Just 6% Of Female Gen Z Harris Voters Think Personal Success Includes Having Kids

It’s no secret that fewer and fewer Americans are having children. Gen Z women, especially, do not see children as a big measure of success.

The Best Dating App Is Your Local Church

The best dating app can only start relationships. Churches can nurture and sustain them.

'Sex recession': Study suggests Americans have lost their mojo



Movies and television programs reportedly have significantly more sexual content, nudity, and immodesty now than those shown just a few decades ago. The so-called "adult entertainment" industry has, meanwhile, exploded, with one projection suggesting that it will grow from an estimated global market size of $58.8 billion in 2023 to $74.7 billion by 2030.

While depictions of sex are ubiquitous in the media, a new study suggests that the real thing is disappearing from the lives of everyday Americans.

The delay and avoidance of marriage appear to be another major factor.

Citing General Social Survey data, the Institute for Family Studies recently indicated that "Americans are having a record-low amount of sex."

Whereas in 1990, 55% of adults ages 18 to 64 reportedly were having sex at least once a week, that number reportedly dropped to less than 50% by the turn of the century. As of last year, the percentage of adults ages 18-64 having sex weekly had fallen all the way down to 37%.

RELATED: Heritage Foundation's Kevin Roberts: Conservatives must get 'uncomfortably honest about our present crisis'

Photo by Toronto Star Archives/Toronto Star via Getty Images

When it comes to individuals ages 18-29 who reported not having sex in the last year, the number held steady at around 15% of respondents until 2010. However, between 2010 and 2024, that number skyrocketed to 24% in the General Social Survey.

There appear to be numerous factors at play, including shifting social norms; libido-killing prescription drugs; the pandemic; decreasing alcohol consumption; the interpersonal impact of social media, gaming, and the smartphone; and pornography. The delay and avoidance of marriage appear to be another major factor.

Dr. Brad Wilcox, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, and Lyman Stone, director of the Pronatalism Initiative at the IFS, noted in a 2019 article in the Atlantic that married people have sex more often but that the share of adults who are married was falling to record lows.

Whereas 46% of married men and women ages 18-64 reported having weekly sex, only 34% of their unmarried peers reported the same, said the new IFS study. However, married couples are also facing a so-called "sex recession," as 59% of married adults ages 18-64 reportedly had sex once a week in the period between 1996 and 2008.

RELATED: American fertility rate hits all-time low as Dems clamor for foreign replacements

Photo by Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images

The new IFS study noted that younger generations are having less sex than their predecessors did in part because of a "decline in steady partnering, especially in marriage, and a decline in sexual frequency within couples."

This "sex recession" has some obvious implications besides youngsters' joylessness.

Data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in July revealed that U.S. fertility rates dropped to an all-time low in last year, with 1.599 children being born per woman. For comparison, the latest reported fertility rates in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, and China are 1.5, 1.44, 1.26, and 1.01, respectively.

The fertility rate necessary for a population to maintain stability and replenish itself without requiring replacement by foreign nationals is 2.1.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How gay ‘marriage’ made today’s gender madness possible



Gay marriage was not just a step down the slippery slope toward today’s transgender dystopia. It was the first manifestation of it. Now that a broad reawakening has exposed the harms of gender ideology and the denial of natural law, Republicans must press beyond protecting women’s sports and opposing child castration. They must return to the root of the problem: the redefinition of marriage itself.

Marriage is the foundation of human civilization, not a mere “social construct.” While many forms of loving relationships exist, only the lifelong bond of one man and one woman procreates, raises, and nurtures the next generation. That bond anchors family, faith, and culture. When the Supreme Court decreed that two men or two women living together could constitute a marriage, it blurred the difference between man and woman, mother and father. That was, in essence, the normalization of transgenderism.

To restore truth, Republicans must confront Obergefell and undo the lie that two men or two women can ever stand in for a husband and wife.

The rot spread quickly. Following the 2015 Obergefell decision, courts and legislatures treated same-sex households as identical to mother-father families, even in adoption. Thousands of children were placed into homes where the distinction between mother and father was obliterated. In 2017, the Supreme Court forced states to falsify birth certificates, treating lesbian partners as if one were the biological father.

In Pavan v. Smith, the court required Arkansas to list both lesbian partners as biological parents when one conceived through artificial insemination. The state already recognized same-sex couples under Obergefell and recorded non-biological parents accordingly.

But the plaintiffs demanded more: that their arrangement be treated as biologically identical to a natural family. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in dissent, noted that states had every interest in preserving the integrity of birth records for public health, citizenship, and genetic history. Yet the court pressed forward in defiance of nature, reason, and common sense.

Republicans must not flinch

Despite this, some Republicans now claim we can separate the fight against transgenderism from the fight against gay marriage. They are wrong. Even if one tolerates homosexuality in a secular society, that does not justify redefining marriage and giving gay couples adoption rights. Doing so enshrines the very gender-bending myth conservatives claim to oppose — the idea that man and woman, mother and father, are interchangeable.

The Kim Davis case, potentially headed to the Supreme Court next term, offers an opportunity to revisit this question. Conservatives should prepare the ground now. Republican elected officials must file amicus briefs signaling to wavering justices that this is a political priority. After Dobbs, which affirmed the Glucksberg standard that a right must be “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition,” Obergefell looks even weaker than Roe v. Wade. The court will need political momentum to act consistently with its own reasoning.

But legal strategy is not enough. Conservatives must also build political support in the states to sustain any reversal. That means pushing back against gay adoptions and re-establishing natural marriage as the baseline. You cannot ridicule transgenderism while placing a child in a household with two men and pretending the child has a mother.

Last year’s Republican National Convention stripped support for natural marriage from the party platform. Now Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has promised a presidential-style GOP convention before the midterms. That convention should be the place where Republicans right the ship, restore clarity, and rally around one of the most self-evident truths in human history.

RELATED: Trans is the natural progression from ‘gay marriage’

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The path forward

The fight against transgender ideology will collapse if conservatives refuse to confront its root: the redefinition of marriage. To pretend the two issues can be separated is to accept the very logic we claim to reject.

Republicans cannot stop at banning surgeries on minors or protecting girls’ sports. Those are necessary but not sufficient. To restore truth, they must confront Obergefell and undo the lie that two men or two women can ever stand in for a husband and wife.

Marriage is not a slogan or a lifestyle choice. It is the union that anchors family, culture, and civilization itself. To defend that truth is to defend reality. To surrender it is to let the entire edifice fall.

Monica Lewinsky Made Her Own Choices And Shouldn’t Exploit Real Victims

No matter how often Lewinsky reinvents herself, her constant, obvious attempts to recast herself in the role of victim are an affront to real victims.

5 Ways Travis And Taylor Can Make Peace With All The Football Fans They’ve Been Irking

Travis and Taylor moving the ball down the field in all five categories might help football fans endure one more NFL season of Tayvis.

MSNBC Tries To Scare Taylor Swift (And Everyone Else) Out Of Getting Married

An MSNBC writer takes it upon herself to warn Taylor Swift that marriage isn't 'magical.' Here's why she's wrong.

No One Is Talking About The Direct Pipeline From Divorced Parents To School Shooters

Like so many other school shooters, the Minneapolis shooter's parents divorced in 2013, when we was around age 12.

Study: Having A Husband And Kids Doubles Women’s Likelihood Of Being Happy

A new study looks at how marriage and motherhood are linked to one another and to women’s happiness.

The woke party’s favorite costume: Moderation



I usually enjoy David Harsanyi’s critiques of the left. But in a recent column, he drew a distinction I can’t accept. Quoting Rahm Emanuel’s plea for Democrats to rally behind “Build, baby, build!” Harsanyi praised politicians he believes embody a centrist alternative to the party’s radicals: Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Virginia gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, and North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein.

Harsanyi presented these figures as the future of a Democratic Party that might rediscover moderation. He contrasted them with open socialists like New York City's Zohran Mamdani, whom he regards as the party’s worst tendencies made flesh. In his telling, Beshear, Spanberger, Shapiro, and Stein represent a kind of Democratic “loyal opposition” that conservatives should welcome.

Abigail Spanberger shows how the Democratic ‘moderate’ label works: not as a rejection of cultural radicalism but as a smoother delivery system for it.

That picture collapses under scrutiny. On social questions, the supposed moderates fall squarely in line with the party’s most zealous activists. Beshear, though personable and pragmatic on some issues, is an LGBTQ fanatic who promotes woke causes across Kentucky. Spanberger has been a reliable ally of the gender-identity movement and has now gone so far as to support biological men competing in women’s sports. Stein in North Carolina vetoed four separate bills meant to curb DEI excesses and limit radical gender programs in his state.

These aren’t minor disagreements tucked around the edges. They reveal a deeper truth: The “moderates” whom Harsanyi and Fox News commentators now flatter are not moderates at all. They dress the same ideology in calmer rhetoric. Spanberger, the supposed pragmatist, sounds indistinguishable from Tim Walz or Mamdani when she explains her social positions.

So why do some on the right elevate them? Because these Democrats don’t call themselves socialists, don’t chant slogans for Hamas, and don’t traffic in the same racial agitation as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jasmine Crockett, or Omar Fateh. But the distinction is cosmetic. On gender, DEI, and race politics, the so-called moderates embrace the same policies.

This misreading exposes a larger problem on the right. For years, the Republican establishment avoided direct confrontation on cultural issues, preferring to rally donors around national defense, Israel, or deregulation. On marriage and gender, Republicans surrendered the ground years ago. When the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, Conservatism Inc. shrugged. Now, some seem relieved to pretend “moderates” in the Democratic Party represent a saner alternative. They don’t.

And the Democrats know it. Clinton-era strategists at the Third Way think tank now tell their party to tone down the woke jargon and talk more about housing or infrastructure. But Third Way doesn’t advise abandoning cultural radicalism — only camouflaging it. The goal is simple: Keep core constituencies like college-educated white women and black urban voters while soothing independents with bread-and-butter messaging. Beshear, Stein, Spanberger, and the others know their futures depend on that balancing act.

This is where Republicans must stop indulging illusions. They will be forced to fight on this terrain whether they like it or not.

RELATED: Radical left poised to redefine America’s cities

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

In Virginia, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears — a black conservative who supports Trump’s immigration policy and holds traditional views on marriage and gender — trails Spanberger despite Spanberger’s increasingly open embrace of the left’s cultural program. In Northern Virginia’s suburbs, her positions do not hurt her. They energize her base. The clearer she becomes, the more firmly those voters rally to her side.

That is the lesson Republicans cannot ignore. Spanberger shows how the Democratic “moderate” label works: not as a rejection of cultural radicalism but as a smoother delivery system for it. Sears, to her credit, understands the stakes. She knows she cannot avoid the social questions. If she does, she loses. Her only path forward is to expose Spanberger’s record and force voters to confront it.

What’s happening in Virginia is the same fight Trump is waging nationally — against a cultural left entrenched in the administrative state, NPR, and the universities. These battles connect. They will not fade, and the right cannot win them by pretending “moderates” exist in the Democratic Party.

If Republicans cling to that illusion, they won’t just lose a governorship here or a Senate seat there. They will lose the defining fight over culture, identity, and the moral core of the nation. The Democrats’ so-called moderates are not the antidote to radicalism. They are the mask that allows it to advance.