Studies: Dating

1

= Dating =

2

3

{{expandable summary="Study: Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence from a Speed Dating Experiment"}}

4

**Source:** *The Quarterly Journal of Economics*

5

**Date of Publication:** *2006*

6

**Author(s):** *Raymond Fisman, Sheena S. Iyengar, Emir Kamenica, Itamar Simonson*

7

**Title:** *"Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence from a Speed Dating Experiment"*

8

**DOI:** Unavailable (retrieved from PDF)

9

**Subject Matter:** *Mate Selection, Speed Dating, Gender Differences, Racial Preferences*

10

11

12

1. **General Observations:**

13

- Men prioritize **physical attractiveness** significantly more than women.

14

- Women place greater weight on **intelligence** and **partner’s race.**

15

- Both men and women prefer partners of **similar race,** but this is stronger among women.

16

17

2. **Subgroup Analysis:**

18

- **Women strongly preferred same-race partners** (+14% acceptance rate boost), men showed no such preference.

19

- Men were significantly less likely to select women who were **more ambitious or intelligent** than themselves.

20

21

3. **Other Significant Data Points:**

22

- Male selectivity was **invariant to group size.**

23

- Female selectivity **increased sharply** with group size (more options made them more selective).

24

- Women preferred men from **wealthier neighborhoods,** men showed no such socioeconomic preference.

1. **Primary Observations:**

29

- **Men focused on attractiveness; women focused on intelligence and ambition, but not when it exceeded their own.**

30

- Women had a significant racial preference for same-race partners; men did not.

31

32

2. **Subgroup Trends:**

33

- Female participants became more selective as the number of potential partners increased.

34

- Males maintained a relatively steady acceptance rate regardless of group size.

35

36

3. **Specific Case Analysis:**

37

- Men penalized women who were more ambitious or intelligent than themselves.

38

- Women's increased selectivity in larger dating pools suggests **higher cognitive or social costs per additional date.**

1. **Strengths of the Study:**

43

- Large real-world dataset from controlled speed dating events.

44

- Direct measurement of individual choices, not just final pairings.

45

46

2. **Limitations of the Study:**

47

- All participants were Columbia University graduate students, limiting demographic diversity.

48

- Only short-term impressions (4-minute dates) were studied; long-term relationship preferences may differ.

49

- The study did not include a direct test of **implicit bias**—only explicit choices.

50

51

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**

52

- Future studies should replicate this with more diverse samples outside elite academic settings.

53

- Longer follow-up on actual dating outcomes would improve the real-world relevance.

54

- Implicit bias measurement would provide a fuller picture of unconscious mate preferences.

- This study **empirically confirms that racial preferences persist** in dating decisions, particularly among women.

59

- It shows that men penalize women who outperform them on traditionally male attributes like ambition and intelligence, reflecting persistent gender norms.

60

- The study undermines the mainstream media narrative that racial preferences are no longer significant in modern dating behavior.

1. Investigate whether these gender and racial mate preferences persist in **online dating environments** post-2010.

65

2. Examine **same-race vs. interracial preferences** across non-academic, working-class populations.

66

3. Assess whether **female selectivity remains higher** with increasing options in larger-scale, long-term dating markets.

[[Download Full Study>>attach:fisman2006.pdf]]

{{expandable summary="Study: Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace – Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"}}

76

**Source:** *Social Forces*

77

**Date of Publication:** *2016*

78

**Author(s):** *Stephanie M. Curington, Kevin K. Anderson, and Jennifer Glass*

79

**Title:** *"Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"*

80

**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007](https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007)

81

**Subject Matter:** *Race and Dating, Multiracial Identity, Online Behavior*

82

83

84

1. **General Observations:**

85

- Data drawn from **over 1 million messaging records** from an online dating site.

86

- Focused on how **monoracial users** (especially Whites) interact with **multiracial daters**.

87

88

2. **Subgroup Analysis:**

89

- **Multiracial Black/White and Asian/White women** received **fewer responses from White men** than their monoracial counterparts.

90

- White daters showed **stronger preferences for monoracial identities**, particularly **own-race pairings**.

91

92

3. **Other Significant Data Points:**

93

- **Multiracial men** fared worse than multiracial women across most pairings.

94

- **Latina/White and Asian/White multiracial women** were **more positively received by Black and Hispanic men**.

1. **Primary Observations:**

99

- White users demonstrated a clear pattern of **in-group preference**, preferring other White users (monoracial or partially White) over more ambiguous multiracial identities.

100

- Authors suggest this reflects **"boundary-maintaining behavior"** and **"latent racial bias"**.

101

102

2. **Subgroup Trends:**

103

- **Multiracial women with partial minority backgrounds** were more acceptable to non-White men than White men.

104

- Multiracial daters were **often treated as ambiguous or “less desirable”** in ways the authors frame as **resistance to racial integration**.

105

106

3. **Specific Case Analysis:**

107

- The most rejected group? **Black/White multiracial men**, especially by **White women**, which the authors do not frame as bias in the same way.

108

- The study shows **asymmetrical concern** — when Whites select inwardly, it's seen as racial boundary policing; when minorities do it, it's not pathologized.

1. **Strengths of the Study:**

113

- Large, real-world dataset gives useful behavioral insight into **racial preferences in dating**.

114

- Raises legitimate questions about **how race, desire, and group identity intersect**.

115

116

2. **Limitations of the Study:**

117

- Frames **normal in-group preference among Whites as "resistance to multiraciality"**, rather than neutral human patterning.

118

- Ignores **similar or stronger in-group preference among Black and Asian users**, which could indicate *universal patterns*, not White exceptionalism.

119

- Uses CRT framing to subtly **morally indict Whites for preferring Whites**, while exempting other groups.

120

121

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**

122

- Treat all in-group preference equally across racial groups — not just when Whites do it.

123

- Disaggregate by age, education, and regional variation to control for confounds.

124

- Consider whether **multiracial identity is ambiguous** by nature and if that ambiguity reduces clarity of signals in dating.

- Provides a data point in the **ongoing academic effort to pathologize White selectiveness**, even in private, personal domains like dating.

129

- Demonstrates how **racial preferences are only considered “problematic” when they preserve White group boundaries**.

130

- Supports analysis of **how DEI-aligned narratives seek to dissolve in-group loyalty under the guise of openness and inclusion**.

1. Investigate how **media and dating platforms reinforce multiracialism as normative** despite evidence of natural in-group selection.

135

2. Study the **psychological effects of being told your preferences are morally wrong if you're White**.

136

3. Explore how **multiracial identities are strategically framed** depending on political or cultural goals — exoticization, integration, or guilt projection.

[[Download Full Study>>attach:Curington et al. - Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Websit.pdf]]

{{expandable summary="

145

146

Study: “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"}}

147

**Source:** *Sociology of Race and Ethnicity*

148

**Date of Publication:** *2020*

149

**Author(s):** *Andrew R. Flores and Ariela Schachter*

150

**Title:** *"“A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"*

151

**DOI:** [10.1177/2332649219871232](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649219871232)

152

**Subject Matter:** *Interracial Dating, Racial Stereotyping, Online Behavior*

153

154

155

1. **General Observations:**

156

- Used **experimental survey data** from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,070).

157

- Participants evaluated hypothetical dating profiles of White individuals who expressed interest in Black, Latino, or Asian partners.

158

159

2. **Subgroup Analysis:**

160

- **White men interested in Black women** were rated as **less cultured, more aggressive, and lower class**.

161

- White women interested in Black men were **viewed as less intelligent and more promiscuous**.

162

- **Interest in Asian partners** did not carry the same negative stereotypes; in some cases, it improved perceived desirability.

163

164

3. **Other Significant Data Points:**

165

- **Latino partners** were seen more neutrally, though men who dated them were seen as more “dominant.”

166

- Across the board, **Whites who dated within their race were viewed most favorably**.

1. **Primary Observations:**

171

- Interracial daters—especially those dating Black individuals—are **subject to negative assumptions** about intelligence, class, and morality.

172

- Stereotypes persist even in **hypothetical online contexts**, showing deep cultural associations.

173

174

2. **Subgroup Trends:**

175

- White men who prefer Black women face **masculinity-linked stigma**, often tied to “urban” or “ghetto” tropes.

176

- White women dating Black men are **framed as sexually deviant or socially undesirable**, particularly by other Whites.

177

178

3. **Specific Case Analysis:**

179

- The most negatively perceived pairing was **White woman/Black man**, reinforcing long-standing cultural anxieties.

180

- Respondents judged interracial daters not just by race but by **projected cultural assimilation or rejection**.

1. **Strengths of the Study:**

185

- Reveals **latent racial boundaries** in contemporary dating preferences.

186

- Uses **controlled experimental design** to expose socially unacceptable but real biases.

187

188

2. **Limitations of the Study:**

189

- Relies on **self-reported reactions to profiles**, not real-world dating behavior.

190

- **Fails to analyze anti-White framing** in the assumptions about White participants who prefer other races.

191

- Assumes stigma is irrational without investigating **rational in-group preference or cultural concerns**.

192

193

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**

194

- Include **reverse scenarios** (e.g., Black or Latino individuals expressing preference for Whites).

195

- Examine how **media portrayal of interracial couples** influences perception and desirability.

196

- Account for **class and education overlaps** that could explain perceived traits.

- Highlights how **Whites who date outside their race—particularly with Blacks—are pathologized**, even within their own community.

201

- Shows that **Whiteness is penalized** when paired with non-Whiteness, reinforcing social costs for racial mixing.

202

- Useful for understanding **how stigma around interracial relationships is unevenly applied**, with anti-White moral overtones.

1. Study how **in-group dating preferences differ across races** and are morally interpreted.

207

2. Investigate how **class and education** affect perceptions of interracial relationships.

208

3. Examine whether **Whites are disproportionately judged** when deviating from group norms vs. other races.

[[Download Full Study>>attach:Flores - 2020 - “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured” Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Dater.pdf]]

{{expandable summary="

217

218

Study: E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"}}

219

**Source:** *National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)*

220

**Date of Publication:** *2024*

221

**Author(s):** *Umit Gurun, Daniel Solomon*

222

**Title:** *"E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"*

223

**DOI:** [10.3386/w31978](https://doi.org/10.3386/w31978)

224

**Subject Matter:** *Demography, Social Cohesion, Diversity Effects on Fertility*

225

226

227

1. **General Observations:**

228

- Used large-scale demographic, economic, and census data across **1,800+ U.S. counties**.

229

- Found a **strong negative correlation between local diversity and White fertility rates**.

230

- Quantified impact: a 1 SD increase in ethnic diversity leads to a **4–6% drop in birth rates**.

231

232

2. **Subgroup Analysis:**

233

- Decline most pronounced among **non-Hispanic Whites**, especially in suburban and semi-urban areas.

234

- **No significant birth rate drop observed among Hispanic or Black populations** under the same conditions.

235

236

3. **Other Significant Data Points:**

237

- Diversity increases linked to **reduced marriage rates**, especially among Whites.

238

- Authors suggest **“erosion of social cohesion and trust”** as mediating factors.

1. **Primary Observations:**

243

- Ethnic diversity significantly **reduces total fertility rates**, independent of economic or educational variables.

244

- **Social fragmentation** and perceived dissimilarity drive fertility suppression.

245

246

2. **Subgroup Trends:**

247

- White populations respond to diversity with lower family formation.

248

- **Cultural distance** and loss of shared norms are possible causes.

249

250

3. **Specific Case Analysis:**

251

- High-diversity metro areas saw steepest declines in White birth rates over the past two decades.

252

- Study challenges mainstream assumptions that diversity has neutral or positive demographic effects.

1. **Strengths of the Study:**

257

- Offers **quantitative backing for claims long treated as taboo** in public discourse.

258

- Applies **robust statistical methods** and cross-validates with multiple data sources.

259

260

2. **Limitations of the Study:**

261

- Avoids discussing **racial preference, ethnic tension, or cultural conflict** explicitly.

262

- Authors stop short of acknowledging **the demographic replacement implication** of sustained low White fertility.

263

264

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**

265

- Include **qualitative data on reasons for delayed or avoided parenthood** among Whites in diverse areas.

266

- Examine **media messaging and policy environments** that could accelerate these trends.

- Confirms a **central premise** of the White demographic decline thesis.

271

- Demonstrates that **diversity is not neutral** but **functionally suppressive to White reproduction**.

272

- Offers solid **empirical support against the utopian assumptions** of multiculturalism.

1. Examine **fertility effects of diversity in European countries** experiencing immigration-driven change.

277

2. Study **how school demographics and crime perception** affect reproductive decision-making.

278

3. Explore **policy frameworks that support demographic stability for founding populations**.

[[Download Full Study>>attach:Gurun and Solomon - 2024 - E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer) Diversity and Birth Rates.pdf]]

{{expandable summary="

287

288

Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}}

289

**Source:** *Porn Studies*

290

**Date of Publication:** *2015*

291

**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika*

292

**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"*

293

**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389)

294

**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique*

295

296

297

1. **General Observations:**

298

- This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women.

299

- The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality.

300

301

2. **Subgroup Analysis:**

302

- Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**.

303

- The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.”

304

305

3. **Other Significant Data Points:**

306

- No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue.

307

- Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.”

1. **Primary Observations:**

312

- Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity.

313

- Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men.

314

315

2. **Subgroup Trends:**

316

- White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism.

317

- Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**.

318

319

3. **Specific Case Analysis:**

320

- 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.

321

- The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics.

1. **Strengths of the Study:**

326

- Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds.

327

- Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia.

328

329

2. **Limitations of the Study:**

330

- **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media.

331

- Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison.

332

- Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard.

333

334

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**

335

- Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres.

336

- Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media.

337

- Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men.

- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment.

342

- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity.

343

- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**.

1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**.

348

2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**.

349

3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men.

[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]]

{{expandable summary="

358

359

Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}}

360

**Source:** *Social Science Research*

361

**Date of Publication:** *2009*

362

**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie*

363

**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"*

364

**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004)

365

**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy*

366

367

368

1. **General Observations:**

369

- Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California.

370

- The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles.

371

372

2. **Subgroup Analysis:**

373

- **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men.

374

- **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women.

375

376

3. **Other Significant Data Points:**

377

- The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**.

378

- Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**.

1. **Primary Observations:**

383

- **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context.

384

- Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**.

385

386

2. **Subgroup Trends:**

387

- The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping.

388

- Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race.

389

390

3. **Specific Case Analysis:**

391

- 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.

392

- **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.**

1. **Strengths of the Study:**

397

- Large dataset from real-world dating profiles.

398

- Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**.

399

400

2. **Limitations of the Study:**

401

- **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users.

402

- **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.**

403

- **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.**

404

405

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**

406

- Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**.

407

- Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**.

408

- Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites.

- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**.

413

- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized.

414

- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites.

1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race.

419

2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism.

420

3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites.

[[Download Full Study>>attach:Feliciano et al. - 2009 - Gendered racial exclusion among white internet daters.pdf]]

{{expandable summary="

429

430

Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}}

431

**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis*

432

**Date of Publication:** *2009*

433

**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*))

434

**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"*

435

**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication*

436

**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization*

437

438

439

1. **General Observations:**

440

- This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study.

441

- Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex.

442

- Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization.

443

444

2. **Subgroup Analysis:**

445

- Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men.

446

- **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order.

447

448

3. **Other Significant Data Points:**

449

- The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture.

450

- Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative.

1. **Primary Observations:**

455

- **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**.

456

- **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness.

457

458

2. **Subgroup Trends:**

459

- Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism.

460

- Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism.

461

462

3. **Specific Case Analysis:**

463

- Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression.

464

- Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**.

1. **Strengths of the Study:**

469

- Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon.

470

- Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory.

471

472

2. **Limitations of the Study:**

473

- No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative.

474

- **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish.

475

- Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.”

476

477

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**

478

- Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being.

479

- Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**.

480

- Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism.

- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**.

485

- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**.

486

- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance.

1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**.

491

2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men.

492

3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**.

[[Download Full Study>>attach:Fink - Black penis and the demoralization of the Western World Sexual relationships between black men and.pdf]]

{{expandable summary="

501

502

Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}}

503

**Source:** *JAMA Network Open*

504

**Date of Publication:** *2020*

505

**Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.*

506

**Title:** *"Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"*

507

**DOI:** [10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833)

508

**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Sexual Behavior, Demography*

509

510

511

1. **General Observations:**

512

- Study analyzed **General Social Survey (2000-2018)** data.

513

- Found **declining trends in sexual activity** among young adults.

514

515

2. **Subgroup Analysis:**

516

- Decreases in sexual activity were most prominent among **men aged 18-34**.

517

- Factors like **marital status, employment, and psychological well-being** were associated with changes in sexual frequency.

518

519

3. **Other Significant Data Points:**

520

- Frequency of sexual activity decreased by **8-10%** over the studied period.

521

- Number of sexual partners remained **relatively stable** despite declining activity rates.

1. **Primary Observations:**

526

- A significant decline in sexual frequency, especially among **younger men**.

527

- Shifts in relationship dynamics and economic stressors may contribute to the trend.

528

529

2. **Subgroup Trends:**

530

- More pronounced decline among **unmarried individuals**.

531

- No major change observed for **married adults** over time.

532

533

3. **Specific Case Analysis:**

534

- **Mental health and employment status** were correlated with decreased activity.

535

- Social factors such as **screen time and digital entertainment consumption** are potential contributors.

1. **Strengths of the Study:**

540

- **Large sample size** from a nationally representative dataset.

541

- **Longitudinal design** enables trend analysis over time.

542

543

2. **Limitations of the Study:**

544

- Self-reported data may introduce **response bias**.

545

- No direct causal mechanisms tested for the decline in sexual activity.

546

547

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**

548

- Further studies should incorporate **qualitative data** on behavioral shifts.

549

- Additional factors such as **economic shifts and social media usage** need exploration.

- Provides evidence on **changing demographic behaviors** in relation to relationships and social interactions.

554

- Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.

1. Investigate the **impact of digital media consumption** on relationship dynamics.

559

2. Examine **regional and cultural differences** in sexual activity trends.

[[Download Full Study>>attach:Ueda et al. - 2020 - Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Year.pdf]]

{{expandable summary="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"}}

568

**Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*

569

**Date of Publication:** *2012*

570

**Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*

571

**Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*

572

**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)

573

**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities*

574

575

576

1. **General Observations:**

577

- Meta-analysis of **26,335,596 singleton births** from eight studies.

578

- **Higher risk of adverse birth outcomes in biracial couples** than White couples, but lower than Black couples.

579

580

2. **Subgroup Analysis:**

581

- **Maternal race had a stronger influence than paternal race** on birth outcomes.

582

- **Black mother–White father (BMWF) couples** had a higher risk than **White mother–Black father (WMBF) couples**.

583

584

3. **Other Significant Data Points:**

585

- **Adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) for key outcomes:**

586

- **Low birthweight (LBW):** WMBF (1.21), BMWF (1.75), Black mother–Black father (BMBF) (2.08).

587

- **Preterm births (PTB):** WMBF (1.17), BMWF (1.37), BMBF (1.78).

588

- **Stillbirths:** WMBF (1.43), BMWF (1.51), BMBF (1.85).

1. **Primary Observations:**

593

- **Biracial couples face a gradient of risk**: higher than White couples but lower than Black couples.

594

- **Maternal race plays a more significant role** in pregnancy outcomes.

595

596

2. **Subgroup Trends:**

597

- **Black mothers (regardless of paternal race) had the highest risk of LBW and PTB**.

598

- **White mothers with Black fathers had a lower risk** than Black mothers with White fathers.

599

600

3. **Specific Case Analysis:**

601

- The **weathering hypothesis** suggests that **long-term stress exposure** contributes to higher adverse birth risks in Black mothers.

602

- **Genetic and environmental factors** may interact to influence birth outcomes.

1. **Strengths of the Study:**

607

- **Largest meta-analysis** on racial disparities in birth outcomes.

608

- Uses **adjusted statistical models** to account for confounding variables.

609

610

2. **Limitations of the Study:**

611

- Data limited to **Black-White biracial couples**, excluding other racial groups.

612

- **Socioeconomic and healthcare access factors** not fully explored.

613

614

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**

615

- Future studies should examine **Asian, Hispanic, and Indigenous biracial couples**.

616

- Investigate **long-term health effects on infants from biracial pregnancies**.

- Provides **critical insights into racial disparities** in maternal and infant health.

621

- Supports **research on genetic and environmental influences on neonatal health**.

622

- Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.

1. Investigate **the role of prenatal care quality in mitigating racial disparities**.

627

2. Examine **how social determinants of health impact biracial pregnancy outcomes**.

628

3. Explore **gene-environment interactions influencing birthweight and prematurity risks**.

[[Download Full Study>>attach:Srinivasjois et al. - 2012 - Biracial couples and adverse birth outcomes a systematic review and meta‐analyses.pdf]]

{{expandable summary="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}

637

**Source:** *Current Psychology*

638

**Date of Publication:** *2024*

639

**Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*

640

**Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*

641

**DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)

642

**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation*

643

644

645

1. **General Observations:**

646

- Study analyzed **67 self-identified incels** and **103 non-incel men**.

647

- Incels reported **higher loneliness and lower social support** compared to non-incels.

648

649

2. **Subgroup Analysis:**

650

- Incels exhibited **higher levels of depression, anxiety, and self-critical rumination**.

651

- **Social isolation was a key factor** differentiating incels from non-incels.

652

653

3. **Other Significant Data Points:**

654

- 95% of incels in the study reported **having depression**, with 38% receiving a formal diagnosis.

655

- **Higher externalization of blame** was linked to stronger incel identification.

1. **Primary Observations:**

660

- Incels experience **heightened rejection sensitivity and loneliness**.

661

- Lack of social support correlates with **worse mental health outcomes**.

662

663

2. **Subgroup Trends:**

664

- **Avoidant attachment styles** were a strong predictor of incel identity.

665

- **Mate value perceptions** significantly differed between incels and non-incels.

666

667

3. **Specific Case Analysis:**

668

- Incels **engaged in fewer positive coping mechanisms** such as emotional support or positive reframing.

669

- Instead, they relied on **solitary coping strategies**, worsening their isolation.

1. **Strengths of the Study:**

674

- **First quantitative study** on incels’ social isolation and mental health.

675

- **Robust sample size** and validated psychological measures.

676

677

2. **Limitations of the Study:**

678

- Sample drawn from **Reddit communities**, which may not represent all incels.

679

- **No causal conclusions**—correlations between isolation and inceldom need further research.

680

681

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**

682

- Future studies should **compare incel forum users vs. non-users**.

683

- Investigate **potential intervention strategies** for social integration.

- Highlights **mental health vulnerabilities** within the incel community.

688

- Supports research on **loneliness, attachment styles, and social dominance orientation**.

689

- Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.

1. Explore how **online community participation** affects incel mental health.

694

2. Investigate **cognitive biases** influencing self-perceived rejection among incels.

695

3. Assess **therapeutic interventions** to address incel social isolation.

[[Download Full Study>>attach:Sparks et al. - 2024 - One is the loneliest number Involuntary celibacy (incel), mental health, and loneliness.pdf]]

700

701

Wiki source code of Studies: Dating

Quick Links

Categories

XWiki AI Chat