Sexual activity in Canada, the U.S., the U.K. and other high-income countries is declining, particularly among younger adults.
That is the finding of Canadian sexual neuroscientist Debra Soh, the author of Sextinction: The Decline of Sex and the Future of Intimacy (Simon & Schuster).
Soh’s book examines a “strange paradox,” the book cover says. “Society has never been more sexualized, but people across all age groups and demographics are having less sex than ever before.”
Soh spoke with Canadian Affairs reporter Alexandra Keeler about the sex recession, the impact of technology on intimacy, and the fraught politics of gender and equality.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
AK: What is Sextinction, why did you choose that title, and what is the book’s central argument?
DS: The title Sextinction is a portmanteau of ‘sex’ and ‘extinction’. I was curious whether the so‑called sex recession is real and what might be driving it.
People are having less sex than ever before. From a very logical and practical standpoint, if people are not having sex and they’re not having children, at some point in time the human species will go extinct.
Sex is a reflection of intimacy and emotional connection, so if human beings are not interested in having that connection with other people … what is taking its place?
I do think technology is a huge part of why people are less interested in connecting. In each chapter I go through a particular hypothesis or form of technology that I think is explaining this sexless trend.
AK: Much of the research you cite comes from studies of heterosexual populations, particularly in the United States. Who was the intended audience for this book?
DS: Sextinction is for the people who do want to get married, have children and can’t find someone.
There’s been less study on the sex recession among people who aren’t straight, but one study I cite shows gay people are more efficient at using dating apps. My sense, being straight but having grown up in the gay community, is that there’s often better communication among gay couples, whereas male–female dynamics are more prone to miscommunication and misunderstanding.
AK: Much of your advice to men on finding a partner focuses on external forms of self-improvement, such as fitness and career. What role do internal qualities like emotional intelligence and self-awareness play in forming healthy relationships?
DS: I think those are very important too. Yeah, I think it’s important for men to be good partners, to be good listeners, to be concerned about their partners’ well‑being as much as their own.
I focus on the fitness and the physical health and the mental health aspect for men, because if you’re turning to porn, or things like sex dolls, or AI girlfriends instead of pursuing real‑life partners, then you have less of a reason to care about making money, being successful, showering, looking appropriate.
AK: Evolutionary psychology — behaviours that have evolved to ensure survival and reproduction in our ancestors — features prominently throughout the book. Why did you choose to approach your analysis primarily through an evolutionary lens?
DS: Because it is very telling.
I do think evolutionary psychology is unfairly maligned. It’s often dismissed as sexist or outdated, when it’s not. I think there are applications of it that definitely would be considered sexist or bigoted, but that doesn’t mean the information itself is bad, or that it should be suppressed.
I don’t think we can fix this problem of sexlessness if we don’t acknowledge what is actually driving it.
AK: How did you decide which research to include in the book? Did you also consider sociological or feminist scholarship on gender and sexuality?
DS: I started in sex research as a big proponent of so‑called sex positivity. But I realized that many of those ideas actually are not based in fact, and in fact are not good for society.
I do think that women deserve equal rights, but I’m probably more sympathetic to radical feminism than liberal feminism. [Radical feminism generally views women’s oppression as rooted in patriarchy and has often been critical of pornography and the sex industry.]
I think liberal feminism really sells young women bad ideas about sexuality. Ideas like having promiscuous sex is good for you, that it’s empowering, that selling your body is a great way to make money — I just find it so harmful. I’m critical of pornography as well.
AK: You argue that efforts toward gender equality have ‘overcorrected,’ that DEI initiatives disadvantage men, and that society is ‘punishing male success.’ What evidence led you to those conclusions?
DS: I’ve heard from my colleagues in academia who tell me that if they’re white men they’re told, ‘Don’t bother applying for this position, because you’re not going to get it.’
In the U.S., we saw Asian Americans, especially men, unfairly penalized when they applied for university despite excellent grades and test scores, to the point that some felt they had to hide being Asian on their applications.
If you are discriminating against white and Asian men, that fuels a lot of resentment among men. It makes them feel quite discouraged. Very many of them say, ‘Why am I even going to try? I might as well just stay in my parents’ basement, playing video games and vaping and online betting, because at least I’m happy.’
If men are not allowed to succeed, or to reach their potential, there are fewer men who women are going to find attractive.
AK: Do you believe there are any systemic barriers facing women today?
DS: I do believe sexism still exists. But I don’t believe it’s at a systemic level.
I’ve heard of something called the ‘motherhood penalty.’ This is the idea that women, when they have children — it’s going to affect them and their careers and their ability to be financially successful in a way that it doesn’t affect men.
From what I’ve seen again in academia, I think universities definitely do go above and beyond to accommodate women who become mothers, in that they will give them adequate, if not ample, paid time off. They allow them to have gaps in their CV for having children, whereas it would be looked down upon for a man to have a gap in his CV because he had children.
AK: You cite research suggesting marriage provides substantial benefits for men, but staying unmarried can be more beneficial for women. If that’s true, what changes would make marriage a more attractive option for women today?
DS: There has to be something in it for them; otherwise marriage doesn’t really serve a purpose the way it used to.
I would say men probably need to do more around the house. I hear from many married couples — usually the men saying they’re not having enough sex — and I think to myself, are you helping around the house?
But it really does come down to dollars and cents. If a woman is making more than her male partner, she has less reason to want to marry him and be legally bound to him. Because if they separate, he can potentially take half of what she owns, and she may have to pay him spousal support — on top of doing most of the child-rearing and having given birth.
AK: Your work is frequently shared by men’s rights and manosphere communities. Do you think they generally interpret your work accurately, or do they sometimes use it to support arguments you don’t actually make?
DS: Both. My earlier work was much more popular among those groups, but that was never my goal. My goal is to write about scientific research I think is being suppressed or misrepresented.
I’m always very clear that I’m not saying these things to justify sexism. You can’t take my work to justify treating women badly or treating men as inherently more competent. Of course, there are still people who will use it to support whatever bizarre or hateful ideas they already have.
With Sextinction, I’ve actually gotten more backlash from men’s rights and manosphere circles. Some of them seem angry that a woman is speaking about these issues, or say that no one listens until a woman says it. The ones who actually read the book, my sense is they understand what I’m saying.
AK: What do you hope people who read Sextinction ultimately take away from it?
DS: I hope that Sextinction helps us reconnect as a society.
I really wanted to help highlight a lot of the science denial and misinformation that’s out there that has led us to this place, with the hopes of helping people make better decisions or to be aware of why these trends are happening, so that they can avoid the pitfalls associated with them.
I advocate for everyone getting off of dating apps. I don’t think they’re a good way to meet people. Everyone’s on their smartphone. People are more interested in having online connections than in‑person connections.
