No, my basis was the raw data from one of the lobes of the Great American Sex Survey, which revealed that, of unmarried female respondents, more than 60% were actively seeking a long term relationship (as opposed to a short-term fling or friendship). Of those, a significant portion had been using multiple dating sites and had been using them for 8 months or more.
Unfortunately, since that kind of data doesn't sell sex toys, it doesn't get publicized. But it is useful from a marketing perspective.
But isn't there some stat that 70% of men get married within 3 years of divorce. If they chose to remain single, then why marry? And who are they marrying?
But isn't there some stat that 70% of men get married within 3 years of divorce. If they chose to remain single, then why marry? And who are they marrying?
Men tend to want mariage alot more than women. Hell, men tend to want relationships more than women in general.
But isn't there some stat that 70% of men get married within 3 years of divorce. If they chose to remain single, then why marry? And who are they marrying?
How many of those in that stat were "repeat offenders" -- someone who got divorced and remarried several times? We do know that divorced people are more likely to marry another divorced person (I can't dredge up the stat from memory at the moment), so when you factor men with three or four marriages, or women with two or more (like my mother-in-law, goddess bless her and her atrocious taste in men) that might skew the statistic somewhat.
How many of those in that stat were "repeat offenders" -- someone who got divorced and remarried several times? We do know that divorced people are more likely to marry another divorced person (I can't dredge up the stat from memory at the moment), so when you factor men with three or four marriages, or women with two or more (like my mother-in-law, goddess bless her and her atrocious taste in men) that might skew the statistic somewhat.
My point is, they ARE getting married more so than women. Is it that men want to be taken care of and women just don't like playing nurse having done that for say 20 years?
How many men, out of the 60% that aren't having children, choose not to have children? How many, out of the 80% of women having children, choose to have children? The difference in the percentages, I believe, can be broken down to the differences in biology. Women can carry a child, men cannot, and therefore, women have a lot more opportunities to actually conceive a child.
The typical single parent is a mother. 27% of single mothers and their children live in poverty. I would guess that a lot of these women didn't choose to have children. I would guess that they were unexpected pregnancies. However there is no percentage for that type of data, so we may never know.
Men can just as easily choose to adopt, or find a surrogate to carry their child. Gay couples do it all the time. Straight males choose not to.
It is, and always will be, the women’s right to choose when and with whom to procreate.
Exactly. Y'all have total control over passive reproductive power in our society. Yet that is almost never figured into issues about "equality". You have (well, did have) almost total control over sexuality in our society, and that was rarely taken into account, either.
As far as the single-mom stats, I think you'd also have to figure how many of those single moms were the result of divorces where the father was willing to assume full custody, wouldn't you? And at least in Western societies, where you would assume abortion is safe and legal, and adoption a valid option, you could hardly say that they were denied a choice to have their child.
Now the number of men who "choose" not to have a child has to be mitigated by deciding just how you break down the numbers. Is a man who is willing to have children, but has no potential mate in sight, actually choosing not to have kids or was he forced into his "decision" by default? One would assume (and most evolutionary biologists do) that the desire to procreate is spread evenly between the genders, with allowance for gender-specific behavior. Which would mean that if even if, say, only 60% of the women who had children actually wanted children, then you could assume that 60% of the men also actually wanted children . . . which would still leave a 20% deficit.
My major point in all of this is that women have a much, much greater certainty of successfully reproducing, and that has an impact on their sexual psychology and their over-all approach to society. Conversely, since most men are denied the opportunity to procreate, that too has an impact on their sexual psychology and their approach to society. Evolutionary biologists reasonably assume that parents, in general, have a higher vested interest in the success of a society, since they are raising children in it.
Yet that assumption means that 60% of men don't have a vested interest in the success of a society. Think about that for a moment.
What if, in the interests of true equality, it was mandated that both genders had to reproduce in parity? Pure speculation, of course, but if a man didn't have to depend on the often fickle whims of womanhood for his reproductive security, I theorize that we'd see a lot more men active in our society, a lot less mindless violence, and a lot more single fathers. And, of course, the male-female dynamic would change dramatically.
As a thought experiment, posit a world where artificial wombs are safe, effective, and cost-effective, negating the need for a woman to give birth to your offspring. If a man felt the need to reproduce, he could do so at any time using his own genetic material and that of a paid or volunteer donor, without even needing to talk to a woman.
How would that change the male-female dynamic? Suddenly, both genders were free to reproduce without the active participation of the other. Women would lose that advantage of passive reproductive control, for one thing. Dating, marriage, they would become even less prevalent, socially speaking, than they are now. Men would be freed from considering a woman's breeding characteristics and could focus solely on those traits he found desirable. Further positing a society where casual sex was safe, accepted, and available (even if it is a cash transaction), just how would the two genders play out?
Sci-fi stuff, I know -- but I'm a sci-fi writer, among other things. And realistically speaking, we're probably 20 years away from a functional artificial womb. But it will come, I can guarantee it. Just one more technological bump for the genders to contend with.
My point is, they ARE getting married more so than women. Is it that men want to be taken care of and women just don't like playing nurse having done that for say 20 years?
I think it has more to do with the fact that male sexual value tends to increase with age, while female sexual value tends to decrease with age. And men, in general, tend to be less picky over their choice of mate than women do.
"As a thought experiment, posit a world where artificial wombs are safe, effective, and cost-effective, negating the need for a woman to give birth to your offspring. If a man felt the need to reproduce, he could do so at any time using his own genetic material and that of a paid or volunteer donor, without even needing to talk to a woman."
They have something like this already. It's called a surrogate. It costs about $25,000 dollars, depending on the agency, and most agencies accept all applicants. You use your sperm, pick your egg donor, they mix them together and put them into your surrogate for you. Wait 9 months and you have a baby, minus a woman.
isnt the surrogate a woman? you must mean minus the committment to a woman
Exactly. Y'all have total control over passive reproductive power in our society. Yet that is almost never figured into issues about "equality". You have (well, did have) almost total control over sexuality in our society, and that was rarely taken into account, either.
As far as the single-mom stats, I think you'd also have to figure how many of those single moms were the result of divorces where the father was willing to assume full custody, wouldn't you? And at least in Western societies, where you would assume abortion is safe and legal, and adoption a valid option, you could hardly say that they were denied a choice to have their child.
Now the number of men who "choose" not to have a child has to be mitigated by deciding just how you break down the numbers. Is a man who is willing to have children, but has no potential mate in sight, actually choosing not to have kids or was he forced into his "decision" by default? One would assume (and most evolutionary biologists do) that the desire to procreate is spread evenly between the genders, with allowance for gender-specific behavior. Which would mean that if even if, say, only 60% of the women who had children actually wanted children, then you could assume that 60% of the men also actually wanted children . . . which would still leave a 20% deficit.
My major point in all of this is that women have a much, much greater certainty of successfully reproducing, and that has an impact on their sexual psychology and their over-all approach to society. Conversely, since most men are denied the opportunity to procreate, that too has an impact on their sexual psychology and their approach to society. Evolutionary biologists reasonably assume that parents, in general, have a higher vested interest in the success of a society, since they are raising children in it.
Yet that assumption means that 60% of men don't have a vested interest in the success of a society. Think about that for a moment.
What if, in the interests of true equality, it was mandated that both genders had to reproduce in parity? Pure speculation, of course, but if a man didn't have to depend on the often fickle whims of womanhood for his reproductive security, I theorize that we'd see a lot more men active in our society, a lot less mindless violence, and a lot more single fathers. And, of course, the male-female dynamic would change dramatically.
As a thought experiment, posit a world where artificial wombs are safe, effective, and cost-effective, negating the need for a woman to give birth to your offspring. If a man felt the need to reproduce, he could do so at any time using his own genetic material and that of a paid or volunteer donor, without even needing to talk to a woman.
How would that change the male-female dynamic? Suddenly, both genders were free to reproduce without the active participation of the other. Women would lose that advantage of passive reproductive control, for one thing. Dating, marriage, they would become even less prevalent, socially speaking, than they are now. Men would be freed from considering a woman's breeding characteristics and could focus solely on those traits he found desirable. Further positing a society where casual sex was safe, accepted, and available (even if it is a cash transaction), just how would the two genders play out?
Sci-fi stuff, I know -- but I'm a sci-fi writer, among other things. And realistically speaking, we're probably 20 years away from a functional artificial womb. But it will come, I can guarantee it. Just one more technological bump for the genders to contend with.
Hey, I would have loved an artificial womb! Screw 25 hours of labor.
So the moral of your story is that relationships are doomed. Well hey, there's always romance novels and porn!
As a thought experiment, posit a world where artificial wombs are safe, effective, and cost-effective, negating the need for a woman to give birth to your offspring. If a man felt the need to reproduce, he could do so at any time using his own genetic material and that of a paid or volunteer donor, without even needing to talk to a woman.
How would that change the male-female dynamic? Suddenly, both genders were free to reproduce without the active participation of the other. Women would lose that advantage of passive reproductive control, for one thing. Dating, marriage, they would become even less prevalent, socially speaking, than they are now. Men would be freed from considering a woman's breeding characteristics and could focus solely on those traits he found desirable. Further positing a society where casual sex was safe, accepted, and available (even if it is a cash transaction), just how would the two genders play out?
Sci-fi stuff, I know -- but I'm a sci-fi writer, among other things. And realistically speaking, we're probably 20 years away from a functional artificial womb. But it will come, I can guarantee it. Just one more technological bump for the genders to contend with.
I think this was pretty much the direction Asimov was going with the Robot series. Proof positive to me why I sucked at writing strict sci-fi, while doing fairly well in modern fantasy. 'Ain't never posited a world where the need to reproduce outweighed my desire to be with a woman with a fine caboose.... oops, sorry, forgot it was a feminist thread... she adds a certain beauty to my life, and she completes me.
My point is, they ARE getting married more so than women. Is it that men want to be taken care of and women just don't like playing nurse having done that for say 20 years?
I'm not sure if you mentioned it earlier in this thread if you had a son. Would you want the women your son will be dating/marrying to say things like this? Is that the future you want for him?
Everything IanIronwood is saying is true and needs to be listened to and not belittled. You should instead ask why that man needs to be nursed in the first place. Men are in trouble and it should absolutely not be dismissed. An entire generation of men raised by single mothers who were never taught, nor encouraged, to be a man, because the generation before them weren't raised as men either; men who have no true support because their female counterparts have been conditioned to fight them on every issue under the sun.
I would be willing to bet that if you have a son and he is close to the dating age, he will be complaining to you about all of this in a short amount of time. And, if I met him in the workforce (if he could even get a job), I would be telling him everything I am saying here because I have seen it happen from countless people I know and obviously all you have to do is read this forum or look around.
It's hard to give a young man advice on what to do because I know what he faces and it isn't good, yet I want him to succeed.
I think this was pretty much the direction Asimov was going with the Robot series. Proof positive to me why I sucked at writing strict sci-fi, while doing fairly well in modern fantasy. 'Ain't never posited a world where the need to reproduce outweighed my desire to be with a woman with a fine caboose.... oops, sorry, forgot it was a feminist thread... she adds a certain beauty to my life, and she completes me.
I am convinced that Ian Ironwood is the pen name of George R.R. Martin. Tell us "Ian", what's coming from the north?
Re: Feminism.... 
He has a lot of ideas that don't make sense.
lol Just put it on the shelf to bake. 
i could have done without the labor and the pre-eclampsia!
