That's what I'm saying. Maybe there's a correlation between the popularization of nerdy things and the reduction of sex.
I just observe patterns. To somewhat over-simplify what I saw during high school:
-The most beautiful people could be the most social and active. They wouldn't have to settle for lesser things.
-As people with lesser attractiveness, fewer people would want to be around them, so it would be necessary to find activities which didn't require so many people. If they were smart enough, they could play D&D or something of the sort and at least sustain a small degree of social contact.
-But, once looks and intelligence goes down the drain, we would have to settle for very solo activities like tinkering with electronics or programming and such. When there's nobody around, it serves for something to do.
Now that these base activities are becoming popularized, it looks like people are wasting their opportunity to thrive in addition to pushing the bottom feeders out to deeper fringes. As people are getting pushed out, some push back, and that's how we also see a growth in MRAs and GamerGate-like situations. At the same time, people who could have been more social and sexually active have fetishized geek culture and adopted lesser social leanings.
Yeah, I'm not buying this theory. Gamergate was about one thing. Hating women, or more hating women intruding on games, as if men always had a complete stranglehold on them, but more importantly bringing a woman's perspective to games (how dare they!) That's simply not true that gaming was a man only world. I know it is/was the popular theory for many years, and I know that games were primarily made for boys in the early days but there have always been girls and women in gaming. That men took it upon themselves as if only they had a right to them is a bit, well, self-centered. Gaming also has NEVER been an ugly-only people activity. Never.
I'm not buying the whole ugly people do certain things and everyone else does all of these magical, wonderful activities. Come on. Really? Human beings cover a very wide spectrum in terms of conventional attractiveness. Oddly enough people in every group enjoy many activities of all sorts, regardless of their beauty.
I think it maybe points more in the direction of three things;:
1. How attractive someone considers themselves and whether they think that limits their opportunity in life.
2. How attractive someone is on the inside. Are they nice to people? Do they make an effort to learn about other people? Do they think that because they have good looks they are better than others or vice versa if not so attractive, do they think they are worse than others?
3. Do they make an effort to improve themselves, in any manner whether it be using their brains, making the best of what nature gave them, etc.. I'm not saying to do that in some effort to move up in some social hierarchy but simply for the reason of bettering themselves.
I think there are a whole lot of people out there that expect to be rude, mean, never improve themselves and blame their lack of success on their looks. Then, because they are rude and mean, they lash out at everyone else for daring to enjoy an activity that is available to all.
Guess what? Sex is available to everyone that doesn't have a disability preventing them from participating. The problem is one of expectation. Some people expect to receive sex from anyone they choose whether or not that person would be interested. They then get angry. Whatever happened to getting to know someone, making a connection, then deciding whether or not it would go further if there was a level of sexual interest and mutual desire vs holding out for Barbie?