logo
How porn and gaming sapped young men of their desire to work

How porn and gaming sapped young men of their desire to work

Yahoo7 days ago

'I am 22 and unemployed,' one person writes on the question-and-answer website Quora. 'I am wasting [my] entire day watching porn and browsing Facebook. What should I do in my free time which is more productive?'
The answers from well-meaning strangers are telling.
Do a course, join the military, or learn to code so you can create fun apps for all the other bored 20-somethings out there who are watching porn all day.
'Or try going outside,' jokes another. 'I heard there's stuff to do out there. Supposedly, there are people and places outside that you can interact with.'
Such complaints are growing increasingly common.
Since Covid, Britain has been plagued by a worklessness crisis that is dragging down the public finances and creating a headache for ministers.
Many believe that mental health is to blame, with easy access to online pornography and video games keeping young people stuck indoors.
According to the latest figures, more than 900,000 16 to 24-year-olds are not in education, employment or training (Neets), the highest level since a decade ago when the jobs market was still recovering from the financial crisis.
Most of those are men, with almost half a million male Neets compared to 425,000 women.
Economic inactivity among young male Neets – which covers those who are not studying or working and are not looking for a job – has also risen by 48pc since the eve of the pandemic. The equivalent figure for young women is up by less than 10pc.
The scale of this gender divide has captured economists, politicians and teachers alike, with some claiming that technology is responsible for driving young men away from work and into the online world.
'This is a secondary problem which came out of Covid, as a lot of work has been distributed online and education has become more device-focused,' says one senior secondary school teacher, who did not wish to be named.
'That means more people gaming, and porn is almost entirely online given that lad mags have died a death.
'We've surveyed parents who say they feel their children are online too much and children who say parents worry too much – there's a disconnect about what 'too much' is.
'Children are now digital natives, but their ability to calculate risks isn't fully formed yet. We do see students whose relationship with the online world has become unhealthy.
'Some [are] as young as year seven, who see their relationship with forums as being a real-life interaction worthy of pursuing at the expense of other things.'
This can leave students feeling so disconnected from real life that they lose interest in work or further study, the teacher suggests. As he puts it, the online world is a 'synthetic replacement for real-life interactions'.
This frequently sparks mental health issues down the line, experts say, which in turn damages prospects for employment.
A US study in 2017 warned that young men were spending more of their free time on video games 'and other recreational computer activities'.
The economists behind the report said the increased time spent gaming had fuelled a drop in working hours for young men between 2000 and 2015.
For some, the rise of easy entertainment online has made the idea of employment seem like a lot of effort for little return.
Graham Cowley, who works with unemployed young men in Blackpool, said last month that there are 'kids on the internet 24 hours a day, and they don't want to work for anything less than 40 grand'.
As evidenced by the figures, this problem is disproportionately skewed towards boys.
Some believe that issues start at an early age, particularly as almost all children own a smartphone by the age of 12.
This has fuelled concerns that boys are being influenced by porn, gaming and toxic online role models.
For example, in 2023, the third most Googled person in the world was Andrew Tate.
The virtual world is reshaping real-life behaviour.
Around 90pc of those using the National Centre for Gaming Disorder, which was set up in 2020, are male. And a report published earlier this year by the Centre for Social Justice warned that men aged 18-29 were far more likely to watch porn every day or most days than women (25pc compared to 2pc).
In education, an increasing number of female teachers and pupils are also reporting sexual harassment from male pupils in school.
Men who have been unemployed for years and now feel trapped in a digital world are searching the internet for signs of hope.
A 29-year-old man seeking support on online forum Reddit writes how he is jobless, isolated and has had an addiction to porn since the age of 12. 'I have no motivation to do anything,' he writes.
He is not alone. A 2023 study published in the US Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease found that anxiety and depression were 'strongly related' to problematic pornography consumption.
Last year Mel Stride, then the work and pensions secretary, blamed porn and video games for the surge in jobless men.
He argued that technology had a different impact on boys' and girls' mental health, with women more likely to suffer because of unrealistic ideals portrayed on social media platforms such as Instagram.
'For boys … things like gaming, and certainly pornography and things like that, are a more prevalent factor,' he told the work and pensions select committee.
Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has made that point in the past, claiming boys invested more of their time in computers and video games during the early stages of the technological entertainment revolution. That was before social media drew girls in in the late 2000s.
He once argued that as the virtual world becomes more enticing for boys, the 'real world, and especially school, becomes more frustrating: shorter recess, bans on rough-and-tumble play, and ever more emphasis on sitting still and listening'.
But not everyone agrees that online porn and gaming is to blame.
Some argue that it's little wonder young men seek solace online when faced with the depressing reality of unemployment, the exhausting cycle of unsuccessfully applying for low-paid jobs and living at home.
After failing to find a job, some may conclude there is no point even bothering.
Lord Elliott, the former Vote Leave chief who now runs the Jobs Foundation, argues that 'blaming worklessness on video games and porn is a sound-bite diagnosis of a serious issue'.
'Rewind several decades – there were more opportunities for solid, rewarding jobs, and the property ladder was in reach for everyone,' he says.
'Good jobs are still out there, but the jobs market is less easy to navigate than it used to be, and buying a home is increasingly beyond reach.
'Since the global financial crisis, we have seen GDP per capita decline in the UK. People are, on average, poorer than their parents were, which is creating a sense of helplessness.'
He adds that the 'root cause of worklessness is a wider malaise, which has grown over the past few decades'.
In essence, he claims online addiction to porn or gaming is the result of the void left by unemployment.
Maxwell Marlow, director of public affairs at the Adam Smith Institute, agrees. 'People are on video games at home because they can't find any work – it's what people do when they don't have a job,' he says.
And what about porn? 'That's up to them – the state has nothing to do with that.'
But addiction is powerful – a Cambridge University study found in 2014 that porn triggers brain activity in sex addicts in the same way that drugs trigger drug addicts.
The research also found that the younger the user, the greater the neural response to porn.
Jobless men write online about feeling stuck in a loop, turning to porn or gaming simply to stave off boredom. However, they often know that finding work could break the cycle.
'I remember my therapist asked me if I have a job and I answered 'no' – he told me that a job will fix almost everything f---ed up in my life,' one Reddit user writes.
'It will force me to sleep and wake up at the same time every day, get out of my parents' house, make friends and get in a relationship.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

COVID isn't over. RFK Jr.'s vaccine recommendation is a terrible choice.
COVID isn't over. RFK Jr.'s vaccine recommendation is a terrible choice.

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

COVID isn't over. RFK Jr.'s vaccine recommendation is a terrible choice.

The recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' announcement to no longer recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant women and children may be one of the worst public health decisions in the history of the United States, having a long-lasting detrimental impact on the future of our society, our children. The logic behind this decision is obscure at best, which may be why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention referred questions regarding this policy to the U.S. Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and to the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services. For women and children, COVID-19 can be a serious disease, and COVID-19 vaccines and boosters help protect the pregnant mother, newborns and children. Pregnancy is a risk factor for severe COVID-19. The British Medical Journal published a large review of studies and concluded that COVID-19 increases the risk of maternal death and severe maternal morbidities (e.g., mechanical ventilation, thromboembolic disease). On one hand, the federal government recommends a COVID-19 booster for those over the age of 65 and for younger adults and children who have at least one risk factor, but then not recommend for those who are at risk because they are pregnant. COVID-19 vaccinations have been observed to effectively increase antibody levels against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus which causes COVID-19) and reduce the chances of a premature delivery. COVID-19 boosters are also safe during pregnancy and have not been found to be associated with spontaneous abortions. The decision to withhold COVID-19 vaccinations for children demonstrates a myopic approach to science and a lack of critical thinking. It appears policymakers are only focused on the prevention of death and hospitalization, defining this outcome as severe disease and assuming everything else is mild. This approach ignores the severe and chronic disabling effects of long COVID in children. It is true that on average children have milder COVID-19 infections and develop long COVID less commonly than adults. However, milder does not mean mild, and less common does not mean uncommon. It is estimated that approximately 4% of children will develop long COVID, compared to 10% to 26% for adults. This is way too high of an incidence for children, especially when re-infections are all too common. Long COVID in children can be serious. COVID-19 increases the chances of a child developing diabetes, other seemingly unrelated infections (for example respiratory syncytial virus [RSV] infections) and cognitive, mental health problems. Vaccinations have been found to reduce the chances of children developing long COVID. So maybe we should recommend and not discourage their use. Children can also spread the disease and place others at risk. This was known early on in the pandemic. I'm not sure how the public began to believe children did not pose a risk to others. Children are germ magnets, a life principle held by many parents and grandparents. Children readily spread every respiratory disease that I can think of. Why would COVID be any different? Opinion: Measles misinformation is hurting our kids while Trump government self-destructs How does our nation confront these public health risks? Simple, blame problems on lockdowns, ignore epidemiological evidence and quit counting cases. Then recommend against pregnant mothers and children receiving the vaccine. Clinical studies, medical record data and data from the V-Safe program have documented the vaccine's safety. VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) is not intended or designed to determine the risks of complications, only to identify potential complications to be investigated. Similar to Facebook, inaccurate or malicious reports can also be entered by AI bots and foreign adversaries to stir social discontent. In general, vaccines are watered-down infections. They boost your immunity while markedly decreasing, but not completely eliminating, severe complications. The mRNA vaccine does not change one's DNA, and the dosage of the spike protein is much smaller than one receives from an infection. If vaccines are as dangerous as social media disinformation says, then multiply these dangers by several magnitudes when an infection develops. If one is worried about mRNA, then obtain the protein-based vaccine, Novavax, which may have lower side effects and should have better standardization of the delivery dosage. Opinion: We have money to fight Kentucky's opioid crisis. Let's not waste it. We soon will be at risk of facing another wave of COVID from the Nb.1.8.1 variant, which is currently spreading across Southeast Asia and just landed in the United States. This variant has increased infectivity and immune-evasive properties. Everyone should become vaccinated and up to date with their COVID-19 boosters, including pregnant women and children. COVID is not over, it is still dangerous, and can cause serious long-term sequelae that may not be evident for months or years after the acute infection. We need to update our nation's vaccination policy, not based on political populism, but to reflect the realities of the world we are living in. Agree or disagree? Submit a letter to the editor. Kevin Kavanagh is a retired physician from Somerset, Kentucky and chairman of Health Watch USA. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: I'm a retired doctor. Kennedy's COVID policy will hurt US. | Opinion

Kentucky bourbon raking in money doesn't mean we can ignore alcohol's risks
Kentucky bourbon raking in money doesn't mean we can ignore alcohol's risks

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Kentucky bourbon raking in money doesn't mean we can ignore alcohol's risks

Brian Edwards' op-ed ('Kentucky's bourbon business is vital to our economy. Don't let DC dry it up") seems wrongheaded. If there is a near-prohibition lobby as he claims, I, too, would disagree and think them Menken's Puritans. While I will make the argument for consumption here, doing so on economic grounds for a substance that the National Institutes for Health estimates costs the nation $249 billion and results in 178,000 annual deaths according to the Center for Disease Control seems antithetical. To start, the science is clear: 'We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn't matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker's health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is … the less you drink, the safer it is' (Dr. Carina Ferreira-Borges, World Health Organization, 2022). Further, the purported health benefits of alcohol use have been repudiated. From JAMA ('Association of Habitual Alcohol Intake With Risk of Cardiovascular Disease', March 2022): 'Observational studies have repeatedly demonstrated a lower risk of cardiovascular disease with light to moderate alcohol intake compared with either abstinence or heavy consumption, suggesting J- or U-shaped epidemiologic associations. However, the observed cardiac benefits of alcohol have been hypothesized to be the product of residual confounding (variables) because of favorable lifestyle, socioeconomic and behavioral factors that tend to coincide with modest alcohol intake.' In sum, there is no safe use and no cardiovascular benefit of alcohol. Opinion: COVID isn't over. RFK Jr.'s vaccine recommendation is a terrible choice. However, there is evidence of human use of alcohol from 900,000 years ago, and alcohol is a well-established part of life in America. The National Academies notes that many alcohol-containing beverages provide flavors and sensations that people enjoy, and the effect on how we act and respond in social situations are two of several reasons for widespread alcohol use in our culture. Concerning responsible drinking, the data are split. The United States Census Bureau estimates that there are 258.3 million adult Americans. The National Institutes for Health estimates that 63% use alcohol at least on occasion, or 177 million Americans imbibe. Among these, the Centers for Disease Control estimates 29.6% of young adults and over 10% of seniors binge drink by consuming toxic amounts in one sitting. The CDC estimates that there are, separately, 15 million heavy drinkers who drink beyond moderation every week. The NIH estimates that there are 54 million Americans who need treatment for Substance Use Disorder. Let's use some rough, back of the envelope math, allowing that the groups defined above overlap, let us say that we have at least 100 million Americans who drink responsibly but very many who do not. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) defines moderate drinking as two drinks per day and seven per week for men and one drink per day and four a week for women (alcohol is on the whole metabolized differently by gender). A standard drink is 12 ounces of beer at 5% alcohol by volume (ABV), 5 ounces of wine at 12% ABV, or 1.5 ounces of spirits at 40% ABV. Opinion: Share Parkland's present, shape its future at Courier Journal mobile newsroom Concerning risk, it is also true that Americans take similar and more severe risks than alcohol use on a regular basis. For instance, Driving Test America estimates that in 2021 Americans drove cars and light trucks 3 trillion miles. These drivers are guided by rules of the road and formal laws that guide their driving behavior, and the manufacture of automobiles is very regulated for safety purposes. Nonetheless, there were 6.1 million vehicular crashes, resulting in 1.7 million injuries and 39.3 thousand deaths in 2021. This analogy falls apart at some point, as all do, but the point is made that alcohol use is not the only widely popular, risk-taking behavior in America. Applause to Mr. Edwards for contributing to the public debate. We would agree about a near-prohibition agenda if, as he says, such exists. America and most of Europe have tried prohibition. We know how that ends. Further, regulating the amount of consumption would be a regulatory nightmare. However, holding up the economic benefit as a reason to ignore the science is not the way to go. Better for the alcoholic beverage industry to recognize and promote responsible use and take those steps within their ken to reduce heavy and binge drinking. A market of 100 million American adults should suffice. For the nation as a whole, increasing access to treatment would be a far better use of our time and treasure. Agree or disagree? Submit a letter to the editor. Gene Gilchrist is the chief executive officer for Stay Clean, a cloud-based addiction treatment and recovery community. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Kentucky shouldn't ignore alcohol's health risks for profit | Opinion

Chicago program to light up dark streets is gateway to energy efficiency
Chicago program to light up dark streets is gateway to energy efficiency

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Chicago program to light up dark streets is gateway to energy efficiency

The 79th Street corridor is one of the busiest thoroughfares on Chicago's Southeast Side. But many of its adjacent side streets are poorly lit at night, posing hazards ranging from inconvenient to dangerous. For instance, obscured house numbers can confuse both delivery drivers and emergency responders. And higher levels of crime have been correlated with poorly lit streets, making it feel unsafe for children to play outdoors after sunset or for pedestrians to walk alone in the dark. 'For those people who are going to work in the winter at five o'clock in the morning and it's pitch black out there, yeah, they're scared. They're walking down the middle of the street,' said Sharon 'Sy' Lewis, founder and executive director of Meadows Eastside Community Resource Organization, commonly referred to by its acronym of MECRO. But block by block, things are changing, in no small part due to Light Up the Night, administered by MECRO in collaboration with the energy-efficiency program of Chicago utility ComEd. The initiative aims to solve the problem of dark streets by outfitting the front and back of homes with energy-efficient lights that automatically turn on at night and off during the day. Light Up the Night was launched in 2019 as a pilot program in the South Shore community of the city's South Side with an initial goal of providing Energy Star-certified LED light bulbs for up to 300 residences. The program had to pause during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, but eventually, Light Up the Night was able to achieve that goal and then some. Lewis said it has served more than 500 homes so far, and she is pursuing funding to expand. MECRO staff or volunteers install the bulbs into existing outlets at no charge to residents. Lewis said this proactive approach yields better results than just distributing packages of light bulbs and other energy-saving devices that may or may not get used. For Lewis, the installation process provides an opening to talk to residents about other energy-efficient measures, like weatherization or purchasing new appliances. The upgrades, often eligible for rebates to offset the cost, can dramatically reduce utility bills. This is particularly impactful in communities like those surrounding the 79th Street corridor, in which many residents spend a big portion of their income on energy bills, largely due to predominantly older and often poorly insulated housing stock. 'Light Up the Night is not just a gateway to safety, it's a gateway to energy savings. And it starts with the little things. And because we installed it, instead of sending them an 'energy box,' then we know that it's working. When you drive down that street, you know that it's working, you see that impact,' Lewis said. A minimum of 75% participation is required per block, and each homeowner or renter must provide consent before installation can begin, Lewis said. 'If the average block has 36 homes on it, if we get 15 on each side, at minimum, we have really created an impact for the block,' Lewis said. 'So now you have the whole community lighting up at once [at dusk], and then they all go off in the morning.' A legacy of segregation and disinvestment has left residents of predominantly Black communities like the Southeast Side with a strong distrust of outsiders. As a lifelong resident and visible activist, Lewis has an advantage when it comes to engaging with residents, but obtaining initial buy-in around South Shore was still a challenge. 'Getting people to sign up, that was a problem because we can't not have data on where we are leaving the lights. … [But] people didn't want to provide their information,' Lewis said. To get the program up and running, Lewis worked with neighborhood block clubs to overcome apprehension and to identify particular streets in the South Shore community that would benefit the most from the new lights. She also worked with other community organizations, especially those focused on violence prevention. It was easier to start up the program in Austin, a neighborhood on the city's West Side, where, also in 2019, Lewis collaborated with Steve Robinson, executive director of the Northwest Austin Council, with whom she had worked previously on a number of initiatives. Chicago police officers assigned to that community were also enthusiastic about the program, and helped Lewis identify blocks where adding lights would be especially impactful, she said. '[Robinson] invited me over there. It was a whole change. It was a sea change. It was amazing. [The police] were excited about it. They were looking forward to the change we were doing,' Lewis said. Wherever it has been implemented, this small-scale program has had an outsized positive impact, Lewis said. Additional lighting on front porches and entryways also enhances safety for visitors to the community, including service providers like mail carriers, delivery people, and rideshare drivers. Likewise, floodlights installed at the rear of a home or apartment building add to the ambient lighting in often dark alleyways, which results in fewer garage break-ins and instances of illegal dumping of garbage, Lewis said. MECRO does much more than install lights. The organization also helps guide new and existing small business owners, conducting educational seminars and offering technical assistance. And it provides residents with referrals for energy-efficiency improvements and other sustainability-related resources they might not otherwise know about. But Light Up the Night remains part of the organization's core mission. While illuminating areas that used to be dark is the program's first objective, once the new bulbs have replaced older, less-efficient lights, the lower utility bills can be eye-opening for residents. When people see those savings, 'they start thinking, 'Well, what if I get all energy-efficiency light bulbs? Hmm. Okay, now my bill has gone really down. What if I do the weatherization program? Now my bill is really down,'' Lewis said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store