SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
When it comes to sex and relationships, the pandemic is creating a situation where people are either living in close proximity (possibly with partners, children or other family members) or are limited in their opportunities to find partners for prolonged periods of time. These circumstances can directly impact our intimacy.
A recent online survey found that a majority of participants in a sample of 1,559 adults reported a decline in the quality of their sex lives (43.5 percent) during the COVID-19 pandemic, while only a minority reported improvements (13.6 percent). Interestingly, however, despite people reporting a decrease in the frequency of sexual behaviours compared to the past year, one in five individuals (20.3 percent) added at least one new activity to their sex life, such as a new sexual position, incorporating pornography or engaging in cybersex. Compared to people who made no change, those who spiced things up were more likely to report improvements in their sex life since the beginning of the pandemic.
"As the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene says: 'You are your safest sex partner.'"
Journal Reference:
Less Sex, but More Sexual Diversity: Changes in Sexual Behavior during the COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic, Leisure Sciences (DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2020.1774016)
(Score: 3, Touché) by jb on Thursday July 16 2020, @06:01AM (3 children)
I really hope you mean "some people will have fewer kids".
Deliberately having fewer kids (e.g. deciding to have 2 instead of 3) is a perfectly reasonable choice for a couple to make.
On the other hand, deliberately having less kids (e.g. having the same number of them, but using some bizarre genetic engineering technique to ensure that each one is born missing some body part or other, so there's "less of them") strikes me as a cruel and highly unethical thing to do.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2020, @06:12AM (1 child)
You have got to be a Brit, because that is like some 50th level language trolling.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday July 16 2020, @09:16PM
I completely agree with the fewer/less distiction. it bothers me every time someone gets it wrong.
It's similar tho the much/many distinction. Roughly speaking, one is singular and the other plural.
-- hendrik
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday July 16 2020, @01:47PM
I deserved that. I'm not adverse to a bit of Grammar N**iism myself, so fair play to you. I did notice what I'd done when I re-read the post but it was too late then and anyway, the less / fewer thing has never bothered me all that much.
Perhaps if they (it?) were considered as some amorphous commodity, measured out by mass, the word could also be applicable. A human resource?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?