionally, if absolute mate standards were the dominant factor, we would expect that as men become more attractive, fewer women would remain single. Yet, the opposite trend is observed: despite men improving in attractiveness (as previously mentioned), women are more single today than they were 20, 50, 100, or 200 years ago
(https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/45-of-women-to-be-single-childless-by-2030-morgan-stanley-study/articleshow/113192867.cms.)
If you’d like, I can send you the full references and sources via email. Let me know.
"People will continue to pursue the highest-status partners they can get"
Humans have been found to be satisficers, not maximizers, i.e. they will search until they find one who satisfies their needs but isn't necessarily the best they could possibly get. So average people looking more like the most attractive ones will raise everyone's chances, everything else equal.
Also, I think the term 'highest-status' is overused even for women, but especially men. I have known several men who didn't want to live with very high-status wives. They divorced after their wives entered politics or became professors and stopped making homemade pumpkin jam in their cozy kitchens. These men didn't feel good anymore, they felt lower status compared to their wives, even though the wives were mostly loving and loyal.
Check out my reply to David Friedman. This assertion is demonstrably false.
It feels like humanity is on a trajectory that will eventually reach population collapse, reverse the trend, and re-introduce third-world problems.
Second-world issues may become a thing, where third-world problems are experienced by a growing number of the population within first-world countries due to inbuilt societal and structural failings.
For example, if West's populations continue to decline, there could be a pension crisis, as too many people are drawing down their pensions compared to the number of people paying in.
This seems to be a many-faced issue I don't think our forebears really thought we'd face.
When workforce participation declines due to an aging and shrinking population, you have fewer real goods being produced relative to the amount of retirement money chasing those goods. Seems inevitable that pensions' real purchasing power will decrease to match the supply of goods. I.e., either lots of inflation will occur or lots of entitlement cuts will occur. Then the old people will wish they'd had kids to help support them in retirement.
It was hard to predict the steep decline in the natural birth rate of rich countries.
You forgot a large solution: Christianity. People who believe in traditional Christianity and follow its teachings are more likely to get married and have happier relationships overall. They abstain from premarital sex, nonmarital sex in general, and report having better sexual relationships overall.
Also, if Charles Murray and Lyman Stone right, the government is partially responsible for the decline of religion, other forms of community, and other forms of impulsive behavior. The welfare state gave more naturally impulsive people an (irrational) excuse to engage in e.g. promiscuity, and Lyman Stone argues that an increase in government education spending has decreased religious identification due to the required secular identification from that. Of course this might be nominally religious people deconverting, but it might be genuinely religious people deconverting too.
religious communities do tend to emphasize marriage, but correlation doesn’t always equal causation. A lot of that ‘happiness’ could just as easily be influenced by expectations—divorce, for example, is generally discouraged and taboo in traditional Christian circles, which might keep couples together even (or at specially) if they’re unhappy. In my view this is actually one of the many problems of religion.
As for sexual satisfaction, self-reporting bias is a real thing, and the pressure to conform to religious ideals can shape how people answer those surveys. Plus, while Christianity encourages marriage, it also promotes strict abstinence, which created its own set of problems.
So while Christianity might offer some structure that makes marriage more likely, there is no reason to believe that it is a viable solution to sexual satisfaction or overall happiness.
For context, my entire upbringing was a very traditionally Christian
I typed out a larger reply that addressed your claims but I accidentally swiped out of it because Apple is too hardheaded to add a basic back button. But in short, researchers have attempted to find other explanations for why traditional morality is so successful, but they have failed. This shouldn’t be surprising considering Christianity has positive effects on other things that you can’t fake (lower suicide rate, less premarital pregnancies, historical scientific and moral progress, etc.) It would be weird if it stopped there! https://ifstudies.org/blog/testing-common-theories-on-the-relationship-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability
The idea that it’s a mere correlation or a mere dishonest survey response strikes me as a myth.
I wouldn’t say it’s a dishonest survey per se, but to accept it wholesale and claim that it’s the answer to the first-world problem of mating wouldn’t be honest. There are confounding variables like selection bias (commitment to marriage as an institution rather than abstinence), unmeasured psychological and social factors (attachment issues), and cultural norms.
To me it really speaks to the power of story; God will save the person who abstains from sex and then marries into a committed relationship keen on avoiding divorce, otherwise he/she risks going to hell. That is a powerful story that may cause a person to abstain from sex and divorce - but it doesn’t tell you anything about that persons well being of that person. The leverage that God (or more accurately, the religious institution) has over that person is enough to explain that this person merely conforms out of fear.
I would push back on your claim that religion has played a role in scientific and moral progress. The Bible literally condones slavery and the killing of innocent children in the name of God, any moral and scientific progress we have today has happened in spite of what the Bible teaches - not because of it.