Skip to Content
0 Votes

Wiki source code of Studies: Dating

Version 2.1 by Ryan C on 2025/06/21 05:18
Show last authors
1 = Dating =
2
3 {{expandable summary="Study: Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace – Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"}}
4 **Source:** *Social Forces*
5 **Date of Publication:** *2016*
6 **Author(s):** *Stephanie M. Curington, Kevin K. Anderson, and Jennifer Glass*
7 **Title:** *"Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"*
8 **DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007](https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007)
9 **Subject Matter:** *Race and Dating, Multiracial Identity, Online Behavior*
10
11 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
12 1. **General Observations:**
13 - Data drawn from **over 1 million messaging records** from an online dating site.
14 - Focused on how **monoracial users** (especially Whites) interact with **multiracial daters**.
15
16 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
17 - **Multiracial Black/White and Asian/White women** received **fewer responses from White men** than their monoracial counterparts.
18 - White daters showed **stronger preferences for monoracial identities**, particularly **own-race pairings**.
19
20 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
21 - **Multiracial men** fared worse than multiracial women across most pairings.
22 - **Latina/White and Asian/White multiracial women** were **more positively received by Black and Hispanic men**.
23 {{/expandable}}
24
25 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
26 1. **Primary Observations:**
27 - White users demonstrated a clear pattern of **in-group preference**, preferring other White users (monoracial or partially White) over more ambiguous multiracial identities.
28 - Authors suggest this reflects **"boundary-maintaining behavior"** and **"latent racial bias"**.
29
30 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
31 - **Multiracial women with partial minority backgrounds** were more acceptable to non-White men than White men.
32 - Multiracial daters were **often treated as ambiguous or “less desirable”** in ways the authors frame as **resistance to racial integration**.
33
34 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
35 - The most rejected group? **Black/White multiracial men**, especially by **White women**, which the authors do not frame as bias in the same way.
36 - The study shows **asymmetrical concern** — when Whites select inwardly, it's seen as racial boundary policing; when minorities do it, it's not pathologized.
37 {{/expandable}}
38
39 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
40 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
41 - Large, real-world dataset gives useful behavioral insight into **racial preferences in dating**.
42 - Raises legitimate questions about **how race, desire, and group identity intersect**.
43
44 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
45 - Frames **normal in-group preference among Whites as "resistance to multiraciality"**, rather than neutral human patterning.
46 - Ignores **similar or stronger in-group preference among Black and Asian users**, which could indicate *universal patterns*, not White exceptionalism.
47 - Uses CRT framing to subtly **morally indict Whites for preferring Whites**, while exempting other groups.
48
49 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
50 - Treat all in-group preference equally across racial groups — not just when Whites do it.
51 - Disaggregate by age, education, and regional variation to control for confounds.
52 - Consider whether **multiracial identity is ambiguous** by nature and if that ambiguity reduces clarity of signals in dating.
53 {{/expandable}}
54
55 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
56 - Provides a data point in the **ongoing academic effort to pathologize White selectiveness**, even in private, personal domains like dating.
57 - Demonstrates how **racial preferences are only considered “problematic” when they preserve White group boundaries**.
58 - Supports analysis of **how DEI-aligned narratives seek to dissolve in-group loyalty under the guise of openness and inclusion**.
59 {{/expandable}}
60
61 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
62 1. Investigate how **media and dating platforms reinforce multiracialism as normative** despite evidence of natural in-group selection.
63 2. Study the **psychological effects of being told your preferences are morally wrong if you're White**.
64 3. Explore how **multiracial identities are strategically framed** depending on political or cultural goals — exoticization, integration, or guilt projection.
65 {{/expandable}}
66
67 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
68 [[Download Full Study>>attach:Curington et al. - Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Websit.pdf]]
69 {{/expandable}}
70 {{/expandable}}
71
72 {{expandable summary="
73
74
75 Study: “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"}}
76 **Source:** *Sociology of Race and Ethnicity*
77 **Date of Publication:** *2020*
78 **Author(s):** *Andrew R. Flores and Ariela Schachter*
79 **Title:** *"“A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"*
80 **DOI:** [10.1177/2332649219871232](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649219871232)
81 **Subject Matter:** *Interracial Dating, Racial Stereotyping, Online Behavior*
82
83 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
84 1. **General Observations:**
85 - Used **experimental survey data** from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,070).
86 - Participants evaluated hypothetical dating profiles of White individuals who expressed interest in Black, Latino, or Asian partners.
87
88 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
89 - **White men interested in Black women** were rated as **less cultured, more aggressive, and lower class**.
90 - White women interested in Black men were **viewed as less intelligent and more promiscuous**.
91 - **Interest in Asian partners** did not carry the same negative stereotypes; in some cases, it improved perceived desirability.
92
93 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
94 - **Latino partners** were seen more neutrally, though men who dated them were seen as more “dominant.”
95 - Across the board, **Whites who dated within their race were viewed most favorably**.
96 {{/expandable}}
97
98 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
99 1. **Primary Observations:**
100 - Interracial daters—especially those dating Black individuals—are **subject to negative assumptions** about intelligence, class, and morality.
101 - Stereotypes persist even in **hypothetical online contexts**, showing deep cultural associations.
102
103 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
104 - White men who prefer Black women face **masculinity-linked stigma**, often tied to “urban” or “ghetto” tropes.
105 - White women dating Black men are **framed as sexually deviant or socially undesirable**, particularly by other Whites.
106
107 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
108 - The most negatively perceived pairing was **White woman/Black man**, reinforcing long-standing cultural anxieties.
109 - Respondents judged interracial daters not just by race but by **projected cultural assimilation or rejection**.
110 {{/expandable}}
111
112 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
113 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
114 - Reveals **latent racial boundaries** in contemporary dating preferences.
115 - Uses **controlled experimental design** to expose socially unacceptable but real biases.
116
117 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
118 - Relies on **self-reported reactions to profiles**, not real-world dating behavior.
119 - **Fails to analyze anti-White framing** in the assumptions about White participants who prefer other races.
120 - Assumes stigma is irrational without investigating **rational in-group preference or cultural concerns**.
121
122 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
123 - Include **reverse scenarios** (e.g., Black or Latino individuals expressing preference for Whites).
124 - Examine how **media portrayal of interracial couples** influences perception and desirability.
125 - Account for **class and education overlaps** that could explain perceived traits.
126 {{/expandable}}
127
128 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
129 - Highlights how **Whites who date outside their race—particularly with Blacks—are pathologized**, even within their own community.
130 - Shows that **Whiteness is penalized** when paired with non-Whiteness, reinforcing social costs for racial mixing.
131 - Useful for understanding **how stigma around interracial relationships is unevenly applied**, with anti-White moral overtones.
132 {{/expandable}}
133
134 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
135 1. Study how **in-group dating preferences differ across races** and are morally interpreted.
136 2. Investigate how **class and education** affect perceptions of interracial relationships.
137 3. Examine whether **Whites are disproportionately judged** when deviating from group norms vs. other races.
138 {{/expandable}}
139
140 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
141 [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_2332649219871232.pdf]]
142 {{/expandable}}
143 {{/expandable}}
144
145 {{expandable summary="
146
147
148 Study: E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"}}
149 **Source:** *National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)*
150 **Date of Publication:** *2024*
151 **Author(s):** *Umit Gurun, Daniel Solomon*
152 **Title:** *"E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"*
153 **DOI:** [10.3386/w31978](https://doi.org/10.3386/w31978)
154 **Subject Matter:** *Demography, Social Cohesion, Diversity Effects on Fertility*
155
156 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
157 1. **General Observations:**
158 - Used large-scale demographic, economic, and census data across **1,800+ U.S. counties**.
159 - Found a **strong negative correlation between local diversity and White fertility rates**.
160 - Quantified impact: a 1 SD increase in ethnic diversity leads to a **4–6% drop in birth rates**.
161
162 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
163 - Decline most pronounced among **non-Hispanic Whites**, especially in suburban and semi-urban areas.
164 - **No significant birth rate drop observed among Hispanic or Black populations** under the same conditions.
165
166 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
167 - Diversity increases linked to **reduced marriage rates**, especially among Whites.
168 - Authors suggest **“erosion of social cohesion and trust”** as mediating factors.
169 {{/expandable}}
170
171 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
172 1. **Primary Observations:**
173 - Ethnic diversity significantly **reduces total fertility rates**, independent of economic or educational variables.
174 - **Social fragmentation** and perceived dissimilarity drive fertility suppression.
175
176 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
177 - White populations respond to diversity with lower family formation.
178 - **Cultural distance** and loss of shared norms are possible causes.
179
180 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
181 - High-diversity metro areas saw steepest declines in White birth rates over the past two decades.
182 - Study challenges mainstream assumptions that diversity has neutral or positive demographic effects.
183 {{/expandable}}
184
185 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
186 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
187 - Offers **quantitative backing for claims long treated as taboo** in public discourse.
188 - Applies **robust statistical methods** and cross-validates with multiple data sources.
189
190 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
191 - Avoids discussing **racial preference, ethnic tension, or cultural conflict** explicitly.
192 - Authors stop short of acknowledging **the demographic replacement implication** of sustained low White fertility.
193
194 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
195 - Include **qualitative data on reasons for delayed or avoided parenthood** among Whites in diverse areas.
196 - Examine **media messaging and policy environments** that could accelerate these trends.
197 {{/expandable}}
198
199 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
200 - Confirms a **central premise** of the White demographic decline thesis.
201 - Demonstrates that **diversity is not neutral** but **functionally suppressive to White reproduction**.
202 - Offers solid **empirical support against the utopian assumptions** of multiculturalism.
203 {{/expandable}}
204
205 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
206 1. Examine **fertility effects of diversity in European countries** experiencing immigration-driven change.
207 2. Study **how school demographics and crime perception** affect reproductive decision-making.
208 3. Explore **policy frameworks that support demographic stability for founding populations**.
209 {{/expandable}}
210
211 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
212 [[Download Full Study>>attach:12.Gurun_Solomon_Diversity_BirthRates.pdf]]
213 {{/expandable}}
214 {{/expandable}}
215
216 {{expandable summary="
217
218
219 Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}}
220 **Source:** *Porn Studies*
221 **Date of Publication:** *2015*
222 **Author(s):** *Noah Tsika*
223 **Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"*
224 **DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389)
225 **Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique*
226
227 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
228 1. **General Observations:**
229 - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women.
230 - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality.
231
232 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
233 - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**.
234 - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.”
235
236 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
237 - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue.
238 - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.”
239 {{/expandable}}
240
241 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
242 1. **Primary Observations:**
243 - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity.
244 - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men.
245
246 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
247 - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism.
248 - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**.
249
250 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
251 - Cites scenes where Black male actors degrade or dominate White women as **“transgressive acts” that destabilize White power**, rather than examples of racial hostility or objectification.
252 - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics.
253 {{/expandable}}
254
255 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
256 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
257 - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds.
258 - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia.
259
260 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
261 - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media.
262 - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison.
263 - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard.
264
265 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
266 - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres.
267 - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media.
268 - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men.
269 {{/expandable}}
270
271 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
272 - Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment.
273 - Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity.
274 - Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**.
275 {{/expandable}}
276
277 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
278 1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**.
279 2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**.
280 3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men.
281 {{/expandable}}
282
283 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
284 [[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]]
285 {{/expandable}}
286 {{/expandable}}
287
288 {{expandable summary="
289
290
291 Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}}
292 **Source:** *Social Science Research*
293 **Date of Publication:** *2009*
294 **Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie*
295 **Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"*
296 **DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004)
297 **Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy*
298
299 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
300 1. **General Observations:**
301 - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California.
302 - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles.
303
304 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
305 - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men.
306 - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women.
307
308 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
309 - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**.
310 - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**.
311 {{/expandable}}
312
313 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
314 1. **Primary Observations:**
315 - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context.
316 - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**.
317
318 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
319 - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping.
320 - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race.
321
322 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
323 - Highlighted that **Latina and Asian women were more open to White men** than to men of their own ethnicity, which was not treated as exclusionary.
324 - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.**
325 {{/expandable}}
326
327 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
328 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
329 - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles.
330 - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**.
331
332 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
333 - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users.
334 - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.**
335 - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.**
336
337 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
338 - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**.
339 - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**.
340 - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites.
341 {{/expandable}}
342
343 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
344 - Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**.
345 - Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized.
346 - Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites.
347 {{/expandable}}
348
349 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
350 1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race.
351 2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism.
352 3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites.
353 {{/expandable}}
354
355 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
356 [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]]
357 {{/expandable}}
358 {{/expandable}}
359
360 {{expandable summary="
361
362
363 Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}}
364 **Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis*
365 **Date of Publication:** *2009*
366 **Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*))
367 **Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"*
368 **DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication*
369 **Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization*
370
371 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
372 1. **General Observations:**
373 - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study.
374 - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex.
375 - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization.
376
377 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
378 - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men.
379 - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order.
380
381 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
382 - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture.
383 - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative.
384 {{/expandable}}
385
386 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
387 1. **Primary Observations:**
388 - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**.
389 - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness.
390
391 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
392 - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism.
393 - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism.
394
395 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
396 - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression.
397 - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**.
398 {{/expandable}}
399
400 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
401 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
402 - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon.
403 - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory.
404
405 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
406 - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative.
407 - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish.
408 - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.”
409
410 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
411 - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being.
412 - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**.
413 - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism.
414 {{/expandable}}
415
416 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
417 - Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**.
418 - Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**.
419 - Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance.
420 {{/expandable}}
421
422 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
423 1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**.
424 2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men.
425 3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**.
426 {{/expandable}}
427
428 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
429 [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]]
430 {{/expandable}}
431 {{/expandable}}
432
433 {{expandable summary="
434
435
436 Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}}
437 **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
438 **Date of Publication:** *2020*
439 **Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.*
440 **Title:** *"Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"*
441 **DOI:** [10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833)
442 **Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Sexual Behavior, Demography* 
443
444 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
445 1. **General Observations:**
446 - Study analyzed **General Social Survey (2000-2018)** data.
447 - Found **declining trends in sexual activity** among young adults.
448
449 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
450 - Decreases in sexual activity were most prominent among **men aged 18-34**.
451 - Factors like **marital status, employment, and psychological well-being** were associated with changes in sexual frequency.
452
453 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
454 - Frequency of sexual activity decreased by **8-10%** over the studied period.
455 - Number of sexual partners remained **relatively stable** despite declining activity rates.
456 {{/expandable}}
457
458 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
459 1. **Primary Observations:**
460 - A significant decline in sexual frequency, especially among **younger men**.
461 - Shifts in relationship dynamics and economic stressors may contribute to the trend.
462
463 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
464 - More pronounced decline among **unmarried individuals**.
465 - No major change observed for **married adults** over time.
466
467 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
468 - **Mental health and employment status** were correlated with decreased activity.
469 - Social factors such as **screen time and digital entertainment consumption** are potential contributors.
470 {{/expandable}}
471
472 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
473 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
474 - **Large sample size** from a nationally representative dataset.
475 - **Longitudinal design** enables trend analysis over time.
476
477 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
478 - Self-reported data may introduce **response bias**.
479 - No direct causal mechanisms tested for the decline in sexual activity.
480
481 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
482 - Further studies should incorporate **qualitative data** on behavioral shifts.
483 - Additional factors such as **economic shifts and social media usage** need exploration.
484 {{/expandable}}
485
486 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
487 - Provides evidence on **changing demographic behaviors** in relation to relationships and social interactions.
488 - Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.
489 {{/expandable}}
490
491 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
492 1. Investigate the **impact of digital media consumption** on relationship dynamics.
493 2. Examine **regional and cultural differences** in sexual activity trends.
494 {{/expandable}}
495
496 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
497
498 {{/expandable}}
499 {{/expandable}}
500
501 {{expandable summary="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"}}
502 **Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
503 **Date of Publication:** *2012*
504 **Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
505 **Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
506 **DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
507 **Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities*
508
509 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
510 1. **General Observations:**
511 - Meta-analysis of **26,335,596 singleton births** from eight studies.
512 - **Higher risk of adverse birth outcomes in biracial couples** than White couples, but lower than Black couples.
513
514 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
515 - **Maternal race had a stronger influence than paternal race** on birth outcomes.
516 - **Black mother–White father (BMWF) couples** had a higher risk than **White mother–Black father (WMBF) couples**.
517
518 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
519 - **Adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) for key outcomes:**
520 - **Low birthweight (LBW):** WMBF (1.21), BMWF (1.75), Black mother–Black father (BMBF) (2.08).
521 - **Preterm births (PTB):** WMBF (1.17), BMWF (1.37), BMBF (1.78).
522 - **Stillbirths:** WMBF (1.43), BMWF (1.51), BMBF (1.85).
523 {{/expandable}}
524
525 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
526 1. **Primary Observations:**
527 - **Biracial couples face a gradient of risk**: higher than White couples but lower than Black couples.
528 - **Maternal race plays a more significant role** in pregnancy outcomes.
529
530 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
531 - **Black mothers (regardless of paternal race) had the highest risk of LBW and PTB**.
532 - **White mothers with Black fathers had a lower risk** than Black mothers with White fathers.
533
534 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
535 - The **weathering hypothesis** suggests that **long-term stress exposure** contributes to higher adverse birth risks in Black mothers.
536 - **Genetic and environmental factors** may interact to influence birth outcomes.
537 {{/expandable}}
538
539 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
540 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
541 - **Largest meta-analysis** on racial disparities in birth outcomes.
542 - Uses **adjusted statistical models** to account for confounding variables.
543
544 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
545 - Data limited to **Black-White biracial couples**, excluding other racial groups.
546 - **Socioeconomic and healthcare access factors** not fully explored.
547
548 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
549 - Future studies should examine **Asian, Hispanic, and Indigenous biracial couples**.
550 - Investigate **long-term health effects on infants from biracial pregnancies**.
551 {{/expandable}}
552
553 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
554 - Provides **critical insights into racial disparities** in maternal and infant health.
555 - Supports **research on genetic and environmental influences on neonatal health**.
556 - Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.
557 {{/expandable}}
558
559 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
560 1. Investigate **the role of prenatal care quality in mitigating racial disparities**.
561 2. Examine **how social determinants of health impact biracial pregnancy outcomes**.
562 3. Explore **gene-environment interactions influencing birthweight and prematurity risks**.
563 {{/expandable}}
564
565 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
566 [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1600-0412.2012.01501.xAbstract.pdf]]
567 {{/expandable}}
568 {{/expandable}}
569
570 {{expandable summary="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}
571 **Source:** *Current Psychology*
572 **Date of Publication:** *2024*
573 **Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*
574 **Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*
575 **DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)
576 **Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation*
577
578 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
579 1. **General Observations:**
580 - Study analyzed **67 self-identified incels** and **103 non-incel men**.
581 - Incels reported **higher loneliness and lower social support** compared to non-incels.
582
583 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
584 - Incels exhibited **higher levels of depression, anxiety, and self-critical rumination**.
585 - **Social isolation was a key factor** differentiating incels from non-incels.
586
587 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
588 - 95% of incels in the study reported **having depression**, with 38% receiving a formal diagnosis.
589 - **Higher externalization of blame** was linked to stronger incel identification.
590 {{/expandable}}
591
592 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
593 1. **Primary Observations:**
594 - Incels experience **heightened rejection sensitivity and loneliness**.
595 - Lack of social support correlates with **worse mental health outcomes**.
596
597 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
598 - **Avoidant attachment styles** were a strong predictor of incel identity.
599 - **Mate value perceptions** significantly differed between incels and non-incels.
600
601 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
602 - Incels **engaged in fewer positive coping mechanisms** such as emotional support or positive reframing.
603 - Instead, they relied on **solitary coping strategies**, worsening their isolation.
604 {{/expandable}}
605
606 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
607 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
608 - **First quantitative study** on incels’ social isolation and mental health.
609 - **Robust sample size** and validated psychological measures.
610
611 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
612 - Sample drawn from **Reddit communities**, which may not represent all incels.
613 - **No causal conclusions**—correlations between isolation and inceldom need further research.
614
615 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
616 - Future studies should **compare incel forum users vs. non-users**.
617 - Investigate **potential intervention strategies** for social integration.
618 {{/expandable}}
619
620 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
621 - Highlights **mental health vulnerabilities** within the incel community.
622 - Supports research on **loneliness, attachment styles, and social dominance orientation**.
623 - Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.
624 {{/expandable}}
625
626 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
627 1. Explore how **online community participation** affects incel mental health.
628 2. Investigate **cognitive biases** influencing self-perceived rejection among incels.
629 3. Assess **therapeutic interventions** to address incel social isolation.
630 {{/expandable}}
631
632 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
633 [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]
634 {{/expandable}}
635 {{/expandable}}

XWiki AI Chat