" Speaking as a guy this sorting of eldritch woman attaint stuff and nonsense about dressing sexy at home is very overrated because if a guy cable finds you attractive you’re able to reasonably much dress like Fred Durst and we ’d still have sex with you whenever . "
From2014 to 2020, the birth rate in the United States consistently decreased by 2% annually. U.S. births increased byjust 1% in 2024, still near the record-setting low of 2023.
Statisticians and sociologist chalk up the baby flop to a number of structural cultural factors , includingsky - high-pitched child care price , anunaffordable trapping market , inflexible study schedulesand take study culture , and theeconomic radioactive dust of the pandemic .
The long - term trend can also blithely be attributed to a satisfying reduction inthe number of teen pregnanciesover the last several decades .
But in a post that’s gone viral this week,X user @thegenesisbl0ckvolunteered a competing theory for plummeting fertility rates: People aren’t having sex because women go to bed looking like absolute slobs!
“ Birth rate would sky rocket salad if girls wore this at home instead of some oversized dispossessed essence outfit , ” wrote the poster , who pass away by Andrea D. Huberwoman , a feminization of Andrew Huberman , a neuroscientist andpodcast hostwho ’s popular withself - optimization bros .
In the accompany picture , we see two women with recollective blonde hair wearing lacy pink lingerie set .
Men and women on X and Bluesky were quick to call out lady Huberman for the bad take .
“I used to incinerate money on Stella McCartney stuff like this and it’s a total waste. My ex preferred when I wore a cropped t shirt to bed. You’re doing this nonsense for you not him,” repliedpodcast host Aimee Terese.
“Speaking as a guy this sort of weird woman shaming stuff about dressing sexy at home is very overrated because if a guy finds you attractive you can pretty much dress like Fred Durst and we’d still have sex with you whenever,”@brendelbored.bsky.social wrote on Blueskyof the post.
Some responded with hard evidence: “Spend all you want on Victoria’s Secret lingerie but granny wore something like this and gramps gave her eight kids and paid all the bills,”one woman postedalong with a photo of a woman wearing a baggy house dress in a pink generic animal print (a decidedly unsexy animal print, we should add).
There ’s plainly a lot wrong with the intimate apparel - encourage post . First , people are still very much into and buying lingerie : Victoria ’s Secret is still animated and kicking . sumptuousness lingerie brand Agent Provocateur consider itsrevenues doubleover the preceding three years .
In cattiness of the narrative that humans are optic creatures , most straight valet de chambre do n’t really care all that much about lingerie . Most will be happy with a good sometime - fashioned naked adult female ( quite a visual in and of itself ) , or even a woman they ’re attract to who just so happens to be tire sweats and an honest-to-god , ratty T - shirt as a comfortable prelude to nakedness .
William Costello, a doctoral researcher who studies evolutionary psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, asked about the lingerie theory in an unscientific poll on X, and found that most straight men and women who responded don’t feel that lingerie makes much of a notable difference when it comes to triggering male desire.
All this said , there ’s utterly nothing wrong with putting a fiddling travail into looking full for your partner , or for yourself . Some people feel especially sexy in lingerie , and more business leader to them . But you not drop away on a pricey Fleur du Mal garter rap before fit to bed isnotthe ground the nascence rate has taken a tumble .
“ As a sex therapist who works with men , woman and couples , I can secern you with confidence : No , man do not ‘ need ’ lingerie to be turn on , ” saidTammy Nelson , a sex and relationship therapist and author ofOpen Monogamy : A Guide to Co - make Your Ideal Relationship Agreement .
What turns people on is considerably more complex, Nelson said. “Eroticism starts in our head — it’s emotional connection, availability, confidence and responsiveness,” she said.
“ Just being au naturel works just fine for many couples . And yes , someone present up — even in sweats — and being present , intermeshed , and into their partner can be incredibly aphrodisiac , ” she tell HuffPost .
If anything is a sexual buzzkill right now , it ’s the stress of trying to make a support wage while maintaining your saneness in these chaotic , capital - letter Unprecedented Times .
Working andjust getting bycan easily lead to compound tenseness and anxiousness , which can do a number on your libido .
“ wear intimate apparel is a leisure time activeness , and as a sexual practice healer , I can attest that for most multitude today ― especially parents ― leisure time is in very inadequate supply , ” saidStephen Snyder , a sex healer in New York City and the source ofLove Worth Making : How to Have laughably smashing Sex in a Long - survive Relationship .
The real roadblock to intimacy and replication today are economical pressure , chronic stress , exhaustion from caregiving , and disconnection in relationships , Nelson said .
She added that the framework of the societal media post ― blaming women for this narrative of “ not turning on their man ” ― reward the outdated idea that cleaning woman are responsible for maintaining virile desire and that their appearance alone should be responsible for intimate behaviour .
“ The idea that not wearing lingerie is somehow bear on birthing rates is not only reductive , it ’s sexist and honestly absurd , ” she said .
Tasking women with the sexual responsibility to look aphrodisiac when they go to bottom ― when they ’re also usually the ones doing most of theemotional laborat home , plus actual labor at work ― is farcical to Nelson .
“ love is co - created , ” she pronounce . “ Realintimacy come from mutual effort , exposure , and trust — not lingerie . ”This clause originally appeared onHuffPost .
