Based on recent research and sociological data up to 2025, men are more likely than women to voluntarily opt out of relationships, particularly romantic and sexual ones. This trend is most pronounced among younger men (especially under 30) in Western countries like the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and Japan. The following is a back-of-the-envelope calculation by Open AI, which notes the following ratio of men vs. woman voluntarily opting out of sex and relationships:

“Involuntary” vs. “Voluntary” Factors:

• Some men report celibacy or singleness as voluntary (due to values, disillusionment, etc.), but others are “involuntarily single” due to lack of perceived opportunity.

• Still, the voluntary disengagement appears 2.5–3 times higher in men than women, even when accounting for motivation.

___________________

GRAPHIC

The following graph draws on approximate values derived from multiple credible, publicly available sources — especially focused on Western countries. Here are the core sources and their key contributions:

 

A comprehensive list of citations and links to the sources behind the chart. These sources provided the underlying data for the three categories in the chart:

 

---

1. General Social Survey (GSS) – NORC at the University of Chicago

Key Data Used:

• Rates of sexlessness among young adults (especially men aged 18–30).

• In 2018–2022 waves, ~28–30% of young men reported no sex in the past year vs. ~10–15% of women.

Citation:
Smith, Tom W., Peter Marsden, Michael Hout, and Jibum Kim. General Social Survey, 1972–2022. NORC at the University of Chicago.

Official Access:
https://gss.norc.org
Direct data explorer: https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/

---

2. Pew Research Center – Reports on Dating and Relationships (2020–2023)

Key Data Used:

• 2020: 63% of single men under 30 said they weren’t looking for a relationship/dates.

• 34% of single women under 30 reported the same.

Citation:
Pew Research Center. The State of Dating and Relationships in America. 2020–2023.

Official Access:
https://www.pewresearch.org
Direct report link: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/20/

---

3. Institute for Family Studies (IFS)

Key Data Used:

• Visualizations of rising sexlessness among men.

• Commentary on trends in romantic withdrawal.

Citation:
Wilcox, W. Bradford & Stone, Lyman. The Rise of the Sexless Young American Male, Institute for Family Studies, 2023.

Access:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-rise-of-the-sexless-young-american-male

---

4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

Key Data Used:

• Commentary and data synthesis on declining relationship formation among men.

• Often reuses GSS and Pew data for insight reports.

Citation:
AEI Center on Opportunity and Social Mobility. Young Men and Relationship Trends in the U.S., 2023.

Access:
https://www.aei.org

---

5. U.S. Census Bureau & American Time Use Survey (ATUS)

Key Data Used:

• Supplemental: declining social time and household formation among young men.

• Correlation with men spending more time alone or online vs. with partners.

Citation:
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. American Time Use Survey 2022.
U.S. Census Bureau. America’s Families and Living Arrangements.

Access:
https://www.bls.gov/tus/
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/demo/families/cps-2022.html

---

6. Reddit Surveys and Qualitative Research on Male Opt-Out Culture

Study 1 – Apostolou (2018):
A Reddit analysis of >6,700 user comments on why men stay single.

Citation:
Apostolou, M. (2018). Why men stay single? Evidence from Reddit. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4, 268–275.
DOI: 10.1007/s40806-018-0163-7

Access:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-018-0163-7

---

7. MGTOW Subculture & Twitter Data Analysis (2022)

Citation:
Górska, A., Kulicka, K., & Jemielniak, D. (2022). Men Not Going Their Own Way: A Thick Big Data Analysis of #MGTOW and #Feminism Tweets. Feminist Media Studies.

Access (via IngentaConnect):
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rfms/2023/00000023/00000008/art00006

---

8. Florida State University – MGTOW Research Brief (2022)

Citation:
Florida State University & ADL Center on Extremism. Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOWs): Research Brief. 2022.

Access:
https://csw.fsu.edu/sites/g/files/upcbnu1131/files/documents/MGTOWs%20Research%20Brief%20REPUBLISHED.pdf

---

9. Phys.org Summary of Apostolou Study

Citation:
Phys.org. (2018). Top 43 reasons why men remain single—according to Reddit.

Access:
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-men-singleaccording-reddit.html

---

Summary Table of Sources by Chart Category:

* * *

Footnote: How This Table Estimate Is Derived:

1. Sexlessness and Relationship Inactivity (Ages 18–30):

• Men: Around 28–30% report no sex in the past year (GSS, 2021–2023), and a similar proportion report being single and not looking for a relationship.

• Women: Around 10–12% report the same.

2. Voluntary Singleness:

• Pew Research (2020) found:

  • About 63% of single men under 30 were not actively looking for a relationship.

  • For single women under 30, only 34% were not looking.

3. “Involuntary” vs. “Voluntary” Factors:

• Some men report celibacy or singleness as voluntary (due to values, disillusionment, etc.), but others are “involuntarily single” due to lack of perceived opportunity.

• Still, the voluntary disengagement appears 2–3 times higher in men than women, even when accounting for motivation.

---

Caveats:

• Cultural context matters: These ratios are based primarily on Western, industrialized countries.

• Some women opt out too—but often for different reasons (e.g. safety, disappointment, emotional exhaustion).

• Motivations can be complex and mixed (e.g. economic hardship + philosophical disinterest).

The following was printed in The Sun (Sydney, NSW), Sun 5 Nov, 1939.

John Alan Lee’s concept of Pragma love comes from his 1973 work Colours of Love, where he introduced the idea of six love styles. Pragma, one of the three secondary love styles, combines aspects of Ludus (playful love) and Storge (friendship-based love). It’s defined as practical, rational, and goal-oriented love.

Here’s how Lee described and structured Pragma:

---

Core Features of Pragma Love:

1. Practical Compatibility Over Passion:
   • Pragma lovers look for a partner who meets specific, often logical criteria—like shared interests, similar life goals, background, religion, or education.
   • The focus isn’t primarily on emotional highs or physical passion but on whether the relationship makes sense and will function long-term.
2. Deliberate and Thoughtful:
   • This style involves cognitive filtering: people actively think through the qualities they want in a partner and evaluate potential mates accordingly.
   • Love grows slowly, often starting from friendship, and deepens based on practical investment rather than overwhelming emotion.
3. Long-Term Orientation:
   • Pragma lovers often consider factors like financial stability, family approval, career alignment, and future planning.
   • Romantic choices are shaped more by life goals and stability than by spontaneity.
4. Low on Emotional Drama:
   • Pragma avoids the turbulence of styles like Mania. It values emotional steadiness, commitment, and compatibility.

---

Examples Lee Might Offer:

• A person might think: “I want someone who wants children, shares my values, and has a stable career.”
• Love is not blind in this style—it is intentional and evaluative.

---

Lee’s Underlying Idea:

Lee saw Pragma as a practical response to the realities of love—in a world of increasing personal autonomy and social complexity, many people need more than romantic attraction. They need relationships that work, and they approach love like a partnership with practical criteria.

1. Mutual Material and Financial Commitment:

   • The Gold Pill advocates for relationships where both partners bring tangible value to the table, including material or financial contributions, rather than one partner (typically the man) being expected to provide disproportionately. It challenges the notion that women should enter relationships with only emotional or presence-based contributions, pushing for equity in responsibilities.

   • This is framed as a response to perceived “gynocentrism,” where societal norms prioritize women’s needs or expectations, often placing men in roles of unreciprocated obligation (e.g., as providers or protectors).

2. Rejection of Romantic Idealism:

   • The philosophy rejects the “romantic model” of love, which it views as a culturally constructed narrative driven by media, advertising, and societal expectations. Instead, it promotes a broader understanding of love, drawing on ancient Greek concepts like:
     • Storge: Familial love, emphasizing long-term commitment.
     • Pragma: Practical love, focused on shared goals and compromise.
     • Philia: Deep friendship and mutual respect.

   • This shift aims to move away from dramatic, narcissistic romance that can set unrealistic expectations, leading to disappointment in relationships.

3. Equity and Clarity in Relationships:

   • The Gold Pill emphasizes clear agreements, mutual respect, and shared sacrifice in relationships. It encourages open communication and planning to ensure both partners are equally invested, avoiding “archaic assumptions” such as women expecting to be provided for without contributing or men being reduced to utilitarian roles.

   • It promotes the idea that “you are not the table; we build the table together,” symbolizing a partnership where both individuals contribute to creating a balanced relationship.

4. Countering Hypergamy and Gynocentrism:

   • The philosophy critiques hypergamy (the tendency for individuals, often women, to seek partners of higher status) and gynocentrism (a perceived cultural bias favoring women). It argues that men should expect women to have “skin in the game” by contributing materially and emotionally, ensuring fairness and mutual accountability.
   • This aligns with sentiments from figures like Peter Wright and Paul Elam, who argue that men are often treated as utilities in relationships without recognition of their emotional or nurturing roles.

• Origins: The Gold Pill was notably introduced around May 2025, with discussions amplified through platforms like YouTube and Twitch. For instance, ThisIsShah launched the concept on his YouTube channel on May 10, 2025, and it gained traction through a Twitch livestream hosted by Coach Greg Adams on May 14, 2025.

• Relation to Other Ideologies:

  • The Gold Pill positions itself as distinct from the “Red Pill” (which focuses on perceived harsh truths about gender dynamics and often leans toward anti-feminism) and traditional conservatism (which may advocate for rigid gender roles). It rejects the nihilism of the Red Pill and the dogma of traditionalism, aiming for a balanced, pragmatic approach.

  • Unlike the Red Pill, which has been criticized for misogyny and extremism, the Gold Pill seeks to avoid misogyny or martyrdom, offering a linguistic framework (e.g., terms like “provision without reciprocity” or “unpaid dowry”) to discuss imbalances without vilifying any group.

• Cultural Critique: The Gold Pill critiques modern relationship dynamics, arguing that societal expectations often place unfair burdens on men while undervaluing their contributions beyond financial provision. It also challenges women to move beyond traditional expectations of being provided for, advocating for a rebalanced “social contract.”

• Parenting and Nurturing: The Gold Pill highlights the evolving role of fathers, challenging the outdated notion that parenting value lies solely with mothers, advocating for recognition of men’s emotional and practical contributions.
• Linguistic Tools: The philosophy introduces terms like “gynocentrism” and “provision without reciprocity” to articulate perceived imbalances in relationships and society, aiming to foster discussion without resorting to hostility.
• Harmonious Relationships: Posts on X suggest the Gold Pill seeks “harmonious relationships” in an era of perceived rampant misandry, encouraging men to negotiate relationships with clear expectations and mutual benefits.

• The Gold Pill has sparked conversation on platforms like X, with users framing it as a way to break stereotypes and negotiate equitable relationships. For example, posts describe it as a strategy to ensure women contribute materially and to dismantle romanticized, imbalanced relationship models.
• Some discussions emphasize its potential to foster fairness in relationships, particularly in response to perceived societal biases against men. However, these discussions are still niche and primarily occur within specific online communities, such as those associated with men’s rights or anti-gynocentrism.

The following graphic was created by Suviya. It showcases many kinds of love classified by the ancient Greeks which still remain central to our lives today. Only one of the loves mentioned – the romantic – was unknown to the Greeks because it was constructed during the Middle Ages in Europe and only later imported throughout much of the world.

In the following graphic, the loves appearing above the line (pragma, agape, storge and philia) lend themselves to the formation of stable, traditional relationships.  The loves appearing below the line (mania, philautia, romantic and pothos) are not compatible with rationally structured, reciprocal relationships because mania & pothos are irrational emotions, while philautia & romantic love are lacking in balanced reciprocity.

 

 

The two items on the right side of the image – eros and ludus – can be considered neutral, and are usually present in healthy, reciprocal relationships.

* * *

The graphic forms part of a larger discussion on something called ‘the gold pill,’ which is a philosophical framework that promotes balanced, reciprocal relationships by reintroducing principles of mutual investment and responsibility, inspired by historical practices like the dowry — without replicating them literally — as a way to restore dignity, structure, and fairness to modern partnerships.

The following article by Helen Rose was published in the Sunday Mirror – Sunday 03 July 1927

 

The following excerpt from The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800  by  Lawrence Stone describes the timeline during which English marriages switched from traditional modes of arrangement and exchange of dowry, to romantic love as primary influence on relationship formation. This change, finds Stone, was stimulated by the rise of female-authored romance novels in the 1700s and their wide dissemination.

.
Note: A central link between these female romance writers and thier medieval forebears can be found in the English work Le Morte d’Arthur (1470) which was a retelling of medieval romantic tales by the English knight Sir Thomas Malory. Its influence on women’s novel writing in the 1700s, its broader impact on the romance genre, and the 19th-century Arthurian revival, helped to shape the literary landscape for women writers.

GROK gives the etymological root meaning of storge (family love):

 

Fulltext version:

The Greek word storge refers to familial love, particularly the natural affection between parents and children or within a family. Its etymological root lies in the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root ster- or stor-, which conveys the sense of “care,” “affection,” or “nurturing.” This root is associated with instinctive, protective, and enduring bonds, often tied to familial or communal care.

In Greek, storge derives from a verbal root related to stérgein, meaning “to love” or “to feel affection,” especially in a familial context. The term emphasizes a deep, instinctual, and often unconditional love, distinct from other Greek words for love like agape (selfless love), philia (friendship), or eros (sexual desire). The etymology reflects a foundational concept of natural attachment and care inherent in extended family relationships.