# Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married



## Truthseeker1

Thoughts? I do notice men are allowed to tay in a state of perpetual adolescence way longer than previous generations. I wonder if this trend will change or are we doomed? 

____________________________________________________

Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”

“Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.

(read more here)


----------



## Ripper

Truthseeker1 said:


> I wonder if this trend will change or are we doomed?


Our culture as we know it certainly is, but something else will rise in its place. You might see that as either good or bad depending on your politics I guess.



Truthseeker1 said:


> “Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and* self-sufficiency*, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.


I highlighted "self-sufficiency" because that is all I care about anymore. As long as they aren't another drain on the system, let them party while Rome burns. This forum is full of reasons why men are opting out of marriage and fatherhood. In my opinion it has more to do with refusing to play a rigged game with a reward often not worth the squeeze then being perpetually adolescent.

Just to show you how things go, the article mentions a few issues facing men, but most of it is how it is negatively affecting women.

_The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com.

After decades of feminism, Crouse noted that young men are now the ones who set the parameters for intimate relationships, and those increasingly do not include a wedding ring.

“And that means the girls have to live by the guys’ demands. And that means less romance.

“Feminism was supposed to bring women happiness,” Crouse said. “But the research shows that women today are much more unhappy then they have been in the past. They’ve ended up with far more opportunities, but their personal happiness is way down.”_


----------



## Truthseeker1

Ripper said:


> Our culture as we know it certainly is, but something else will rise in its place. You might see that as either good or bad depending on your politics I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> I highlighted "self-sufficiency" because that is all I care about anymore.* As long as they aren't another drain on the system, let them party while Rome burns.* This forum is full of reasons why men are opting out of marriage and fatherhood. In my opinion it has more to do with refusing to play a rigged game with a reward often not worth the squeeze then being perpetually adolescent.
> 
> Just to show you how things go, the article mentions a few issues facing men, but most of it is how it is negatively affecting women.
> 
> _The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com.
> 
> After decades of feminism, Crouse noted that young men are now the ones who set the parameters for intimate relationships, and those increasingly do not include a wedding ring.
> 
> “And that means the girls have to live by the guys’ demands. And that means less romance.
> 
> “Feminism was supposed to bring women happiness,” Crouse said. “But the research shows that women today are much more unhappy then they have been in the past. They’ve ended up with far more opportunities, but their personal happiness is way down.”_


Do you think young men have simply lost faith in the future and are just numbing themselves while the years pass?


----------



## Mr The Other

When I was 29, I had a middle class job which used my PhD. 40% of my net income (excluding local tax) went on renting a room in a flat. I did not have a car or take foreign holidays and the papers would condemn people like me for my fecklessness. 
When 30, I took a job abroad with much higher pay and was able to buy a condo a couple of years later. The same papers then considered me part of the brain drain that meant the country lost its best while feckless layabouts remained.
Generations are not that different. If men cannot afford to buy a place until later the reason will be the cost of property compared to their income.


----------



## bandit.45

I'm glad to hear this. 

Don't worry about America losing population. Latin immigrants will more than make up for any shortfall. I'm not being racist when I say it. Entitled white America deserves it. We all have it coming. We are a godless lascivious people


----------



## tech-novelist

This is a slam against men who are actually acting quite responsibly. What they aren't doing is entering into marriage.

The reason is that marriage has become a much worse deal for men over the last 30 or 40 years, and men are responding accordingly.

The only way it will reverse is if marriage becomes a better deal for men.


----------



## Anon Pink

As the mother of 3 daughters I'd just like to say, thank god these perpetual adolescents aren't attempting marriage!!!!

I'd much rather my daughters stay single than marry a little boy!


----------



## sapientia

Unfortunately no comparable %age, but here's an interesting quote further in the article:

_But men are not entirely to blame for the steep decline in marriage, Crouse pointed out. “A lot of women fear marriage. While feminism is a spent force, the ultimate consequences of that philosophy is a whole generation of women who don’t want any man to tell them what to do, and don’t really understand the give and take that is necessary for a marriage relationship.”_

The first post sounds accusatory of men, but it may not be the men driving this at all. When I was dating, most of the men I met were quite open to the idea of marriage.


----------



## tech-novelist

Anon Pink said:


> As the mother of 3 daughters I'd just like to say, thank god these perpetual adolescents aren't attempting marriage!!!!
> 
> I'd much rather my daughters stay single than marry a little boy!


I doubt you have anything to worry about there.
Of course you may never have grandchildren, if that matters to you.


----------



## Anon Pink

technovelist said:


> I doubt you have anything to worry about there.
> Of course you may never have grandchildren, if that matters to you.


Me too, I hope I raised them well enough to make good choices. 

getting grand babies matters a great deal to me, but more important is that those grandchildren have a stable home first and foremost. No stable home, no grand babies.


----------



## tech-novelist

Anon Pink said:


> Me too, I hope I raised them well enough to make good choices.
> 
> getting grand babies matters a great deal to me, but more important is that those grandchildren have a stable home first and foremost. No stable home, no grand babies.


How would one be sure of a stable home?


----------



## Anon Pink

technovelist said:


> How would one be sure of a stable home?


Number one would be to marry an adult and not a child.


----------



## morituri

Me thinks y'all been readin' too many scary stories. :grin2:

Change is always scary but to paraphrase Jay Michael Straczinski



> *"DEDICATED TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO PREDICTED THAT MEN WOULD FAIL IN THEIR MISSION. FAITH MANAGES."*


The future belongs to the brave, never to the cowards.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

At some point only the men without options will be willing to marry. And of course they'll get their asses handed to them in divorce court too.


----------



## tech-novelist

Anon Pink said:


> Number one would be to marry an adult and not a child.


How would you define an adult?


----------



## tech-novelist

morituri said:


> Me thinks y'all been readin' too many scary stories. :grin2:
> 
> Change is always scary but to paraphrase Jay Michael Straczinski
> 
> 
> 
> The future belongs to the brave, never to the cowards.


Playing Russian roulette with half the chambers loaded (50% divorce rate) may be brave, but it isn't a very good idea anyway.


----------



## morituri

technovelist said:


> Playing Russian roulette with half the chambers loaded (50% divorce rate) may be brave, but it isn't a very good idea anyway.


Brave and stupid are two sides of the same coin, isn't it? Besides son, you can't win if you don't play.


----------



## sapientia

technovelist said:


> Playing Russian roulette with half the chambers loaded (50% divorce rate) may be brave, but it isn't a very good idea anyway.


I think the rate would be much lower if people made rational choices about getting married and listened to their spidey sense a lot more closely.

I ignored red flags before my first marriage when I was dating. Not this time. Just a hint of red and I was outta there.


----------



## MountainRunner

I'll say this much...At 55 years of age, I look at some of the "boys" where I work at and I seriously wonder how they can survive without their "mommy". *smh*

I mean, one of these kids house sits for us when we travel. I have 2 fridges and two freezers full of organic foodstuffs including filet mignon and I always tell him that he can eat whatever he wants. When we come back from our trip I see no dishes have been touched, none of our food has been touched, and the trash is full of fast food wrappers. He just got married a few months back and I asked him if he was going to start cooking, to which he replied..."Lea (his new wife) does all the cooking." *facepalm*

I remember back when I was growing up...My Mom taught me how to cook, how to clean, how to sew, how to shop...I also remember her saying "I'm teaching you all this because when you move out, you're never coming back." LOL!

I am forever grateful for the life lessons my mother taught me. Maybe one of the reasons why so many men in this age bracket aren't getting married is because no woman in her right mind would want to marry a "man" that really needs a "mommy", yeah?


----------



## morituri

The problem I see is with articles that shame men for not helping to make women's dreams come true is that they are not worthy of anybody's attention.

Now if articles were to concentrate on helping to identify an enlarging problem between men and women without blaming anybody and instead offered possible solutions, then it is worthy of serious consideration.

The reality is that BOTH genders have to work on their sides of the issue if they really care about each other and the world they are leaving behind.


----------



## Forest

We got a bunch of boys that aren't men, and a bunch of girls that aren't women. Its no wonder they aren't married.

Further, if you were a young man today, would you be able to find something out their attractive enough to sign a long term contract with?


----------



## scatty

I think men should marry, but only after REALLY knowing the woman. That's why we waited 24 years, just to be sure! Some women won't wait and will dump a guy and marry whoever is next. That's what I've seen. Not that I would advise my daughter to wait as long as we did, but quick engagements/wedding and LD marriages seem doomed from the start, IMO.


----------



## soccermom2three

I only want my kids to be happy. If that means they don't get married or have kids, so be it. It's out of my control, so I'm not going to worry about it. My daughter (20) has already told me she doesn't want kids.

I think it would be interesting to find out how many of these guys between 20-34 are still living with their parents and playing video games all day. I think that is more of reason for the 70% figure than them having a lot of other options.


----------



## EleGirl

There is more data that the article ignored: By age 25, 23% of men and 17% of women have never been married. So I guess people are getting married. Just a bit later than they did when most married right out of high school. I don’t see this as a bad thing at all.

The article does a wonderful job of twisting the interpretation of statistics for political and/or sensationalism. It would be funny were it not so pathetic.

It 70% of men are not married. Well that surely means that about 70% of all women ages 20-34 are also not married. The article wrongly makes the assumption that men are calling the shots and that women are pathetic and n

Here are couple of quotes from the article that make ridiculous assumptions.


> The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com. “They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”


The assumption in the above paragraph is that women are sitting around dreaming of a wedding and men are just rejecting them. Really? What about another point of view? Both men and women are just waiting to get married. Many are getting their education out of the way and starting careers.

This is actually wise because couples with more education have the lowest divorce rates. When the woman is over 25 and has a degree, like 25% divorce rates.



> After decades of feminism, Crouse noted that young men are now the ones who set the parameters for intimate relationships, and those increasingly do not include a wedding ring.
> 
> “And I know the feminists just yell and scream if you say anything like this, but time was, girls set the cultural morays, the standards, the parameters for intimate activity. The girls were the ones that set those boundaries. And now it’s the guys who do,” Crouse told CNSNews.com.


LOL.. What a crock. This makes some ridiculous assumptions. 1) That what women want is to get married. 2) That men don’t want to so women have to beg, crawl and do whatever men want to get some male attention. What an utterly demeaning take on things.

News flash. A lot of women are choosing to not marry. A lot are choosing no relationship or to cohabitate because they do not want marriage either at that time in their lives, or maybe ever.

Oh, and of course if anyone disagrees with the author, they are feminists just yelling and screaming. That of course solidifies the argument.



> “And it’s doubly terrible because the colleges now are predominantly female. So you have some – up to 60 percent of the student bodies are female. And almost all of them are more than 50 percent female. And so the ratio [of] male/female is out of sync.


Oh, good, now we know the problem.

Some colleges are 60% female. Some are 50% female. That’s it. Now that women are getting an education they are no longer desirable as spouse material. And of course now they have to crawl, and beg to get a man’s attention.

I guess that will show women. Educating women never works out well. LOL


> “And that means the girls have to live by the guys’ demands. And that means less romance. They don’t date. The girls, I have talked to numerous young women, lament the fact that they don’t have the opportunity to dress up and go out for an event.”


Girls have to live by the guys’ demands. “Girls”? Really? Here I thought we were talking about women. Girls? We are talking about 25-35, that’s a bit old for ‘girls’.

I know a lot of young women and young men. They date. They go to special events. They even dress up sometimes. 



> Young women who adhere to a moral code and refuse to participate in the “hook up” culture are now considered social misfits, Crouse pointed out. And they face even more daunting odds of finding a husband than their promiscuous sisters.


Now I’m confused. So often we read about men who will not seriously date women with high numbers. They are slvts and undesirable except to fvck. Now we find out that being a svlt is necessary to find a husband. You all need to make up your minds.

But while you do that, each woman will decide how she wants to live her life. If she likes casual sex, that’s what she’s going to do. That’ ok. It’s as ok for a woman to do this as it is for a man to do it.

If she wants to not have a lot of casual sex, she’s going to do that. And she will be able to find some guy who appreciates that in a woman. The fact is that not all men are out there banging a different woman every night, not all men want to.

Something else I noticed.

The chart displayed in the article is illegible. The article provides a link to the pwesocialtrends report. But that chart does not exist in the pwesocialtrends report. Since the chat is illegible, we cannot see what it actually says. While the style of the chart seems to be similar to others in the pew report, we have no idea where the chart comes from..

For Young Never-Married Women, the Pool of Employed Men Has Shrunk | Pew Research Center

“After decades of feminism, Crouse noted that young men are now the ones who set the parameters for intimate relationships, and those increasingly do not include a wedding ring.”
“The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come.”

Trends in the Share of Never-Married Americans and a Look Forward | Pew Research Center


----------



## sapientia

soccermom2three said:


> Just hoe your own row and raise your own babies
> Smoke your own smoke and grow your own daisies
> Mend your own fences and own your own crazy
> Mind your own biscuits and life will be gravy


SoccerMom, I adore your sig quote.


----------



## Holland

technovelist said:


> This is a slam against men who are actually acting quite responsibly. What they aren't doing is entering into marriage.
> 
> The reason is that marriage has become a much worse deal for men over the last 30 or 40 years, and men are responding accordingly.
> 
> The only way it will reverse is if marriage becomes a better deal for men.


In the last 30 or 40 years marriage has become a little bit of a more equal deal for women. Many women do not marry a man that is seeking the inequality of past generations.


----------



## EleGirl

bandit.45 said:


> I'm glad to hear this.
> 
> Don't worry about America losing population. Latin immigrants will more than make up for any shortfall. I'm not being racist when I say it. Entitled white America deserves it. We all have it coming. We are a godless lascivious people


Why do you assume that only white Americans are entitled, or cannot find jobs, or whatever?


----------



## soccermom2three

sapientia said:


> SoccerMom, I adore your sig quote.


It's my new favorite song by Kacey Musgraves


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> This is a slam against men who are actually acting quite responsibly. What they aren't doing is entering into marriage.
> 
> The reason is that marriage has become a much worse deal for men over the last 30 or 40 years, and men are responding accordingly.
> 
> The only way it will reverse is if marriage becomes a better deal for men.


If a man marries a woman who earns near the same as he does then this 'advantage' that you talk about does not exist.

And if the woman earns more than the guy, he could end up with the 'advantage'.

70% of married women are working.

40% of women earn more than their husbands

Another 10% earn as much as their husbands. 

A lot, if not most, states have little to no alimony.


----------



## chris007

Over the last 50 years womans happiness has decreased 400%, while it stayed pretty much the same for men. Yay for feminism and women trying really hard to be men. Haha. 
Thanks to internet, and other inventions, young men today have an option of learning from previous generations mistakes. They choose not to be enslaved by the mockery thats been made of marriage, in feminized western world. Big props to them for recognizing a bad deal, unlike their fathers.

Calling these young men, little boys is really not going to help in this case. You will not shame them into such a bad deal. Nice attempt at shaming though, haha. Men will continue to withdraw, away from forced wealth redistribution, from producer to consumer, and young women will get more and more desperate. Im loving it.


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> Playing Russian roulette with half the chambers loaded (50% divorce rate) may be brave, but it isn't a very good idea anyway.


The divorce rate is not 50%. That number was arrived at by a reported who went to one court house. He counted the number of marriages that year to the number of divorces that year. The number is nonsense.

The actual divorce rate has been declining for some times as people marry a later. It's nearer to 30%. 

If the marriage is to a woman 25 or older with a degree, the divorce rate is about 25%. The more education that the couple has, the lower the divorce rate. So marry a woman over 25 who has a college education.

For marriages in which the woman is under 25 and/or the man is under 30 and they have only high school education the divorce rate is higher.

So, like I tell my son, he's working on his masters in physics. Marry a 25+ year old woman with the same level of education as he. Be smart.

The Truth About The Divorce Rate Is Surprisingly Optimistic


----------



## chris007

EleGirl said:


> technovelist said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a slam against men who are actually acting quite responsibly. What they aren't doing is entering into marriage.
> 
> The reason is that marriage has become a much worse deal for men over the last 30 or 40 years, and men are responding accordingly.
> 
> The only way it will reverse is if marriage becomes a better deal for men.
> 
> 
> 
> If a man marries a woman who earns near the same as he does then this 'advantage' that you talk about does not exist.
> 
> And if the woman earns more than the guy, he could end up with the 'advantage'.
> 
> 70% of married women are working.
> 
> 40% of women earn more than their husbands
> 
> Another 10% earn as much as their husbands.
> 
> A lot, if not most, states have little to no alimony.
Click to expand...

What happened to the 77 cents to a dollar campaign? Do you only use that, when it fits your argument. And oh btw, 97% of all alimony is paid by men. Women file for 70-80% of frivorces, and get custody of children in majority of cases. Caching. Lol


----------



## EleGirl

Forest said:


> We got a bunch of boys that aren't men, and a bunch of girls that aren't women. Its no wonder they aren't married.
> 
> Further, if you were a young man today, would you be able to find something out their attractive enough to sign a long term contract with?


Wow, way to insult an entire generation of women and men.


----------



## tech-novelist

morituri said:


> Brave and stupid are two sides of the same coin, isn't it? Besides son, you can't win if you don't play.


Well, that's not really obvious at this point.
I am happily married, more so than almost anyone else I know.
But if I were a young man, knowing what I know now, I would not marry, at least in the US or another country where the laws are rigged against men.


----------



## EleGirl

chris007 said:


> What happened to the 77 cents to a dollar campaign? Do you only use that, when it fits your argument.


This is an attempt to thread jack.


chris007 said:


> And oh btw, 97% of all alimony is paid by men.


Alimony is paid in only 15% of all divorces. These are mostly long term marriages in which one spouse was a SAHM/D for decades. Most states are moving to the idea that the dependent spouse has to do what she/he can to become as self-supporting as possible. A 50/60 year old woman who has never had a job will have a very hard time ever even finding a minimum wage job … ever. This is a reality.

Feminism and women’s rights have really helped men in this area because as more and more women earn as much or man than their husbands, there is less and less need for something like alimony. Alimony is needed when women spends decades at home taking care of the home, children, etc. They have often have no way of supporting themselves.



> Women file for 70-80% of frivorces,


Freudian slip there?

Apparently women do file about 70% of divorces. Who files says nothing about who decided to divorce. 


> and get custody of children in majority of cases.


Most of the time, the mother has been the primary care giver. Even women who work full time are generally the primary care giver. More and more though, 50/50 custody is the norm. I’m all for 50/50 custody.



> Caching. Lol


Your posts are hostile and attacking. It's getting very tiresome.


----------



## morituri

technovelist said:


> Well, that's not really obvious at this point.
> I am happily married, more so than almost anyone else I know.
> But if I were a young man, knowing what I know now, I would not marry, at least in the US or another country where the laws are rigged against men.



Nevertheless you have my respect and my admiration for it sir - whatever that is worth. 

I have been married twice, and been in a LTR, and I will tell you, that love is nothing to ever be ashamed of.

I've known joy and heartbreak of love and I would never think of trading what I've experienced for anything in the world, even the bad.


----------



## tech-novelist

morituri said:


> Nevertheless you have my respect and my admiration for it sir - whatever that is worth.
> 
> I have been married twice, and been in a LTR, and I will tell you, that love is nothing to ever be ashamed of.
> 
> I've known joy and heartbreak of love and I would never think of trading what I've experienced for anything in the world, even the bad.


Thank you. I agree that love is nothing to be ashamed of. I just wish it were less hazardous.


----------



## EleGirl

chris007 said:


> Over the last 50 years womans happiness has decreased 400%, while it stayed pretty much the same for men. Yay for feminism and women trying really hard to be men. Haha.


It always helps to look more deeply into these studies.

Before the early 2000's, studies showed that:
Married men had better healthy than single men.
Single women had better health than married women.
Single women had better health than single men.

Things have changed.
Both married men and married women have better health than singles.

The studies that show that women's happiness has decreased has some serious flaws. For example, the questions changed over time. It's well known that the way a question is asked can elicit a particular response.



chris007 said:


> Thanks to internet, and other inventions, young men today have an option of learning from previous generations mistakes. They choose not to be enslaved by the mockery thats been made of marriage, in feminized western world. Big props to them for recognizing a bad deal, unlike their fathers.


LOL.... 



chris007 said:


> Calling these young men, little boys is really not going to help in this case. You will not shame them into such a bad deal. Nice attempt at shaming though, haha. Men will continue to withdraw, away from forced wealth redistribution, from producer to consumer, and young women will get more and more desperate. Im loving it.


LOL... what a riot. Got news for you. Young women are not desperate. They are waiting to marry until they have their lives more together. Makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Ripper

EleGirl said:


> *Young* women are not desperate.


The key word here is "young". Get back to us when these "young" women start careening into their mid-30's. Far too many "where have all the good men gone" articles to not believe that there is _some_ desperation out there.


----------



## sapientia

Ele - I thought the stats were now that married men live longer than single men, but that married women are dying at the same age as their male counterparts... earlier than historical averages.


----------



## morituri

technovelist said:


> Thank you. I agree that love is nothing to be ashamed of. I just wish it were less hazardous.


Agreed but even when a woman cheats on a man, not all women will want your financial hide. And not all will be able to fleece you.

Some, like my cheating ex, just wanted to continue being the woman in my heart. Yet she knew what she had done and never fought against anything but 50/50.

Unlike others, I've never cared about material things. I lost a great deal more than that, I lost the woman I loved.


----------



## EleGirl

sapientia said:


> Ele - I thought the stats were now that married men live longer than single men, but that married women are dying at the same age as their male counterparts... earlier than historical averages.


If there are any men left who still believe that women are the weaker sex, it is long past time for them to think again. With respect to that most essential proof of robustness—the power to stay alive—women are tougher than men from birth through to extreme old age. The average man may run a 100-meter race faster than the average woman and lift heavier weights. But nowadays women outlive men by about five to six years. By age 85 there are roughly six women to every four men. At age 100 the ratio is more than two to one. And by age 122—the current world record for human longevity—the score stands at one-nil in favor of women.

So why do women live longer than men? One idea is that men drive themselves to an early grave with all the hardship and stress of their working lives. If this were so, however, then in these days of greater gender equality, you might expect the mortality gap would vanish or at least diminish. Yet there is little evidence that this is happening. Women today still outlive men by about as much as their stay-at-home mothers outlived their office-going fathers a generation ago. Furthermore, who truly believes that men’s work lives back then were so much more damaging to their health than women’s home lives? Just think about the stresses and strains that have always existed in the traditional roles of women: a woman’s life in a typical household can be just as hard as a man’s. Indeed, statistically speaking, men get a much better deal out of marriage than their wives—married men tend to live many years longer than single men, whereas married women live only a little bit longer than single women. So who actually has the easier life?

Why Women Live Longer - Scientific American


----------



## EleGirl

chris007 said:


> and young women will get more and more desperate. Im loving it.





Ripper said:


> The key word here is "young".


I used the word ‘young’ because that’s what chris007 used. I was replying directly to his ridiculous comment.



> Get back to us when these "young" women start careening into their mid-30's. Far too many "where have all the good men gone" articles to not believe that there is _some_ desperation out there.


LOL.. There is no desperation. The ‘where have all the good men gone’ articles are writing for the same reason that the article in the OP is written, to get drive revenue, get clicks, etc. It’s the kind of nonsense piece that gets a lot of attention.

The title “Where have all the good men gone” comes from a book written for Christian woman claiming that there are few Christian men who actually follow the faith. The book title took off and now the internet is full of junk stories and blogs that are written for sensationalism.

What I see is that some men are taking glee in the idea that women are desperate and that’s giving he idea wings.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Bugged said:


> This article is ludicrous...>
> 
> Apart from the fact that it could be women that don't want to get married anymore...What research? where is the data?
> Is way down *compared to what*? to women in the 50s? Or even earlier? when they had no education and were dependant on men?Or when they couldn't even vote?
> What the hell is this woman talking about?the old adagio that marriage is the natural happiness source for women...:grin2:
> Most women I know, including myself, never dreamt of a wedding day..*they dreamt of a career*...which is FAR more difficult to achieve than a ring on your finger.


I felt the opposite of you.. I was one of those who did Dream of finding my soul mate, getting married, having a family & being by each others sides till we are in our rocking chairs...(but I'm 48 yrs old ...times have drastically changed -I do worry about my daughter finding a decent man who will care to marry .. I want that for her)...I am not one to feel it's all for the better, or who cares .... many GOOD things have been lost.. 

I find the article very sad..:frown2: I don't see it as crap.. but as the growing reality ...this is our fallout.. it seems only those who hold onto some of the traditionalist mindset would care or be bothered that marriage is as important as an old pair of shoes to the majority today...

Instead.. people want renewable contracts.. they want variety... we already have that..Hooking up.. using people like disposables.. is it making us any happier?? Is all the independence making us better, more caring people or more narcissistic? .. . this is rising with this culture also...it all has it's price...and consequences... 

I can see both sides.. I don't have sympathy for the wild Party girl who can't find a suitable husband though..but I never would give the Playboy the time of day either... 

Yeah everyone needs to get a degree today -even when there is not enough good paying jobs for all these people...and some will be working at Walmart strapped with college debt for the next 20 yrs...talk about added stress..

Myself & Husband beat the statistics- never came close to divorce.. no degrees..I think it's most important that a couple be responsible. .. self aware, not selfish, but giving.. communication, honesty, intimacy - know what love & respect is all about , team work.. faithfulness... devotion...some old fashioned romance is helpful too..and of course, know how to manage $$ well if you're not rich.. Be frugal in a high cost society.. not all of us are materialistic. 

This article spoke of the "Hook up culture"... What I see is the damage it is doing - in *UN*connecting people ... it changes their world view, I offer 2 articles on this.. 1 written by a young woman.. and the other written by a young man.. we are raising a generation of people who have no idea what Love is about or how to cultivate it..the sexes are at such a disconnect...(as least from this lifestyle)... 

The young woman...

Let?s talk about hook-up culture 



> There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons to stay entrenched in the comforts of remaining uncommitted. But the fact of the matter is this: I am almost 20 years old, and I have never had a serious relationship. I don’t know how to function in a romantic partnership. I don’t know how to connect—physically, emotionally, mentally—with another person. An arguably fundamental part of being human, the ability to love and be loved, is something I know absolutely nothing about.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> This isn’t meant to be an obnoxious rant about being lonely and wanting someone to cuddle with. I stand by the notion that I am a strong, independent woman who listens to Beyoncé and doesn’t need a man to be happy. Where my concern lies is that, in exchange for meaningless trysts and protection from being hurt, we are missing out on the very real benefits of human connection.
> 
> There seems to be this unspoken consensus that *after college*,* after* we get into grad school, after we establish our careers, *after* we become the epitome of what society deems successful, that is when we’ll find someone we care about. But learning to care, to be vulnerable, to trust—that’s something that’s important right now. That is paramount to our development as people. Relationships do exist at Duke, but they are not the accepted norm. Instead, we have hook-ups, arbitrary “things” and people who are “just talking.” We don’t define our interactions because doing so means we care, and caring exposes *vulnerability*. We are pressured by a culture that tells us relationships are a waste of time, and, so, we engage in meaningless encounters that, while fun, are incredibly unfulfilling for a lot of people. And I think it’s a shame that we feel ashamed if we want something more.


Young man's struggle -very similar...

Another Potential Consequence of Hook-Up Culture* 



> Relationships among the youth in America, between girls and boys, are broken. How do I know this? Well, because I am a young man, living in this society, and thinking to myself the other day, I unfortunately realized a sad truth in my life: I simply feel more comfortable, more at ease, more self-confident in bed with a girl than asking a girl out on a date. This is the scary truth that I have been living with for a while, it seems like forever. How could we, as a society, get to this point is a question that I continue to ask myself.
> 
> It is a very scary thought. I, at age 23, have never been in a relationship, I have never connected with a girl on an intimate level. Sex to me, unfortunately, at this point in my life, is not considered an intimate action. This sounds terrible, but it is true. To me "getting intimate" means telling a member of the opposite sex (or same sex) all of your hopes and dreams, your fears and failures. I've never been intimate like this, I've never even been close to being intimate. I certainly do not mean to speak for my entire generation, or for anyone other than myself, but I do want to venture out there and say that by no means do I feel alone in my experiences and my feelings. I will say that I feel like this is a consequence of a very certain type of college experience.
> 
> It seems that just as fast food developed for the busy American lifestyle on the go, hook-up culture developed for the busy college student who wanted all of the fun, and none of the time commitments of a real relationship. It was great, and it seemed great, until now.
> 
> It is just now that I realized when it comes to asking out a girl what I am fearful of even more than rejection, and what moves me practically to paralysis is the overwhelming fear that someone might say "yes" to me and that then eventually I would have to "get intimate" with someone, to be *vulnerable* essentially.
> 
> ** I think in the past, without this hook-up culture, if people wanted to have sex, or hook-up, or do whatever, it would take a while, and that people "de facto," in order not to look like a ****, or a man*****, or whatever, would need to engage on some personal, emotional and vulnerable level. Essentially, a type of emotional training for when someone right came along, so that you could be vulnerable enough with that other person to fall in love, marry, have a family.
> 
> I am worried that I will never have those last three things listed because I, like so many other people in my generation, have never needed time in order to "hook up" and as a result this de facto "side effect," never developed. Essentially, I have never been trained to be vulnerable and intimate with someone else, particularly not a family member. I am worried that when someone right comes along I will be too scared, too paralyzed to be my true vulnerable self with her, and that as a result I will never have any of the things that I want so badly in my life, like someone I love, a wife, and, you know, kids too.
> 
> As a said earlier I think this phenomenon is worse in elite schools because being vulnerable with someone, being in love, means that you may have to *sacrifice ambitious careers* for this, and it's better to avoid love so you never have to deal with such a choice between love and a career. Or worse, people from elite schools do not want to be vulnerable -- to be intimate -- with potential competitors in the workplace.
> 
> These last points are rather cynical and I hope there are not true, but I don't find it hard to believe that either of those last two points could be true, or even that one or both are true for me. All I know is that the hyper competitive nature of the world, and the hyper scheduled nature of the lives of college kids, and to a lesser extent high school kids, has taken away a very important training ground for developing the necessary emotional skills to have a meaningful, potentially lifelong relationship.
> 
> Ultimately I think I will be ok, mostly because I am sitting here writing this, thinking about this, recognizing that there is in fact a problem. But, I am fearful for those in my generation who haven't realized it.


----------



## poida

Perhaps everyone's expectations are just that much higher now?
The man many women would have happily settled for in the past is now a single man.
Same goes for men. We see smoking hot women on TV, the internet, dating sites all day every day. The average woman looks very... well... average in comparison.


----------



## Wolf1974

But what is the new percentage of women also not wanting to marry. I agree that many young men are learning from their dads that marriage, if you pick wrong, can be horrible. But women must be getting the same information I would think. I don't have daughters and while I'm not yet at the point of telling them to never marry I will tell them that they need to make good decisions and be invested in the marriage if they want it to last.


----------



## sapientia

Ele - you might find this of interest. It's more recent data than the Sci Am article you posted

U.S. Women Are Dying Younger Than Their Mothers, and No One Knows Why - The Atlantic

The other stat I recall (I'll have to try to find an article later) is that as more women are working and taking executive roles, their incidence of cardiovascular incidence is matching their male counterparts.


----------



## Wolf1974

poida said:


> Perhaps everyone's expectations are just that much higher now?
> The man many women would have happily settled for in the past is now a single man.
> Same goes for men. We see smoking hot women on TV, the internet, dating sites all day every day. The average woman looks very... well... average in comparison.


But wasn't their always sexy men and women on TV? I think everyone has high expectations about who and what they will one day marry. Hasn't it always been that way?

Guess I see the lack of marriage coming from fear more than anything else.

I love the ideal of marriage and fully support it. Would have loved to have picked wisely and been married for decades but I didn't. So that has reverberations through my kids who are now the product of divorce and this will have impact on their love lives one day.

If marriage goes great you gain lots. But you risk lots to get this as well. For some like SA it works out fantastically. For some it turns to disaster. I listen to Dr Laura sometimes and she always had this saying hard to argue with. If divorce rate is almost 50% it's like a coin flip. If you were about to get on a plane that only had a 50% chance of making it to its destination would you get on? For many taking the gamble is just too much.


----------



## EleGirl

Apparently women with at least 16 years of education out live women high school drop outs by about 10 years. For this group their life expectancy is greater than previous generations.

Interesting article. It does not say what percentage of women are living shorter lives.

It does say that in about 45% of the US counties poor women who are high school dropouts live an average of 5 years less than previous generations. But, it’s a big but…. It seems that the counties with this decline are mostly low population counties that tend to be very poor and that have become poorer as jobs move off shore and poverty has increased.

It attributes this to:


Worsening conditions for the poor
Lack of hearth care
Smoking - smoking accounts for half of the decline in life expectancy among these women
Obesity
Drug abuse
Whether or not a woman has a job is equally significant
lack of jobs – only 30% of jobs and those lose benefits like health care.

This has nothing to do with feminism, equality, etc except that those women who have taken advantage of the benefits brought up feminism: education + good career/job are living longer than the previous generation. They are also living longer than current poor white high school drop outs. One of the attached articles says that they also outlive poor black women by about 10 years.


----------



## Anon Pink

@SimplyAmorous, you won't find me defending the hook up culture, just to be clear. But hooking up has little to do with why the younger generation sucks at intimacy.

I saw a young family at an ice cream place the other day. Mom, dad, son about 9years old and daughter about age 4. Sitting at a table, all eating ice cream. Dad was playing/reading on his cell, Mom was playing/reading on her cell, the kids are totally ignored. I watched them for 30 minutes. Not once did the dad look up. Mom called to the dad to get him to help his daughter onto the chair, then went back to her phone. THIS IS WHY OUR YOUNG PEOPLE ARE INTIMACY CHALLENGED! This is why people have stopped being able to have conversations, be vulnerable, make commitments. It has nothing to do with the hook up culture and has everything to do with families not interacting with each other in favor of media and TV and this has been a problem since the 70's.


----------



## Anon Pink

@Wolf1974 ask Dr Laura when was the last time a failed marriage killed 200 people?


----------



## sapientia

I was thinking more of the post-Framingham study re: women executives and increased CVD. I can't find the original paper and I'm not sure how valid it is as there seem to be others disputing the results. I'm interested as it fits my demographic. I'll do a search when I have more time.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anon Pink said:


> @SimplyAmorous, you won't find me defending the hook up culture, just to be clear. But hooking up has little to do with why the younger generation sucks at intimacy.
> 
> I saw a young family at an ice cream place the other day. Mom, dad, son about 9years old and daughter about age 4. Sitting at a table, all eating ice cream. Dad was playing/reading on his cell, Mom was playing/reading on her cell, the kids are totally ignored. I watched them for 30 minutes. Not once did the dad look up. Mom called to the dad to get him to help his daughter onto the chair, then went back to her phone. THIS IS WHY OUR YOUNG PEOPLE ARE INTIMACY CHALLENGED! This is why people have stopped being able to have conversations, be vulnerable, make commitments. It has nothing to do with the hook up culture and has everything to do with families not interacting with each other in favor of media and TV and this has been a problem since the 70's.


and why can't it be both.. I wouldn't deny what you said right here... these are real issues too... there are many... so why deny what these young people feel .....I find much validity in it.. that's my position... often against the grain of many women here.... nothing new of course.


----------



## Icey181

The "perpetual adolescence" shaming tactic is a lovely shibboleth which just will not go away.

Apparently, you cannot be an adult man unless you marry a woman and giver her children.

Most 20-34 year old men are not living in mom and dad's basement.

What "perpetual adolescence" means is simply this: more and more men are refusing to marry women they are sleeping with and see no reason to give up a bevy of hobbies (sports, games) and partying which they can now afford because they tend to be 1) employed and 2) unattached.

Also, these kinds of statements are coming up more and more:


> “And it’s doubly terrible because the colleges now are predominantly female. So you have some – up to 60 percent of the student bodies are female. And almost all of them are more than 50 percent female. And so the ratio [of] male/female is out of sync.


I have said it once and I will say it again.

You cannot spend over two decades funding and focusing in on girls and women in education without it having a concomitant effect which leaves boys and men behind.

Here is reality for young women today:


> “The ones who are very serious get married early. And that leaves the majority of the girls, then, by the time they’re 25 and into their first jobs, the pickings are very, very slim for them. And Mark Regnerus was very, very clear that the quote ‘good girls’ are the ones who are at risk now in terms of not being able to get married.”


It is kind of funny actually.

The "bicycle feminists" convinced themselves they no longer needed men….and suddenly as they enter their 30s and find there is no prince charming waiting with a diamond and promises of eternal devotion, it's a problem. :crying:

>


----------



## Faithful Wife

CNS News is a conservative publication. They spew this type of crap trying to say "nyah nyah, everything is feminism's fault!" because that's what this type of publication does. The obvious shaming of women in this article is sickening...and the obvious sense of male entitlement is just as sickening. But that's what this kind of spin is always about, and only that. There are no actual facts here, just a conservative opinion about why people are waiting longer to get married.

It is actually a good thing to wait longer to get married, and will eventually result in less divorce as a result. This is the choice of the younger generation (all genders), and they know what they are doing. My son is 28 and no where near ready to be married, and I'm glad he has never even mentioned it. Young people want a longer single life and they should do so. I know if I had waited until at least 30 to get married the first time I would not have married my first husband and may have chosen more wisely so that I never ended up divorced. I had no clue what I was doing and neither did he. This was due to our immaturity, which everyone has still in their 20's.

It is great when marriage works out when people got married young, don't get me wrong. But there's simply no reason to think it is better or healthier to the general public to get married young.


----------



## tech-novelist

morituri said:


> Agreed but even when a woman cheats on a man, not all women will want your financial hide. And not all will be able to fleece you.
> 
> Some, like my cheating ex, just wanted to continue being the woman in my heart. Yet she knew what she had done and never fought against anything but 50/50.
> 
> Unlike others, I've never cared about material things. I lost a great deal more than that, I lost the woman I loved.


I'm sorry to hear that, and of course it is not guaranteed that a woman will try to fleece a man in a divorce. However, it is too high a probability for me to recommend, especially since my ex did try that on me. She didn't win, but I think much of the reason is that she made more money than I and had more in savings.


----------



## bandit.45

Bugged said:


> :grin2::grin2:
> Oh man...all the young women that i know are FAR from desperate...maybe you're projecting...
> it's pretty sad that men get so upset by the simple fact that marriage for women has become a choice and not a need...hence the drop in marriage rates in Europe in the last 50 years...


Like in Italy? Where the there is a negative population growth? Italy....one of the stalwarts of European society... is dying because Italian couples are too busy working and being fashionable to have the 2.5 children necessary to maintain a stable birth/death exchange ratio.


----------



## Youngster

Men aged 20-34 haven't just checked out of marriage, they've checked out of society. The constant hum of anti-male sentiment in the media has changed young men's perception of themselves and their role in society. 

The young men I work with are hunkering down and looking out for themselves. Their thoughts are (paraphrasing) "why engage with a society that is biased against you". Until a lot in society changes you're going to see the marriage rate continue to drop, because from these men's perspective marriage is a bad deal.....just like everything else.


----------



## Satya

The only contribution to this topic I will offer: I do not blame men, one tiny bit, for choosing not to marry and live an extended adolescence. This is coming from a woman in her mid-30s who loved two men deeply that chose such a lifestyle over her. I have every reason to be "bitter," but I'm not. When I look at divorce law being what it is, I'd probably do the same, were I in their shoes. When I look at the number of college-age women, setting the standard for giving up the cookie all too easily and having a low opinion of what they actually possess, I can see exactly why men will resist buying the cow.

So many current standards in the name of progression set other standards in motion and then we come full circle and wonder why things are as they are.

There ARE men out there that want to marry, want to raise a family. I think that they are just waiting until a little later in life to know it for sure.


----------



## chris007

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women?s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."
Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW


----------



## ChargingCharlie

15 years ago, I was a single guy in my mid-30's - at that time, hadn't been on a date for about four years. I had a full-time job, owned my own house, and wasn't a mommy's boy (my parents lived 150 miles away). I paid for my own stuff, paid taxes, and was able to invest. Was I a problem to society because I wasn't married with kids at that time?


----------



## Truthseeker1

ChargingCharlie said:


> 15 years ago, I was a single guy in my mid-30's - at that time, hadn't been on a date for about four years. I had a full-time job, owned my own house, and wasn't a mommy's boy (my parents lived 150 miles away). I paid for my own stuff, paid taxes, and was able to invest. Was I a problem to society because I wasn't married with kids at that time?


Nope and if you were single, childless and independent today you would not be a problem. The word "choice" and "autonomy" are used a lot today and these young men are doing just that. Perhaps this is a sign of a society spiraling downward I don't know - if so then let it crash and we will see what arises out of the ashes.


----------



## Youngster

Truthseeker1 said:


> Nope and if you were single, childless and independent today you would not be a problem. The word "choice" and "autonomy" are used a lot today and these young men are doing just that. Perhaps this is a sign of a society spiraling downward I don't know - if so then let it crash and we will see what arises out of the ashes.


Not a problem, just a choice.

The loss of young men's engagement in society will eventually be an issue on many fronts. 

Just one.......
Some day we are going to ask this demographic to sacrifice. To fight and die for a country that they feel has treated them unfairly or poorly. Many will not.


----------



## Truthseeker1

Youngster said:


> Not a problem, just a choice.
> 
> The loss of young men's engagement in society will eventually be an issue on many fronts.
> 
> Just one.......
> Some day we are going to ask this demographic to sacrifice. To fight and die for a country that they feel has treated them unfairly or poorly. Many will not.


Great points - I didn't mean to be glib in my post - I just don't care anymore. What will be asking these young men to fight, die or get crippled for exactly? More Starbucks, cheaps goods from Wal Mart? What's the point of it all? 

I think if society is indeed on a downward spiral there is no stopping it so why worry or even care. Hopefully something better will arise form the ashes. Maybe I'm at the stage in life where I realize there are things you simply can not control - so why even worry?


----------



## Youngster

I hear you......I bounce between depression and indifference. I look at my 13 y.o. son and think what will all this mean for him.


----------



## Truthseeker1

Youngster said:


> I hear you......I bounce between depression and indifference. I look at my 13 y.o. son and think what will all this mean for him.


I'm exactly where you are. If i had a son there is NO WAY I'd let him enlist. What so families like the Bushes and the Clintons and their ilk in DC live off the fat of the land while selling the rest of us a false bill of goods about flag pins and patriotism. I know DC well - the wealth and corruption here is sickening. Newsflash folks: There is one ruling party that uses two different names.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> @Wolf1974 ask Dr Laura when was the last time a failed marriage killed 200 people?




Not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Death and failed marriage aren't the same. Her point was about statistics and taking chances.
People die in plane crashes but since more people get divorced I would submit that failed marriages affect more lives negatively.


----------



## chris007

ChargingCharlie said:


> 15 years ago, I was a single guy in my mid-30's - at that time, hadn't been on a date for about four years. I had a full-time job, owned my own house, and wasn't a mommy's boy (my parents lived 150 miles away). I paid for my own stuff, paid taxes, and was able to invest. Was I a problem to society because I wasn't married with kids at that time?


Based on popular view, you were a big problem. Youi were a little boy who forgot to grow up, and someone unwilling to marry, have kids, be cheated on, divorced for no reason and then be on the hook for the next 18 years of wealth redistribution to your ex via alimony and child support. You coulda had 2 jobs and lived in a crappy apartment with no savings to speak of, while unable to see your kids. Who wouldn't want that, its a great deal for young guys.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> CNS News is a conservative publication. They spew this type of crap trying to say "nyah nyah, everything is feminism's fault!" because that's what this type of publication does. The obvious shaming of women in this article is sickening...and the obvious sense of male entitlement is just as sickening. But that's what this kind of spin is always about, and only that. There are no actual facts here, just a conservative opinion about why people are waiting longer to get married.


Where, specifically in this article is there woman shaming? And where is the male entitlement?

Because all I see is yet _another_ woman writing yet _another_ article wherein she complains that men are not meeting her standard and waiting in line to marry and sacrifice for her.

If there is any entitlement to be had in this article, it is women who feel entitled to a _man_.

Also, there are plenty of facts in the article.
Men are increasingly in the minority on almost all college campuses. There is a direct correlation to the decline in male attendance and achievement in higher education and the growth of _woman shaming men for not meeting their standards_.

Guess what? It was not American Conservatives or the nascent MRA movement that spent the last 25-years telling boys to step aside while they focused all of their efforts and funding on girls and women.

It was not young boys who flooded into college campuses and began teaching that heterosexuality is toxic, that men are all potential rapists, and actually changed rules to ensure the notion that men are the sexual predators was codified into disciplinary codes so that no drunk woman ever had to be responsible for her actions.

And it is most certainly not men who are _complaining here_.

Each time these conversations come up there is an attempt to blame _the men_.

And every single time it is launched by a woman bemoaning the lack of young, single, well educated, and successful men for her and her generation to pick and choose from for husbands.

The most fun part is the outright "by not marrying, these men are destroying the fabric of society!!!!" shaming tactics. 



Faithful Wife said:


> It is actually a good thing to wait longer to get married, and will eventually result in less divorce as a result.


Perhaps.

But I am getting tired of all of these women complaining about it.

You are not entitled to a husband ladies.


----------



## Truthseeker1

Icey181 said:


> Where, specifically in this article is there woman shaming? And where is the male entitlement?
> 
> Because all I see is yet _another_ woman writing yet _another_ article wherein she complains that men are not meeting her standard and waiting in line to marry and sacrifice for her.
> 
> If there is any entitlement to be had in this article, it is women who feel entitled to a _man_.
> 
> Also, there are plenty of facts in the article.
> Men are increasingly in the minority on almost all college campuses. There is a direct correlation to the decline in male attendance and achievement in higher education and the growth of _woman shaming men for not meeting their standards_.
> 
> Guess what? It was not American Conservatives or the nascent MRA movement that spent the last 25-years telling boys to step aside while they focused all of their efforts and funding on girls and women.
> 
> It was not young boys who flooded into college campuses and began teaching that heterosexuality is toxic, that men are all potential rapists, and actually changed rules to ensure the notion that men are the sexual predators was codified into disciplinary codes so that no drunk woman ever had to be responsible for her actions.
> 
> And it is most certainly not men who are _complaining here_.
> 
> Each time these conversations come up there is an attempt to blame _the men_.
> 
> And every single time it is launched by a woman bemoaning the lack of young, single, well educated, and successful men for her and her generation to pick and choose from for husbands.
> 
> The most fun part is the outright "by not marrying, these men are destroying the fabric of society!!!!" shaming tactics.
> 
> 
> Perhaps.
> 
> But I am getting tired of all of these women complaining about it.
> 
> You are not entitled to a husband ladies.


I think for a lot of these young men - "revenge" or "punishment" in regards to women is not even on their minds. They are presented with an array of life choices and are choosing the ones that seem like the most fun and pleasure filled to them. I don't think male v. female covers the whole issue but more like a perceived fun life choice v. perceived drudgery and misery.


----------



## tom67

Truthseeker1 said:


> I think for a lot of these young men - "revenge" or "punishment" in regards to women is not even on their minds. They are presented with an array of life choices and are choosing the ones that seem like the most fun and pleasure filled to them. I don't think male v. female covers the whole issue but more like a perceived fun life choice v. perceived drudgery and misery.


Guys have seen their fathers and friends get unfairly hammered in divorces and are finally saying enough is enough.

Any male in the western world with half a brain and an ounce of self respect knows marriage is a bad deal for the male.
Hope the feminists are happy.


----------



## Icey181

Yeah. The guys who do the MGTOW shtick seems to be based on one main concern.

Society no longer rewards men for the obligations they shoulder in marriage and instead outright demonizes them and leaves them with only half their stuff and limited visitation rights if a woman ever decides to just be done with them.

The guys pulling out of the dating market and being "perpetual adolescents" or whatever other immature shaming tactic people want to use, are not concerned about "Revenge."

That would be the PUA and Red Pill communities; those are the revenge fueled guys.


----------



## tom67

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCaEO6ue_io

A great one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiGZ0UglkVU


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> and why can't it be both.. I wouldn't deny what you said right here... these are real issues too... there are many... so why deny what these young people feel .....I find much validity in it.. that's my position... often against the grain of many women here.... nothing new of course.


It can't be both because the hook up culture represents *not the cause but the result* of appropriate behavioral attachment and intimacy. People who are capable and desirous of attached intimacy had to develop the capacity to have it. Conversely, people who do not desire or are incapable of attached intimacy failed to develop the capacity to have it.

*Currently, only 41% of college students (down from 48% in 1988) self report a family of origin that was attached*, as opposed to dismissed, or preoccupied, or fearful. We know, through 60 years of child development research, that children learn to have healthy relationships by being raised in families that modeled healthy relationships through healthy parent child attachment. We know that intimacy consists of the ability to be present, to share truthfully, to show empathy, and to care deeply. We know that attached parent/child relationship consists of the same intimacy requirements and we know, again through research, that parenting deficits in intimacy factors strongly contribute to maladaptive development in the child. It can therefore be safely correlated, through facts of research, that children raised in families that are not healthily attached will result in those children never learning to have healthy, attached, intimate relationships, or never WANTING healthy, attached, intimate relationships.

These are not opinions but researched, validated via peer review, quantified facts.


----------



## Anon Pink

Icey181 said:


> Yeah. The guys who do the MGTOW shtick seems to be based on one main concern.
> 
> Society no longer rewards men for the obligations they shoulder in marriage and instead outright demonizes them and leaves them with only half their stuff and limited visitation rights if a woman ever decides to just be done with them.
> 
> The guys pulling out of the dating market and being "perpetual adolescents" or whatever other immature shaming tactic people want to use, are not concerned about "Revenge."
> 
> That would be the PUA and Red Pill communities; those are the revenge fueled guys.


The young men stuck in perpetual adolescence are simply unable to form healthy attached bonds. Whether they are fearful of attempting them or failed to develop the capacity to desire them, perpetual adolescence is a result of failed development.

Wanting it to be so and it being so are very different.


----------



## Youngster

Anon Pink said:


> The young men stuck in perpetual adolescence* are simply unable to form healthy attached bonds*. Whether they are fearful of attempting them or failed to develop the capacity to desire them, perpetual adolescence is a result of failed development.
> 
> Wanting it to be so and it being so are very different.


No, they're forming the bonds with their buddies. They've discarded the bonds associated with intimacy. It is not a failure in development, it is a conscious choice.


----------



## bandit.45

Anon Pink said:


> The young men stuck in perpetual adolescence are simply unable to form healthy attached bonds. Whether they are fearful of attempting them or failed to develop the capacity to desire them, perpetual adolescence is a result of failed development.
> 
> Wanting it to be so and it being so are very different.


Is this anecdotal reasoning? Where do you come up with the data to support this theory of yours?


----------



## Icey181

Anon Pink said:


> The young men stuck in perpetual adolescence are simply unable to form healthy attached bonds. Whether they are fearful of attempting them or *failed to develop the capacity to desire them, perpetual adolescence is a result of failed development.*
> 
> Wanting it to be so and it being so are very different.


Are you kidding me?

It basically comes down to this.

Men have realized they do not need established commitments to women in order to get what they want out of a youthful experience.

The refusal to marry a woman does not denote an inability for healthy attached bonds.

These men have friends, hobbies, and usually are in the beginnings of solid careers.

They are not emotionally damaged children who need to grow up.

They are a generation of men who have decided they no longer need a wife to feel successful or happy.

And that scares the bejeezus out of an entire subset of modern day women.


----------



## chris007

Where All the Good Men Are, Hiding From You.

A critique of “Where Have All the Good Men Gone” by Kay M. Hymowitz

https://thepatriotdad.wordpress.com/where-have-all-the-good-men-gone-hiding-from-you/

Video Below - Six Reasons Why Men Are Avoiding Marriage, with Helen Smith, Ph.D. 

https://youtu.be/BoXQf2f2Yxo?t=5s


Enjoy!


----------



## tom67

Here is a good one on Japanese men

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0TDXkmCub0


----------



## Truthseeker1

I do think the male v. female issue is self-destructive and serves no one. At one time when I had a bit of hope for the future I might say we must work on making commitment and marriage more protected by law and valued by society. Now I'm at the stage where I say let the whole thing crash and lets see how to best pick up the pieces.


----------



## EleGirl

On the topic of more women in college than men and more women getting degrees.

Most people never go to college. So most do not have degrees.

Women are quite aware that in order to earn a decent living, they need a college degree.

For men, college degrees are not as necessary for earning potential as there are many male dominated industries that pay very well.

An example are a nephew and niece of mine who are in their mid 20's., bother and sister. They graduated from high school a year apart. 

When my nephew graduated from high school he had no desire to go to college. Instead the got a job working for an oil company. Within 2 years he was earning as much as I do with a MS in engineering and 30+ years of experience. He's married and has a young daughter. He has no need for college to earn a living.

When my niece graduated, she already had a associates degree in nursing and had been working for 2 years in the field. She's now working on her nursing degree. She is married with a young son. Even after her degree is finished, she will not be able to earn anything near what her brother earns. 

There is no way she, or 99% of women, could get the kind of job her brother has because no one will hire a 5'2" woman to drive the big rigs and do a lot of the work in that industry. Most women just do not have the size and strength that is needed for a lot of jobs. So smart women get degrees to leverage their earning potential based on their strengths (not physical strength).

The number of men who go to college has not decreased. It has increased. But so has the number of women. So now the percentage of attend college has increased from 25% of the population to about 45 percent.


----------



## Truthseeker1

EleGirl said:


> On the topic of more women in college than men and more women getting degrees.
> 
> Most people never go to college. So most do not have degrees.
> 
> Women are quite aware that in order to earn a decent living, they need a college degree.
> 
> For men, college degrees are not as necessary for earning potential as there are many male dominated industries that pay very well.
> 
> An example are a nephew and niece of mine who are in their mid 20's., bother and sister. They graduated from high school a year apart.
> 
> When my nephew graduated from high school he had no desire to go to college. Instead the got a job working for an oil company. Within 2 years he was earning as much as I do with a MS in engineering and 30+ years of experience. He's married and has a young daughter. He has no need for college to earn a living.
> 
> When my niece graduated, she already had a associates degree in nursing and had been working for 2 years in the field. She's now working on her nursing degree. She is married with a young son. Even after her degree is finished, she will not be able to earn anything near what her brother earns.
> 
> There is no way she, or 99% of women, could get the kind of job her brother has because no one will hire a 5'2" woman to drive the big rigs and do a lot of the work in that industry. Most women just do not have the size and strength that is needed for a lot of jobs. So smart women get degrees to leverage their earning potential based on their strengths (not physical strength).
> 
> The number of men who go to college has not decreased. It has increased. But so has the number of women. So now the percentage of attend college has increased from 25% of the population to about 45 percent.


Working in higher ed myself the costs are skyrocketing for EVERYONE. I also thought young people should have some more apprentice or trade school options. Which would give them entry into the middle class without the 200k of debt. The finacial issues young people face after 4 years of private school are staggering.


----------



## soccermom2three

In my sphere of divorced friends, coworkers and acquaintances I only know one man that paid alimony. The ex was a SAHM for almost the entire 20 year marriage, (something he wanted, BTW.) She remarried so he doesn't have to pay anymore.

I know more women paying alimony or had to make a big payout to the husband or the couple just settle things equally and amicably. Sorry guys, the "poor man getting shafted in divorce" argument just doesn't work anymore.


----------



## Truthseeker1

soccermom2three said:


> In my sphere of divorced friends, coworkers and acquaintances I only know one man that paid alimony. The ex was a SAHM for almost the entire 20 year marriage, (something he wanted, BTW.) She remarried so he doesn't have to pay anymore.
> 
> I know more women paying alimony or had to make a big payout to the husband or the couple just settle things equally and amicably. Sorry guys, the "poor man getting shafted in divorce" argument just doesn't work anymore.


This should never ever be men vs. women - we love each other and need each other. Even if a man is not married he has women he loves - moms, sisters, daughters, aunts, etc I know I do.


----------



## Youngster

EleGirl said:


> On the topic of more women in college than men and more women getting degrees.
> 
> Most people never go to college. So most do not have degrees.
> 
> Women are quite aware that in order to earn a decent living, they need a college degree.
> 
> For men, college degrees are not as necessary for earning potential as there are many male dominated industries that pay very well.
> 
> An example are a nephew and niece of mine who are in their mid 20's., bother and sister. They graduated from high school a year apart.
> 
> When my nephew graduated from high school he had no desire to go to college. Instead the got a job working for an oil company. Within 2 years he was earning as much as I do with a MS in engineering and 30+ years of experience. He's married and has a young daughter. He has no need for college to earn a living.
> 
> When my niece graduated, she already had a associates degree in nursing and had been working for 2 years in the field. She's now working on her nursing degree. She is married with a young son. Even after her degree is finished, she will not be able to earn anything near what her brother earns.
> 
> There is no way she, or 99% of women, could get the kind of job her brother has because no one will hire a 5'2" woman to drive the big rigs and do a lot of the work in that industry. Most women just do not have the size and strength that is needed for a lot of jobs. So smart women get degrees to leverage their earning potential based on their strengths (not physical strength).
> 
> The number of men who go to college has not decreased. It has increased. But so has the number of women. So now the percentage of attend college has increased from 25% of the population to about 45 percent.


So affirmative action had nothing to do with it?


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> On the topic of more women in college than men and more women getting degrees.
> 
> Most people never go to college. So most do not have degrees.
> 
> Women are quite aware that in order to earn a decent living, they need a college degree.
> 
> For men, college degrees are not as necessary for earning potential as there are many male dominated industries that pay very well.
> 
> An example are a nephew and niece of mine who are in their mid 20's., bother and sister. They graduated from high school a year apart.
> 
> When my nephew graduated from high school he had no desire to go to college. Instead the got a job working for an oil company. Within 2 years he was earning as much as I do with a MS in engineering and 30+ years of experience. He's married and has a young daughter. He has no need for college to earn a living.
> 
> When my niece graduated, she already had a associates degree in nursing and had been working for 2 years in the field. She's now working on her nursing degree. She is married with a young son. Even after her degree is finished, she will not be able to earn anything near what her brother earns.
> 
> There is no way she, or 99% of women, could get the kind of job her brother has because no one will hire a 5'2" woman to drive the big rigs and do a lot of the work in that industry. Most women just do not have the size and strength that is needed for a lot of jobs. So smart women get degrees to leverage their earning potential based on their strengths (not physical strength).
> 
> The number of men who go to college has not decreased. It has increased. But so has the number of women. So now the percentage of attend college has increased from 25% of the population to about 45 percent.


I just don't get this sense of false logic. Even most of the lower skilled, but high wage jobs require more than high school to get into. Women can and do enter trades, work oil fields, etc. To think that men being ~40% of college graduates being 'ok', seems to be very shaky. It does hurt many men in the long run.

Though, I will say, that many people get essentially worthless degrees. This increases the demand to go to college and thus increases the price of college.


----------



## Truthseeker1

naiveonedave said:


> I just don't get this sense of false logic. Even most of the lower skilled, but high wage jobs require more than high school to get into. Women can and do enter trades, work oil fields, etc. To think that men being ~40% of college graduates being 'ok', seems to be very shaky. It does hurt many men in the long run.
> 
> *Though, I will say, that many people get essentially worthless degrees.* This increases the demand to go to college and thus increases the price of college.


150-200k is a lot of money for a humanities degree..as valuable as humantities education is..the price tag is too steep...


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Since I fall into that age range, I view marriage only as a perk and not necessary for a committed relationship.

I just bought my own home, own two cars, and have all the say and want. Well, my move in date is August 28.

I took EleGirl's advice and invested the rest into a stable dividend stock. :lol: That was fun studying how stocks operated for a week or two. Not to mention reading reports on potential companies. If my investments remain stable, I will retire in 20 years in my mid-forties.

So, not marrying, having children, and a SO who is okay with separate living arrangement is great!

If I do marry, I will do it later on when I am so financially secure.

Thanks @EleGirl for your advice. My mortgage is done in 20 years to cut over all interest rate. :lol: I spent two weeks on learning about stock, reading reports, compound investing, and finding out that that is the best way to go for retirement! I calculated on the low end of the spectrum that I will make about 2 million in shares and if things go well, about 3 million. To be honest, if things go well, I can retire in about 15 years and live off dividends if the company remains stable. Do not worry, I diversified the stock . It is not aggressive, but made for growth instead.


----------



## Truthseeker1

Mr.Fisty said:


> Since I fall into that age range, I view marriage only as a perk and not necessary for a committed relationship.
> 
> I just bought my own home, own two cars, and have all the say and want. Well, my move in date is August 28.
> 
> I took EleGirl's advice and invested the rest into a stable dividend stock. :lol: That was fun studying how stocks operated for a week or two. Not to mention reading reports on potential companies. If my investments remain stable, I will retire in 20 years in my mid-forties.
> 
> So, not marrying, having children, and a SO who is okay with separate living arrangement is great!
> 
> If I do marry, I will do it later on when I am so financially secure.
> 
> Thanks @EleGirl for your advice. My mortgage is done in 20 years to cut over all interest rate. :lol: I spent two weeks on learning about stock, reading reports, compound investing, and finding out that that is the best way to go for retirement! I calculated on the low end of the spectrum that I will make about 2 million in shares and if things go well, about 3 million. To be honest, if things go well, I can retire in about 15 years and live off dividends if the company remains stable. Do not worry, I diversified the stock . It is not aggressive, but made for growth instead.


Sounds like a good plan!!! Enjoy!! :grin2:


----------



## sisters359

As the mom of 2 boys and 1 girl, I see most of this as a bunch of malarkey.

My children are individuals, as are all the others of their generation. While there are trends that studies such as the one cited in the original post may highlight, these studies have absolutely no predictive value. Only the people reading the gender-biased discussions of these studies (biased both for/against males and females) are even potentially affected by them. And only stupid people ignore the evidence in front of their own eyes, in favor of some "conspiracy theory" circulating among other stupid people (and by stupid, I mean people who do not read critically). 

Most people are out there, just living their life, not reading or at least not taking as gospel any of the crap theories about "men this" or "women that." 

Changes will come, but not b/c of bad socio-biology or whackadoodle evolutionary psych theories. 

Ok, sorry, but I'm getting distracted by my bunnies playing wildly on the deck. Too much fun to miss. Bottom line: I trust the coming generations to make good choices.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> I just don't get this sense of false logic.


It's not false logic, it's what is going on.. an explanation.



naiveonedave said:


> Even most of the lower skilled, but high wage jobs require more than high school to get into.


High school has become worthless. It’s ridiculous that our children go to school of 12 years and do not have what is required to get a lot of entry level positions. 
Because of this, I let my son drop out of high school. He went directly to college. High school was a waste of his time. Several of my nieces as nephews have enrolled in programs that let them graduate from high school with both a high school diploma and an associate’s degree. Then they need only 2 years to finish a BA/BS.

I have however read several article/reports that state that young men are dropping out of college after a semester or two because they find that they can earn a pretty good wage working some industries. It can hurt them later to not have that degree. But they go for the bucks early on.


naiveonedave said:


> Women can and do enter trades, work oil fields, etc.


While there are women who go into the trades, etc.. the numbers are very low…
0.2% - mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction
1.3% - construction
2.6% - transportation and utilities industry


naiveonedave said:


> To think that men being ~40% of college graduates being 'ok', seems to be very shaky. It does hurt many men in the long run.


There is about a 10% difference in the number of men & women with college degrees. I would agree that closing the gap is something that as a society we can work on. 
One of the reasons for the difference is that most of the career fields women chose, teaching, counseling, etc require degrees. Men are more apt to chose a career field that does not require a college degree.

And, most of those career fields that women go into, lead to low paying careers. I can understand why guys don’t want to get into those fields. I sure did not. 



naiveonedave said:


> Though, I will say, that many people get essentially worthless degrees. This increases the demand to go to college and thus increases the price of college.


There was a time when a college education was something that well to do families sent their young men to so that they could be educated. It was not for career training. Today it’s seen as more career training as anything else.

I’m not sure that more people being in college drives up the cost of education. What has driven it up is the glut/growth of admiration functions and costs. But the comment is interesting… what are you suggesting? That fewer people should go to college?


----------



## Anon Pink

@bandit.45: see my post number 78 that explains what causes arrested development, AKA "perpetual adolescence."

@Icey181: the author of the article in the OP used the term "perpetual adolescence" and that term means a man stuck in the emotional developmental stage of adolescence, thus a man who failed to develop adult emotional capability. If you have a beef with young men being categorized as being developmentally delayed because they are not married, take it to the author of the article. There are plenty of young men who are wonderful and decent caring productive adults who simply aren't ready to marry or they haven't found the right person yet, this doesn't mean those men are developmentally delayed and stuck in adolescence! She is the one who who categorized unmarried young men as essentially developmentally delayed and instead of refuting her opinions and assertions you say she has revealed that men don't marry because women won't play the game right (not fair that divorced men get totally screwed) Well that kind of reasoning is itself childish thinking.

As elegirl has pointed out in posts number 25, if 70% of young men aren't married doesn't that mean that around 70% of young women ALSO aren't married? And as she further points out, as does @Bugged, @Faithful Wife, @Holland, we know why women are delaying marriage and it is a good thing to delay making a commitment when you are not ready to support that commitment. Please read that again, because if it is a good thing for women to delay marriage until they are ready to support that commitment, isn't is ALSO a good thing for men? My point is, the author of this article was talking out of her ass and making a political statement under the guise of discussing social trends.


@Youngster: if young men, as you say have discarded the bonds associated with intimacy in favor of hanging out with buddies in which emotional intimacy is not present is it safe to opine that they are avoiding future intimate attachments? Isn't avoiding intimate attachment, and you can claim whatever reason you wish, itself a form of emotional developmental delay? If men are avoiding emotional attachment due to developmental delay, can the same be said of women? I think the answer is yes and I think delaying marriage until you are ready to form intimate emotional attachment is a VERY good thing!

@Wolf1974: the point I was making about Dr Laura and her analogy using a plane crash to illustrate the hesitance a person might have in getting married is that it was a very bad analogy. Love Hurts, but plane crashes kill. We can and do heal from a broken heart but we do not heal from dying. To risk an even chance of death as a result of failure is foolish and stupid. To risk an even chance of a broken heart is for those confident, bold, and able to handle/cope with difficulty. 

Love ain't for sissies!


----------



## EleGirl

Mr.Fisty said:


> Since I fall into that age range, I view marriage only as a perk and not necessary for a committed relationship.
> 
> I just bought my own home, own two cars, and have all the say and want. Well, my move in date is August 28.
> 
> I took EleGirl's advice and invested the rest into a stable dividend stock. :lol: That was fun studying how stocks operated for a week or two. Not to mention reading reports on potential companies. If my investments remain stable, I will retire in 20 years in my mid-forties.
> 
> So, not marrying, having children, and a SO who is okay with separate living arrangement is great!
> 
> If I do marry, I will do it later on when I am so financially secure.
> 
> Thanks @EleGirl for your advice. My mortgage is done in 20 years to cut over all interest rate. :lol: I spent two weeks on learning about stock, reading reports, compound investing, and finding out that that is the best way to go for retirement! I calculated on the low end of the spectrum that I will make about 2 million in shares and if things go well, about 3 million. To be honest, if things go well, I can retire in about 15 years and live off dividends if the company remains stable. Do not worry, I diversified the stock . It is not aggressive, but made for growth instead.


Good for you!!!! It sounds like you have a great plan now.

And see.. you exemplify what I see in your generation. Most young people are wonderful, productive people. They are surely not deserving of the hit pieces like the on in the OP.


----------



## chris007

EleGirl said:


> Good for you!!!! It sounds like you have a great plan now.
> 
> And see.. you exemplify what I see in your generation. Most young people are wonderful, productive people. They are surely not deserving of the hit pieces like the on in the OP.


wow, well said. I had to like it


----------



## Fozzy

Cmon people. Us old farts have been pining for the good ol days since they invented old people. The younger generation will NEVER measure up to us!

Doesn't anyone remember Archie Bunker singing about the days when goils were goils and men were men?

How about we all get over ourselves?


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> High school has become worthless. It’s ridiculous that our children go to school of 12 years and do not have what is required to get a lot of entry level positions.
> Because of this, I let my son drop out of high school. He went directly to college. High school was a waste of his time. Several of my nieces as nephews have enrolled in programs that let them graduate from high school with both a high school diploma and an associate’s degree. Then they need only 2 years to finish a BA/BS.
> 
> I have however read several article/reports that state that young men are dropping out of college after a semester or two because they find that they can earn a pretty good wage working some industries. It can hurt them later to not have that degree. But they go for the bucks early on.
> 
> While there are women who go into the trades, etc.. the numbers are very low…
> 0.2% - mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction
> 1.3% - construction
> 2.6% - transportation and utilities industry
> 
> There is about a 10% difference in the number of men & women with college degrees. I would agree that closing the gap is something that as a society we can work on.
> One of the reasons for the difference is that most of the career fields women chose, teaching, counseling, etc require degrees. Men are more apt to chose a career field that does not require a college degree.
> 
> And, most of those career fields that women go into, lead to low paying careers. I can understand why guys don’t want to get into those fields. I sure did not.
> 
> 
> There was a time when a college education was something that well to do families sent their young men to so that they could be educated. It was not for career training. Today it’s seen as more career training as anything else.
> 
> I’m not sure that more people being in college drives up the cost of education. What has driven it up is the glut/growth of admiration functions and costs. But the comment is interesting… what are you suggesting? That fewer people should go to college?


I generally agree with this, with a few buts....

I work in chemicals, lots of women here. I think that we should be pushing women to get into some of these fields.

The price of college is a supply and demand issue. Right now, huge demand and all of the universities around where I live are expanding by leaps and bounds to make room. This and the bloated admin are what are driving costs up.


----------



## Anon Pink

Mr.Fisty said:


> Since I fall into that age range, I view marriage only as a perk and not necessary for a committed relationship.
> 
> I just bought my own home, own two cars, and have all the say and want. Well, my move in date is August 28.
> 
> I took EleGirl's advice and invested the rest into a stable dividend stock. :lol: That was fun studying how stocks operated for a week or two. Not to mention reading reports on potential companies. If my investments remain stable, I will retire in 20 years in my mid-forties.
> 
> So, not marrying, having children, and a SO who is okay with separate living arrangement is great!
> 
> If I do marry, I will do it later on when I am so financially secure.
> 
> Thanks @EleGirl for your advice. My mortgage is done in 20 years to cut over all interest rate. :lol: I spent two weeks on learning about stock, reading reports, compound investing, and finding out that that is the best way to go for retirement! I calculated on the low end of the spectrum that I will make about 2 million in shares and if things go well, about 3 million. To be honest, if things go well, I can retire in about 15 years and live off dividends if the company remains stable. Do not worry, I diversified the stock . It is not aggressive, but made for growth instead.



LOL, now accepting applications for son in law, must like dogs.


----------



## EleGirl

Old people have be bashing the 'younger generation' since the dawn of time. I guess it's a right of passage for growing old.

I remember the older generations going on and on about how all of us from the 1960's/1970's were destroying the human race. We were all hippie pot heads.... useless, lazy, and will never grow up.

Mean while we ignore this nonsense, went about our lives. 

So now the hippies are old folks. And the next couple of generations of getting up there in years. And look at what's happening... some of these old folks think that the newer generations are useless, lazy, and will never grow up. Nothing new to see here.

In the mean time, the younger generations are ignoring the negativity from their elders and going about their lives.


----------



## Youngster

Anon Pink said:


> @bandit.45: see my post number 78 that explains what causes arrested development, AKA "perpetual adolescence."
> 
> @Icey181: the author of the article in the OP used the term "perpetual adolescence" and that term means a man stuck in the emotional developmental stage of adolescence, thus a man who failed to develop adult emotional capability. If you have a beef with young men being categorized as being developmentally delayed because they are not married, take it to the author of the article. There are plenty of young men who are wonderful and decent caring productive adults who simply aren't ready to marry or they haven't found the right person yet, this doesn't mean those men are developmentally delayed and stuck in adolescence! She is the one who who categorized unmarried young men as essentially developmentally delayed and instead of refuting her opinions and assertions you say she has revealed that men don't marry because women won't play the game right (not fair that divorced men get totally screwed) Well that kind of reasoning is itself childish thinking.
> 
> As elegirl has pointed out in posts number 25, if 70% of young men aren't married doesn't that mean that around 70% of young women ALSO aren't married? And as she further points out, as does @Bugged, @Faithful Wife, @Holland, we know why women are delaying marriage and it is a good thing to delay making a commitment when you are not ready to support that commitment. Please read that again, because if it is a good thing for women to delay marriage until they are ready to support that commitment, isn't is ALSO a good thing for men? My point is, the author of this article was talking out of her ass and making a political statement under the guise of discussing social trends.
> 
> 
> @Youngster: if young men, as you say have discarded the bonds associated with intimacy in favor of hanging out with buddies in which emotional intimacy is not present is it safe to opine that they are avoiding future intimate attachments?
> 
> _Isn't avoiding intimate attachment, and you can claim whatever reason you wish, itself a form of emotional developmental delay?_
> *
> No it's a choice. Millions upon millions of men and women have chosen, for whatever reason, to not get married. I have relatives who are not married and I have relatives who are "developmentally delayed". They are in no way remotely close to the same thing.
> 
> *If men are avoiding emotional attachment due to developmental delay, can the same be said of women? I think the answer is yes and I think delaying marriage until you are ready to form intimate emotional attachment is a VERY good thing!
> 
> @Wolf1974: the point I was making about Dr Laura and her analogy using a plane crash to illustrate the hesitance a person might have in getting married is that it was a very bad analogy. Love Hurts, but plane crashes kill. We can and do heal from a broken heart but we do not heal from dying. To risk an even chance of death as a result of failure is foolish and stupid. To risk an even chance of a broken heart is for those confident, bold, and able to handle/cope with difficulty.
> 
> Love ain't for sissies!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Youngster said:


> Some day we are going to ask this demographic to sacrifice. To fight and die for a country that they feel has treated them unfairly or poorly. Many will not.


Actually, I find this progress, and the wisdom of younger people.

“I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.” 
― George S. McGovern


----------



## Faithful Wife

chris007 said:


> Where All the Good Men Are, Hiding From You.
> 
> A critique of “Where Have All the Good Men Gone” by Kay M. Hymowitz
> 
> https://thepatriotdad.wordpress.com/where-have-all-the-good-men-gone-hiding-from-you/
> 
> Video Below - Six Reasons Why Men Are Avoiding Marriage, with Helen Smith, Ph.D.
> 
> https://youtu.be/BoXQf2f2Yxo?t=5s
> 
> 
> Enjoy!


Sad that you can't actually make a factual point, you are just quoting the opinions of others and expect us to just go "ooohhhhhh yes, NOW I get it, because of these opinions of conservative people who have decided things are THIS way, now I will accept this as fact like Chris has".

Sorry, I'm perfectly capable of having my own opinions.


----------



## Youngster

Faithful Wife said:


> Actually, I find this progress, and the wisdom of younger people.
> 
> “I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.”
> ― George S. McGovern


If a majority of young men felt that way 70 years ago those of us who are left (and not jewish) would be eating wiener schnitzel and wearing lederhosen.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wow, you sound just like my grandpa.


----------



## john117

technovelist said:


> I doubt you have anything to worry about there.
> 
> Of course you may never have grandchildren, if that matters to you.



I am personally planning on kittens. Grandchildren are a lot more destructive


----------



## Anon Pink

@Youngster: 
"No it's a choice. Millions upon millions of men and women have chosen, for whatever reason, to not get married. I have relatives who are not married and I have relatives who are "developmentally delayed". They are in no way remotely close to the same thing."



1. Are young men who are unmarried in a state of perpetual adolescence?

2. Are the reasons why young men are not married similar to the reasons why young women are not married?

If the answer to 1 is no and the answer to 2 is yes, then you have just agreed with everything most of the women on this thread have been saying so why are we arguing?


----------



## Anon Pink

john117 said:


> I am personally planning on kittens. Grandchildren are a lot more destructive


LOL IDK.... grand babies don't claw up the curtains and bite the **** out of your hands when they feel playful!


----------



## Mr The Other

Anon Pink said:


> As the mother of 3 daughters I'd just like to say, thank god these perpetual adolescents aren't attempting marriage!!!!
> 
> I'd much rather my daughters stay single than marry a little boy!


It takes longer to get money together to buy a house. That is circumstance. Condemning people in that situation is unreasonable (though the relative number of likes suggest mine is a minority position).


----------



## john117

Anon Pink said:


> LOL IDK.... grand babies don't claw up the curtains and bite the **** out of your hands when they feel playful!



Maybe you haven't met the right kitten yet  like this sweet 10 pounder of ours: 

View attachment 36361


----------



## Youngster

Anon Pink said:


> @Youngster:
> "No it's a choice. Millions upon millions of men and women have chosen, for whatever reason, to not get married. I have relatives who are not married and I have relatives who are "developmentally delayed". They are in no way remotely close to the same thing."
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Are young men who are unmarried in a state of perpetual adolescence?
> 
> 2. Are the reasons why young men are not married similar to the reasons why young women are not married?
> 
> If the answer to 1 is no and the answer to 2 is yes, then you have just agreed with everything most of the women on this thread have been saying so why are we arguing?


I thought this was obvious but the answer to 1 is no and the answer to 2 is no. That's kind of the basis for the thread and the original article....why men aren't marrying......

Young men aren't getting married because they have disengaged from society. Because they refuse to commit. Because marriage is a bad deal for them. Because they don't trust the system. Because in today's hook-up culture "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free". Should I keep going?

Perhaps young women aren't getting married because quite frankly who are they going to marry if the young men refuse to marry? 

I'll also add that I don't work with any young ladies so I don't get a chance to speak with them regarding why they aren't married. I've commented on this thread because I work with a lot of young men who are always discussing why they will never get married. 

Probably a good thread somewhere might be........."Why aren't young women getting married......".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Youngster said:


> I thought this was obvious but the answer to 1 is no and the answer to 2 is no. That's kind of the basis for the thread and the original article....why men aren't marrying......
> 
> Young men aren't getting married because they have disengaged from society. Because they refuse to commit. Because marriage is a bad deal for them. Because they don't trust the system. Because in today's hook-up culture "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free". Should I keep going?
> 
> Young women aren't getting married because quite frankly who are they going to marry if the young men refuse to marry?


These are all just opinions and judgments. There is NO DATA to support anything you just said. 

Linking op-ed pieces is not "data".


----------



## Anon Pink

@Youngster: you keep saying that and obviously that is what you believe. Unfortunately no one has been able to post any facts that support that. So...have a nice day.


----------



## Youngster

And you ladies as well!


----------



## moco82

Perhaps recent decades brought liberation to both sexes?


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Any male in the western world with half a brain and an ounce of self respect knows marriage is a bad deal for the male.
> Hope the feminists are happy.


I'm a feminist. 

As a feminist, when I got divorced, I didn't ask for or get any child support or alimony.

I have worked my whole life....earn my own living...and do not need to live off any man. Never have, never will.

I don't care if men decide to make the choice to not get married. Marriage is largely outdated and doesn't work well as evidenced by the divorce rate. The whole structure needs to change. 

What I do care about is that working women get paid fairly and have equal access to the job market.

Real feminists don't require men to take care of them. They are raised to be self-sufficient. So we really don't care if men choose not to get married or not....makes zero difference.


----------



## Anon Pink

Mr The Other said:


> It takes longer to get money together to buy a house. That is circumstance. Condemning people in that situation is unreasonable (though the relative number of likes suggest mine is a minority position).



I certainly wouldn't classify a young man saving to buy a house as being a perpetual adolescent!


----------



## chris007

Dating & the Desperate 30’s

"...Real relationships filled with love will also be filled with sacrifice and pain, as well as pleasure. I call this article “The Desperate 30s” simply because it is often the age and time after a woman has had all her fun that she now attempts to regroup and go into “mommy mode.” As a result, she often ends up married for two seconds with a baby, then divorced shortly thereafter, increasing the status quo of broken homes and disappointed children. This is not an attempt to point fingers but to understand the potential pitfalls. We are all guilty of this behavior, but today our goal is to give you more insight into how men think about it.

In the above scenario, if she does not get what she desires from Tony, she has no problems marrying her second option, Johnny, six to nine months later. The saddest part of all is that it was never about Tony or Johnny; it was never even about love. All along, it was all about her, and ladies, this is not love. It will only end in disaster...."

Dating & the Desperate 30's | How to Get the Man of Your Dreams Member Subscription Program


----------



## moco82

I'm not in Rand Paul's camp, but his recent op-ed about replacing government regulation of marriage with contracts, as is done in all other aspects of human cooperation, sounds long overdue. Go to the courthouse, and since you sign in on a computer anyway, just check the boxes for which rights and responsibilities you wish to share. Let "marriage", whatever it is in your personal or religious definition, be performed outside the legal framework as the ritual that it really is.

Then perhaps people would stock tracking this meaningless statistic. (I'm sure online forums would find plenty of other holy wars to fight.)


----------



## EleGirl

Youngster said:


> I thought this was obvious but the answer to 1 is no and the answer to 2 is no. That's kind of the basis for the thread and the original article....why men aren't marrying......


The article is bunk. It insults young men and young women.

If young men are not marrying, your woman are not marrying. Let’s look at why young women are not getting married as early as in past generations. It’s because they don’t have to. They do not need to marry to be able to live. They can take the time to develop careers, save up money and marry when they are more mature. This sounds pretty smart to me.


Youngster said:


> Young men aren't getting married because they have disengaged from society. Because they refuse to commit. Because marriage is a bad deal for them. Because they don't trust the system.


Marriage is as bad (or good) a deal with women as it is for men. The fallacy of what the article claims and what some on this thread seem to be saying is that it’s untrue that droves of young woman are having to crawl and give in to men because that’s the only way that they can get any attention from men. That men are refusing to marry these poor, begging young women.
Women are also choosing to not marry so young.


Youngster said:


> Because in today's hook-up culture "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free". Should I keep going?


Here is another perspective: “Why buy the pig when you can get the sausage for free?”


Youngster said:


> Perhaps young women aren't getting married because quite frankly who are they going to marry if the young men refuse to marry?


Or perhaps they are not getting married because they do not want to get married. Of the single young women I know, this the norm. Why get married until they have their lives in order, a savings, a career, are more mature? Many smart women get these things in order before they marry.


Youngster said:


> I'll also add that I don't work with any young ladies so I don't get a chance to speak with them regarding why they aren't married. I've commented on this thread because I work with a lot of young men who are always discussing why they will never get married.


You know what? A lot of young women talk the same way, until they meet that one guy. And since they are waiting to get married after they are mature enough to make adult decisions, the marriages are stable.


Youngster said:


> Probably a good thread somewhere might be........."Why aren't young women getting married......".


Yea, since men seem to think that they are the gate keepers of life and marriage, it might be a very good thread for women to address. Because on this thread, anything said by women about why young women are not getting married is considered untrue.


----------



## chris007

Ele, you are not being genuine when you try to say that men are women and women are men. Women can be mothers and men cannot. As most women reach their 30s, they start to feel pressure to start their family units, have kids etc etc (the wall). It is biological and ensures survival of our species. You don't have to try so hard measuring up to men, we (the heterosexual guys) are not attracted to other men. We are attracted to feminine women. It is quite ok for women to want to marry and have kids, we expect it. Hope this helps.


----------



## Youngster

EleGirl said:


> The article is bunk. It insults young men and young women.
> 
> If young men are not marrying, your woman are not marrying. *Let’s look at why young women are not getting married *as early as in past generations. It’s because they don’t have to. They do not need to marry to be able to live. They can take the time to develop careers, save up money and marry when they are more mature. This sounds pretty smart to me.
> 
> *Marriage is as bad (or good) a deal with women *as it is for men. The fallacy of what the article claims and what some on this thread seem to be saying is that it’s untrue that droves of young woman are having to crawl and give in to men because that’s the only way that they can get any attention from men. That men are refusing to marry these poor, begging young women.
> *Women are also choosing to not marry so young.
> *
> *Here is another perspective: “Why buy the pig when you can get the sausage for free?”*
> 
> Or perhaps they are not getting married because they do not want to get married.* Of the single young women I know*, this the norm. Why get married until they have their lives in order, a savings, a career, are more mature? Many smart women get these things in order before they marry.
> 
> *You know what? A lot of young women talk the same way*, until they meet that one guy. And since they are waiting to get married after they are mature enough to make adult decisions, the marriages are stable.
> 
> Yea, since men seem to think that they are the gate keepers of life and marriage, it might be a very good thread for women to address. *Because on this thread, anything said by women about why young women are not getting married is considered untrue
> 
> No it's because that's not the subject of the thread!*.
> 
> *A really good thread to start somewhere else might be why women of this demographic group aren't getting married.*


I've offered input on the thread "Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married" based on my experience with young men of this demographic. I'm really really sorry you don't like what I have to say based on my conversations with these young men. I am much older and married so my perspective is much different that theirs.


----------



## EleGirl

moco82 said:


> I'm not in Rand Paul's camp, but his recent op-ed about replacing government regulation of marriage with contracts, as is done in all other aspects of human cooperation, sounds long overdue. Go to the courthouse, and since you sign in on a computer anyway, just check the boxes for which rights and responsibilities you wish to share. Let "marriage", whatever it is in your personal or religious definition, be performed outside the legal framework as the ritual that it really is.
> 
> Then perhaps people would stock tracking this meaningless statistic. (I'm sure online forums would find plenty of other holy wars to fight.)


Marriage is a contract. What do you think is signed when a couple signs their marriage certificate?

If each couple created their own marriage contract, there would be more confusion and craziness in divorce then there is right now.


----------



## chris007

Youngster said:


> I've offered input on the thread "Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married" based on my experience with young men of this demographic. I'm really really sorry you don't like what I have to say based on my conversations with these young men. I am much older and married so my perspective is much different that theirs.
> 
> *A really good thread to start somewhere else might be why women of this demographic group aren't getting married.*


Is it because there is no one to marry? :grin2:


----------



## moco82

EleGirl said:


> Marriage is a contract. What do you think is signed when a couple signs their marriage certificate?
> 
> If each couple created their own marriage contract, there would be more confusion and craziness in divorce then there is right now.


Did your marriage certificate come with hundreds of pages regulating the relationship, including litigation options? You can call marriage a contract, but it's a wildly open-ended one (you do not explicitly sign clauses that would otherwise be spelled out in an economic contract). A more detailed contract that doesn't require a separate body of law and court system would decrease confusion.


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> Marriage is a contract. What do you think is signed when a couple signs their marriage certificate?
> 
> If each couple created their own marriage contract, there would be more confusion and craziness in divorce then there is right now.


it is a contract, but if you actually knew what the contract states and implies when you got married, most men would say no friggn way.


----------



## moco82

chris007 said:


> Ele, you are not being genuine when you try to say that men are women and women are men. Women can be mothers and men cannot. As most women reach their 30s, they start to feel pressure to start their family units, have kids etc etc (the wall). It is biological and ensures survival of our species. You don't have to try so hard measuring up to men, we (the heterosexual guys) are not attracted to other men. We are attracted to feminine women. It is quite ok for women to want to marry and have kids, we expect it. Hope this helps.


Makes for an interesting cat-and-mouse game between 30-something never-married women and men who aren't looking to (re-)start a family. And by interesting I mean sad. People's choice is to declare intentions up front and end up in a small minority of a dating pool, or to deceive mates.


----------



## RoseAglow

I took a quick look and didn't see where she got the 70%. Can someone post it? (sorry if it's been posted.)

I took a look at the Pew statistics. I think one thing that is important to note is the author of the posted article isn't stating that 70% of men have avoided marriage. From Pew, it seems that the 70% includes men who have been divorced/widowed. I say this because here is a statistic from 2012:

_"In 2012, one-in-five adults ages 25 and older (about 42 million people) had never been married, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of census data."_ 

Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center

So about 20% of people- men and women- 25 and up had never married. The other 80% had been married at some point.

In fact, a census report showed in 2010, 36.5% of men had never been married by age 34. So a good 60+ had been married.

Percent Never Married, 1970?2010

Pew also found that: _"Young adults are not opposed to marriage, however. According to the new Pew Research survey, only 4% of never-married adults ages 25 to 34 say they don’t want to get married. A majority of them either want to marry (61%) or are not sure (34%)."_

Never-Married Young Adults on the Marriage Market | Pew Research Center

Certainly, the number of people deciding to get married is declining. But, still, quite a large majority try out being married at some point. Even with the current projections, 75% of people 50 and up will be married in 2030:

_"According to Pew Research projections based on census data, when today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share (25%) is likely to have never been married."_

Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center

I'm going to guess that a pretty large number of guys in that 70% have been married and got divorced. And while many people decide not to get married post-divorce, more men re-marry than women:

"Previously married adults show less interest in marriage than do never-married adults. Only one-in-five previously married adults (21%) say they would like to marry again, while a plurality (45%) say they do not want to get married again. (An additional 31% are not sure.) _There is a large gender gap on this question. Previously married women are much less likely than their male counterparts to say they would like to get married again someday (15% of women compared with 29% of men). Fully 54% of these women say they are not interested in getting remarried (30% of men say the same)."_

Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center

I think it's more interesting that "25-35" is considered a "Young Adult", when back in my old geezer 80s uprbinging, 40 was considered Mid-Life (and by an actuarial perspective, still is, I believe.) 

I heard all these dire warnings back in my single days, too. "Where are all the Men? Why don't men want to get married?" Back then I was especially in trouble, because not only was I over 30 but I also had an advanced degree, and I was told that this dropped my chances of getting married to nearly nothing, LOL. That was the Anti-Feminist Meme back in the early 2000s.

In the early '10s there was a book about how all those Princeton chicas better get their Mrs. degree while they were in college, or else they'd lose the exposure to the men with degrees, LOL! Cuz women who work aren't exposed to men who also have degrees, I guess. 

Eh, every now and then there is a modern-day Phyllis Schlafy who comes along with her own opinion, and that's not a bad thing. Gives us something to chat about in the Tamiverse. But it is just an opinion, and usually it's a lot of noise to a very small signal.


----------



## Cosmos

> After decades of feminism, Crouse noted that young men are now the ones who set the parameters for intimate relationships, and those increasingly do not include a wedding ring.


Blaming feminism for a "Bachelor Nation" is as ludicrous as blaming penicillin for bacteria. Had patriarchy not stifled and strangled the rights of women for so long, feminism would never have been conceived. 

As things stand, educated young women have far more options available to them nowadays, and no longer feel compelled to rely on marriage in order to survive, so the notion that it is now young men who are setting the parameters for intimate relationships is somewhat flawed. Both genders are getting married later in life, out of want rather than need, and this is a positive thing, IMO.

As for:-


> The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing


I think this is a rather old-fashioned and whimsical notion, because in the age group given, most (educated) young women are too busy establishing their careers to be day dreaming of weddings.


----------



## naiveonedave

Cosmos said:


> Blaming feminism for a "Bachelor Nation" is as ludicrous as blaming penicillin for bacteria. Had patriarchy not stifled and strangled the rights of women for so long, feminism would never have been conceived.
> 
> As things stand, educated young women have far more options available to them nowadays, and no longer feel compelled to rely on marriage in order to survive, so the notion that it is now young men who are setting the parameters for intimate relationships is somewhat flawed. Both genders are getting married later in life, out of want rather than need, and this is a positive thing, IMO.
> 
> As for:-
> 
> 
> I think this is a rather old-fashioned and whimsical notion, because in the age group given, most (educated) young women are too busy establishing their careers to be day dreaming of weddings.


tick tock biological clock. Feminism would not be able to kill that off...


----------



## chris007

Cosmos said:


> Blaming feminism for a "Bachelor Nation" is as ludicrous as blaming penicillin for bacteria. Had patriarchy not stifled and strangled the rights of women for so long, feminism would never have been conceived.
> 
> As things stand, educated young women have far more options available to them nowadays, and no longer feel compelled to rely on marriage in order to survive, so the notion that it is now young men who are setting the parameters for intimate relationships is somewhat flawed.
> 
> As for:-
> 
> 
> I think this is a rather old-fashioned and whimsical notion, because in the age group given, most (educated) young women are too busy establishing their careers to be day dreaming of weddings.


Except for, "patriarchy" is just a made up concept that doesn't really exist outside of its historical use, which has nothing to do with the made up definition you are alluding to. Feminism has EVERYTHING to do with women's happiness being drastically down in the last 50 years, 400% more women taking antidepressants and SRIs, people opting out of marriage and a long list of other issues, Feminism from the get go wanted to destroy marriage and traditional family bond, I have dozens of historical quotes to prove it. It also encouraged young women to explore their sexuality via being promiscuous and other irresponsible behavior, without being held accountable for any of their actions. It is directly responsible for their inability to find a husbands and destruction of marriage in western countries.


----------



## Anon Pink

Oh oh it burns! Facts based on actual research! It burns it burns!




RoseAglow said:


> I took a quick look and didn't see where she got the 70%. Can someone post it? (sorry if it's been posted.)
> 
> I took a look at the Pew statistics. I think one thing that is important to note is the author of the posted article isn't stating that 70% of men have avoided marriage. From Pew, it seems that the 70% includes men who have been divorced/widowed. I say this because here is a statistic from 2012:
> 
> _"In 2012, one-in-five adults ages 25 and older (about 42 million people) had never been married, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of census data."_
> 
> Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center
> 
> So about 20% of people- men and women- 25 and up had never married. The other 80% had been married at some point.
> 
> In fact, a census report showed in 2010, 36.5% of men had never been married by age 34. So a good 60+ had been married.
> 
> Percent Never Married, 1970?2010
> 
> Pew also found that: _"Young adults are not opposed to marriage, however. According to the new Pew Research survey, only 4% of never-married adults ages 25 to 34 say they don’t want to get married. A majority of them either want to marry (61%) or are not sure (34%)."_
> 
> Never-Married Young Adults on the Marriage Market | Pew Research Center
> 
> Certainly, the number of people deciding to get married is declining. But, still, quite a large majority try out being married at some point. Even with the current projections, 75% of people 50 and up will be married in 2030:
> 
> _"According to Pew Research projections based on census data, when today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share (25%) is likely to have never been married."_
> 
> Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center
> 
> I'm going to guess that a pretty large number of guys in that 70% have been married and got divorced. And while many people decide not to get married post-divorce, more men re-marry than women:
> 
> "Previously married adults show less interest in marriage than do never-married adults. Only one-in-five previously married adults (21%) say they would like to marry again, while a plurality (45%) say they do not want to get married again. (An additional 31% are not sure.) _There is a large gender gap on this question. Previously married women are much less likely than their male counterparts to say they would like to get married again someday (15% of women compared with 29% of men). Fully 54% of these women say they are not interested in getting remarried (30% of men say the same)."_
> 
> Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center
> 
> I think it's more interesting that "25-35" is considered a "Young Adult", when back in my old geezer 80s uprbinging, 40 was considered Mid-Life (and by an actuarial perspective, still is, I believe.)
> 
> I heard all these dire warnings back in my single days, too. "Where are all the Men? Why don't men want to get married?" Back then I was especially in trouble, because not only was I over 30 but I also had an advanced degree, and I was told that this dropped my chances of getting married to nearly nothing, LOL. That was the Anti-Feminist Meme back in the early 2000s.
> 
> In the early '10s there was a book about how all those Princeton chicas better get their Mrs. degree while they were in college, or else they'd lose the exposure to the men with degrees, LOL! Cuz women who work aren't exposed to men who also have degrees, I guess.
> 
> Eh, every now and then there is a modern-day Phyllis Schlafy who comes along with her own opinion, and that's not a bad thing. Gives us something to chat about in the Tamiverse. But it is just an opinion, and usually it's a lot of noise to a very small signal.


----------



## RoseAglow

naiveonedave said:


> tick tock biological clock. Feminism would not be able to kill that off...


Feminism cannot kill the biological clock, nor can I think of a reason why it would want to. Thanks to birth control, women can control whether or not they become moms. 

For women who want to become a mom, there has never been a better time in history for them to be successful, with or without a wedding ring.


----------



## moco82

RoseAglow said:


> In the early '10s there was a book about how all those Princeton chicas better get their Mrs. degree while they were in college, or else they'd lose the exposure to the men with degrees, LOL! Cuz women who work aren't exposed to men who also have degrees, I guess.


The author meant that the same concentration of Ivy Leaguers as on campus would not be encountered again, unless a young woman goes on to work in an equally concentrated elite firm. The average company does not employ hundreds of men under 40 with degrees from elite schools. And unless you go to work for an i-bank, you won't be working in one central location with fellow Ivy Leaguers either. Not that any of this presents an insurmountable challenge, just hugely decreases the odds of meeting at the water cooler.


----------



## EleGirl

chris007 said:


> Ele, you are not being genuine when you try to say that men are women and women are men.


Nowhere did I say that men are women and women are men? You are twisting what I said.

What I did say is that both young men and young women are waiting to get married. The vast majority of young women are not sitting around crying because they cannot get a man to agree to marry them.



chris007 said:


> Women can be mothers and men cannot. As most women reach their 30s, they start to feel pressure to start their family units, have kids etc etc (the wall). It is biological and ensures survival of our species.


Most women today have one or two children. Few have big families. So a woman who waits until 30 – 35 to marry has enough years of fertility left to have one or two babies.

Some women chose to have children outside of a committed relationship. Marriage is not essential to having children since society no longer shuns women who do this.

Further, today, due to advances in medical science, women are having heathy babies later in life. Plus women are no longer having an average of 8 pregnancies in their life time. Pregnancy and child rearing take up about 20-30 years of a woman’s expected 85 expected years of life. And women can and do have interests, career and so forth other than child rearing. 

In 1900, the average life span for men was 46.3 years. For women it was 48.3. Today, the average life span is 74.3. However a woman who lives to 65, will most likely live to 82.

That’s a lot of years with no child raising in our lives. I’m sorry if you are offended by women wanting to do something besides only having and raising babies. But you see, it does not matter what you think of women who do have a life beyond having babies. It’s their business, not yours. They (we) do not care if you think that is not feminine.


chris007 said:


> You don't have to try so hard measuring up to men, we (the heterosexual guys) are not attracted to other men. We are attracted to feminine women. It is quite ok for women to want to marry and have kids, we expect it. Hope this helps.


Women are not trying to measure up to men. Why the assumption that men are the yard stick that we use to measure ourselves?

I’m not sure what you are classifying as ‘feminine vs not-feminine”. From your posts, it seems that you think that woman who want anything other than to get married, have children and be supported by a man are not feminine. So being dependent on a man is how you define femininity?

Did I say anywhere that women do not want to marry (or be in long term relationships)? Nope. I did say that more and more women choosing to marry later just as men are. It’s a wise thing for both men and women to do.

Hope this helps.


----------



## naiveonedave

RoseAglow said:


> Feminism cannot kill the biological clock, nor can I think of a reason why it would want to. Thanks to birth control, women can control whether or not they become moms.
> 
> For women who want to become a mom, there has never been a better time in history for them to be successful, with or without a wedding ring.


Meh, decidedly most women and society in general, prefer a husband and wife combination. There is already tons of data out there about how not having a father hurts kids.


----------



## EleGirl

chris007 said:


> Dating & the Desperate 30’s
> 
> "...Real relationships filled with love will also be filled with sacrifice and pain, as well as pleasure. I call this article “The Desperate 30s” simply because it is often the age and time after a woman has had all her fun that she now attempts to regroup and go into “mommy mode.” As a result, she often ends up married for two seconds with a baby, then divorced shortly thereafter, increasing the status quo of broken homes and disappointed children. This is not an attempt to point fingers but to understand the potential pitfalls. We are all guilty of this behavior, but today our goal is to give you more insight into how men think about it.
> 
> In the above scenario, if she does not get what she desires from Tony, she has no problems marrying her second option, Johnny, six to nine months later. The saddest part of all is that it was never about Tony or Johnny; it was never even about love. All along, it was all about her, and ladies, this is not love. It will only end in disaster...."
> 
> Dating & the Desperate 30's | How to Get the Man of Your Dreams Member Subscription Program


:rofl: An "article" by a man, on a website that is for the purpose of selling the guys book.

Yep, people will say anything if it sells their product.


----------



## Cosmos

naiveonedave said:


> tick tock biological clock. Feminism would not be able to kill that off...


Nor should it seek to. However, it's possible to gain a good education, establish a career and have children later on. Many of my younger friends have started their families in their mid-30s and they and their families are doing just fine.


----------



## EleGirl

Youngster said:


> *No it's because that's not the subject of the thread!.*


Refuting things said in the article pointed at in the OP is within the scope of the subject of the thread.



Youngster said:


> I've offered input on the thread "Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married" based on my experience with young men of this demographic. I'm really really sorry you don't like what I have to say based on my conversations with these young men. I am much older and married so my perspective is much different that theirs.


I'm sorry if you don't like the have to say based on my conversations with a lot of young men and women. I have children, nieces, nephews in their 20's & 30's. They and their friends talk about this things. 

What that shows is that there is not one thing going on out there. 

Plus you are only hearing what the young men you work with are saying. What young women say is pertinent to the topic as well since the article paints a picture of pathetic young women who have no choice but the gravel for guys.

There is much more to the article than the title.


----------



## Anon Pink

naiveonedave said:


> Meh, decidedly most women and society in general, prefer a husband and wife combination. There is already tons of data out there about how not having a father hurts kids.


Absolutely true. Men are not a disposable commodity in society. We do not raise the achievement avenue for one sex by minimizing the need and usefulness of the other sex.

But, women no longer suffer social ostracism if they decide to become a parent without benefit of a partner. I certainly don't recommend it, parenting is goddamn hard!


----------



## Faithful Wife

I've known several women who decided to have a baby with no partner. They are very happy.

I also have many single mom friends who are very happy, too.


----------



## Mr The Other

The article is designed to help one generation feel smug and happy. It does that.


----------



## naiveonedave

Anon Pink said:


> But, women no longer suffer social ostracism if they decide to become a parent without benefit of a partner. I certainly don't recommend it, parenting is goddamn hard!


JMO, and maybe I am too old fashion, but the lack of ostracism for children out of wedlock is killing large parts of the US. I certainly am not for backroom abortion or stuff like that, but the lack of father figures, especially in the African American community is a crime.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Which generation feels smug and happy about this?

It comes from a conservative news publication and is designed to make people who think "everything is the fault of feminism" feel smug and happy. Even though there are no facts to be smug or happy about, it is just an op-ed piece.


----------



## Youngster

EleGirl said:


> *Refuting things said in the article pointed at in the OP is within the scope of the subject of the thread.
> *
> 
> _You're more than just refuting. You've gone out of your way to change the entire focus of thread. This thread WAS an intelligent conversation about why a particular demographic was foregoing marriage. It's turned into another gender war thread.....congratulations!
> 
> _*I'm sorry if you don't like the have to say based on my conversations with a lot of young men and women. I have children, nieces, nephews in their 20's & 30's. They and their friends talk about this things.
> *
> 
> _It's great that you have input.....JUST LIKE ANY OTHER POSTER. But don't change the theme of the discussion because you don't like what people have to say.
> _
> 
> 
> What that shows is that there is not one thing going on out there.
> 
> *Plus you are only hearing what the young men you work with are saying. *
> 
> _Which is the only reason I got into the thread......
> _
> 
> 
> *What young women say is pertinent to the topic *as well since the article paints a picture of pathetic young women who have no choice but the gravel for guys.
> 
> _But it really wasn't the focus of the article was it? The first 4 paragraphs of the article didn't even contain the word women. But that's the only part of the piece you want to address......
> _
> 
> 
> There is much more to the article than the title.


----------



## moco82

Let me tell you, though, telling your girlfriend that she's a retrograde reactionary stuck in nineteenth-century thinking because she wants to have kids was not a winning strategy.


----------



## tech-novelist

moco82 said:


> Let me tell you, though, telling your girlfriend that she's a retrograde reactionary stuck in nineteenth-century thinking because she wants to have kids was not a winning strategy.


Oh, I don't know. If you don't want to have kids, it's probably a great strategy!


----------



## RoseAglow

naiveonedave said:


> Meh, decidedly most women and society in general, prefer a husband and wife combination. There is already tons of data out there about how not having a father hurts kids.


I agree that it is most ideal for children to live with two parents. Kids need their dads in all but the most extreme circumstances (active addiction/severe mental illness in which the kids can't be safe, abuse).

In the case of less-than-idea circumstances, both men and women are better able to take care of their kids now than, say, 20 or 30 years ago. There is also a rise of Single Dad households and they can be very successful.

But it's not particularly germane to this thread. I was just responding to your post on feminism and the biological clock.


----------



## naiveonedave

RoseAglow said:


> I agree that it is most ideal for children to live with two parents. Kids need their dads in all but the most extreme circumstances (active addiction/severe mental illness in which the kids can't be safe, abuse).
> 
> In the case of less-than-idea circumstances, both men and women are better able to take care of their kids now than, say, 20 or 30 years ago. There is also a rise of Single Dad households and they can be very successful.
> 
> But it's not particularly germane to this thread. I was just responding to your post on feminism and the biological clock.


all true, but really, a society should be promoting 1 father and 1 mother as much as it can


----------



## Cosmos

chris007 said:


> Except for, "patriarchy" is just a made up concept that doesn't really exist outside of its historical use, which has nothing to do with the made up definition you are alluding to. Feminism has EVERYTHING to do with women's happiness being drastically down in the last 50 years, 400% more women taking antidepressants and SRIs, people opting out of marriage and a long list of other issues, Feminism from the get go wanted to destroy marriage and traditional family bond, I have dozens of historical quotes to prove it. It also encouraged young women to explore their sexuality via being promiscuous and other irresponsible behavior, without being held accountable for any of their actions. It is directly responsible for their inability to find a husbands and destruction of marriage in western countries.



I really hate using expressions like this, but this really made me "LOL"


----------



## EleGirl

moco82 said:


> Did your marriage certificate come with hundreds of pages regulating the relationship, including litigation options? You can call marriage a contract, but it's a wildly open-ended one (you do not explicitly sign clauses that would otherwise be spelled out in an economic contract).




A marriage is a contract. You can write that contract yourself (in which case it's called a "premarital agreement"), or you can accept the default contract written by your state legislators. 

When a one or more people form any kind of business, the contract is governed by two things. 1) The state and federal laws that pertain to the form of business that they create. 1) Any further agreement/contract they make.

When a couple signs their marriage license/certificate they are agreeing to live by the state laws that define their marriage contract.



moco82 said:


> A more detailed contract that doesn't require a separate body of law and court system would decrease confusion.


The laws the govern the marriage contract are pretty detailed. And you can add to them.

Having no standard marriage law & contract would cause more confusion than we have now.


----------



## naiveonedave

Ele - the problem is that virtually no one knows what that contract entails when they get married the 1st time. For most men, the contract is incredibly one sided and if they knew that and new the statistics regarding divorce, many men would not get married or at least have significant 2nd thoughts.


----------



## moco82

EleGirl said:


> A marriage is a contract. You can write that contract yourself (in which case it's called a "premarital agreement"), or you can accept the default contract written by your state legislators.


1. How many people read state laws governing marriage prior to marrying?
2. How many more people would sign pre-nups if they were required vs. an option that is awkward to bring up?



> Having no standard marriage law & contract would cause more confusion than we have now.


It would be lovely to choose a more or less representative jurisdiction and stage an experiment. Then I'd win this argument  P.S. There would still be law.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ele said: What young women say is pertinent to the topic as well since the article paints a picture of pathetic young women who have no choice but the gravel for guys. 

Youngster said: But it really wasn't the focus of the article was it? The first 4 paragraphs of the article didn't even contain the word women. But that's the only part of the piece you want to address......


The article is someone's OPINION.

So what is it we are supposed to be discussing? Only the author's opinion and nothing else?


----------



## EleGirl

chris007 said:


> Except for, "patriarchy" is just a made up concept that doesn't really exist outside of its historical use, which has nothing to do with the made up definition you are alluding to. *Feminism has EVERYTHING to do with women's happiness being drastically down in the last 50 years, 400% more women taking antidepressants and SRIs*, people opting out of marriage and a long list of other issues, Feminism from the get go wanted to destroy marriage and traditional family bond, I have dozens of historical quotes to prove it. It also encouraged young women to explore their sexuality via being promiscuous and other irresponsible behavior, without being held accountable for any of their actions. It is directly responsible for their inability to find a husbands and destruction of marriage in western countries.


Um, 50 years ago we had few anti depressants. Children were not over medicated on AD/HD meds and meds are all kinds of mental disorders. We also did not have large numbers of men taking Viagra.

The above is about the changes in the way we handle mental health. IT's more about drug companies peddling drugs.


----------



## Mr The Other

Faithful Wife said:


> Which generation feels smug and happy about this?
> 
> It comes from a conservative news publication and is designed to make people who think "everything is the fault of feminism" feel smug and happy. Even though there are no facts to be smug or happy about, it is just an op-ed piece.


You are quite right and you put it far better than I did. 

It is written to assure those people that everything is just as it should be, that men who have not had everything given to them are just feckless and women not becoming SAHM's are living a hell.

We agree on this.


----------



## Youngster

Faithful Wife said:


> Ele said: What young women say is pertinent to the topic as well since the article paints a picture of pathetic young women who have no choice but the gravel for guys.
> 
> Youngster said: But it really wasn't the focus of the article was it? The first 4 paragraphs of the article didn't even contain the word women. But that's the only part of the piece you want to address......
> 
> 
> The article is someone's OPINION.
> 
> So what is it we are supposed to be discussing? Only the author's opinion and nothing else?


Well, at least something CLOSE to the thread title.....or pertinent to the article. If we're going to go off on tangents lets just talk about cats. or the weather or whatever!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Youngster said:


> Well, at least something CLOSE to the thread title.....or pertinent to the article. If we're going to go off on tangents lets just talk about cats. or the weather or whatever!


Are you kidding? Lots of us ARE talking about our OPINIONS about the thread title. Talking about our OPINIONS about the "whys" of the thread title is the only thing there really is to talk about it.

Do you mean you only want to hear from men who hold the same opinion as you do?

Because other than our opinions about the thread title, what else would we say about it? The thread would die with a thud without opinions about it, since that is all there is to it.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> Ele - the problem is that virtually no one knows what that contract entails when they get married the 1st time. For most men, the contract is incredibly one sided and if they knew that and new the statistics regarding divorce, many men would not get married or at least have significant 2nd thoughts.


Well, the laws that govern the contract are out there for all the public to read. Few do, I don't know why they don't bother to do this, but they don't.

Perhaps this is something that should be taught. High school would be a good place.

I did take a class in the topic, given by some attorney before I married. 

The contract is gender neutral. As more and more women are able to support themselves, things like 50/50 custody are becoming the norm. Alimony is paid in only 15% of divorces and it is usually only transitional. Very few divorces include long term, or life long, alimony. 

The divorce rate is not 50%, it's about 30% over all. 

It's about 50% for the very young and very poor. The older the couple is and the more education they have the lower the divorce rate. These divorces usually happen early in the marriage, so they are short term marriages. These folks have no assets and there is no alimony. NO one is fleeced.

For example marriages where the woman is 25 or older and has a degree is about 25%. The more education, the lower the divorce rate.

Most people have little to no assets to speak of so most do not even divide assets... except they each keep the car that they drive. And they get to keep their own clothes.

More and more states are moving away from the idea of alimony. A SAHP can get rehabilitative alimony for a short time. But it's rare.


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> A marriage is a contract. You can write that contract yourself (in which case it's called a "premarital agreement"), or you can accept the default contract written by your state legislators.
> 
> When a one or more people form any kind of business, the contract is governed by two things. 1) The state and federal laws that pertain to the form of business that they create. 1) Any further agreement/contract they make.
> 
> When a couple signs their marriage license/certificate they are agreeing to live by the state laws that define their marriage contract.
> 
> 
> 
> The laws the govern the marriage contract are pretty detailed. And you can add to them.
> 
> Having no standard marriage law & contract would cause more confusion than we have now.


No contract in which either party could default at will with no consequences, as is currently true of marriage, would be upheld in a court of law. That is called an "illusory contract" and is void.

Therefore, marriage is not a contract.


----------



## EleGirl

moco82 said:


> 1. How many people read state laws governing marriage prior to marrying?


That's like asking how many people read a contract before signing it. 

How many people read up on the laws regarding a business structure before forming a business.. every one I hope.

I cannot help it if people are not start enough to read the laws under which they live... especially those that govern something as important as marriage.

I did read the laws. I took a class in it as well. Don't belly ache if you don't bother to find out what you are doing.



moco82 said:


> 2. How many more people would sign pre-nups if they were required vs. an option that is awkward to bring up?


Most people cannot afford the attorney to draw up a good, solid prenup. So they default to the standard marriage contract.




moco82 said:


> It would be lovely to choose a more or less representative jurisdiction and stage an experiment. Then I'd win this argument  P.S. There would still be law.



We can look at marriages that already have pre-nups and post-nups. They are challenged all the time and often thrown out of court. Why? Because most people have no clue what they are signing when they draw up these documents and sign them. We already have test cases in these court challenges.

Prenups often lead to the most contentious and expensive divorces.

So no you would not wind the argument. It's already been lost based on the expensive litigation that prenups often cause.


----------



## Youngster

Faithful Wife said:


> Are you kidding? Lots of us ARE talking about our OPINIONS about the thread title. Talking about our OPINIONS about the "whys" of the thread title is the only thing there really is to talk about it.
> 
> Do you mean you only want to hear from men who hold the same opinion as you do?
> 
> Because other than our opinions about the thread title, what else would we say about it? The thread would die with a thud without opinions about it, since that is all there is to it.


It's great for everyone to post facts, opinion even conjecture so long as it's pertinent to the discussion. But rather than have a discussion about the thread title, or article, posters want to spew off anti-men or anti-women opinion......for the inevitable gender war. 

You're so far away from the thread title, article and original discussion you don't even know it. How does any of this related to the thread title or article;

*I've known several women who decided to have a baby with no partner. They are very happy.

I also have many single mom friends who are very happy, too. 
*

Or this? Thanks for the grandpa remark appreciate it!

*Wow, you sound just like my grandpa. 

*

Tell me how this relates to: *70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married

*

Tell me why do YOU think MEN are not getting married? Maybe it's white men, black men yellow men. Maybe they're all fat, bald too short, insecure. Too rich, too poor. Are men's standards too high?

I've tried to express what young men in this demographic have told me and I've been demonized. 

Lots of really really relevant things we could discuss....but instead we're doing the gender war thing again, just like a couple weeks ago, and a couple weeks before that.......








|


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have already said why I think young men aren't getting married earlier. It is because they are wiser than previous generations, and they want to have a longer single life.

The same is true for young women.

I also know many young men, and I related my adult son's experience here. 

You just didn't like MY answers to these questions and MY opinions. You just want YOUR opinions to be discussed. And we have discussed them. Those of us who didn't agree with you, what, are we not supposed to post because we didn't agree with YOU and YOUR opinion? 

The entire article is alllllllllll about creating gender war, but you want to say that this thread is the start of the gender war. Really?


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> No contract in which either party could default at will with no consequences, as is currently true of marriage, would be upheld in a court of law. That is called an "illusory contract" and is void.
> 
> Therefore, marriage is not a contract.


Wanting out of a contract is not breaking the contract. There are few contracts that do not allow the participants to dissolve it and/or for one to with draw from it. There are not always penalties involved in doing this either. Contracts are not necessarily punitive.

If I form a corporation with one or more people, I can chose at anytime to end my relationship with the corporation. When I do, generally I can take my equity in that corporation with me, usually in the form of stock. Sometimes also with getting a share of cash and other assets. 

If I form a partnership with another person, I can do the same thing. I can force the end of the partnership. If me and my partner cannot decide on the division of things to my agreement, then I can take it to court and fight it out there.

Getting a divorce is no defaulting on anything. It's ending a legal relationship.


----------



## Youngster

Faithful Wife said:


> I have already said why I think young men aren't getting married earlier. It is because they are wiser than previous generations, and they want to have a longer single life.
> 
> The same is true for young women.
> 
> I also know many young men, and I related my adult son's experience here.
> 
> You just didn't like MY answers to these questions and MY opinions. You just want YOUR opinions to be discussed. And we have discussed them.


Well, I just went through the thread 3 times now.....and I don't see where I said a disparaging remark about your opinion(I did about others) but regardless I apologize. 

That's a great opinion, the demographic in question wants to have the single life longer. I wonder what the trend lines for this are, if it's a recent phenomena. Is it increasing/decreasing? Do people think the trend is tied to the economy? I wonder if it tracks race or education. How do these trends relate to US?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Youngster said:


> Well, I just went through the thread 3 times now.....and I don't see where I said a disparaging remark about your opinion(I did about others) but regardless I apologize.
> 
> That's a great opinion, the demographic in question wants to have the single life longer. I wonder what the trend lines for this are, if it's a recent phenomena. Is it increasing/decreasing? Do people think the trend is tied to the economy? I wonder if it tracks race or education. How do these trends relate to US?


For one thing, we live longer lives than we used to, so our 20's are not the prime of our lives any longer, for many it is still a time of growing and becoming who you are.

For another thing, older generations were simply expected by their elders to get married and have babies, period. "Everyone" was supposed to do this and you were shamed and mocked (and it was assumed you were of low character) if you did not. These pressures from the older generations are not on kids as much today....so they can decide for themselves if marriage is right for them or not, and when to get married if it is. Our generation are not beating them over the head with "get married, have babies, get married, have babies!" the way previous generations were doing.

Who is to say that previous generations had it right? Maybe they would have stayed single longer or never married if they hadn't been beaten with the "get married, have babies!" message as they came of age. Maybe if they were truly given a choice, they would have made different choices.


----------



## Youngster

Faithful Wife said:


> For one thing, we live longer lives than we used to, so our 20's are not the prime of our lives any longer, for many it is still a time of growing and becoming who you are.
> 
> For another thing, older generations were simply expected by their elders to get married and have babies, period. "Everyone" was supposed to do this and you were shamed and mocked (and it was assumed you were of low character) if you did not. These pressures from the older generations are not on kids as much today....so they can decide for themselves if marriage is right for them or not, and when to get married if it is. Our generation are not beating them over the head with "get married, have babies, get married, have babies!" the way previous generations were doing.
> 
> Who is to say that previous generations had it right? Maybe they would have stayed single longer or never married if they hadn't been beaten with the "get married, have babies!" message as they came of age. Maybe if they were truly given a choice, they would have made different choices.


So marriage rates in general are declining, I wonder if this is the "lead in" for that. Young people say "hey I'm going to have fun and wait to get married". 10 years fly by and then they decide "my life is good, I'm established, no need to ever get married". Or is it that they always wanted to get married but never found the right partner/soul-mate?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well others have already posted data that shows they DO end up getting married...it is just happening at a later age than in previous generations.


----------



## Faithful Wife

How very odd (not) that someone would register just to sign in and participate in this thread so they can try to make the point AGAIN that "women bad, poor poor men should avoid marriage, blah blah blah".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Why the heck would anyone want to give you a reason to get married? Just don't. Problem solved. There's no reason everyone should be married.

But regardless of your little story or your own preferences, most people do end up married at least once.

You don't want to? Great! Don't.

No one should have to get married or feel pressured to. It is something they should do if they want to.

As for posting last June....yeah that's what a lot of people do. Start an account and post at least once so they can come back and use that account again for a specific campaign.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lol! Yeah, have fun with that.


----------



## Youngster

Faithful Wife said:


> Well others have already posted data that shows they DO end up getting married...it is just happening at a later age than in previous generations.


From earlier in the thread, the percentage of Americans who have never been married has been steadily increasing since 1960.....

Trends in the Share of Never-Married Americans and a Look Forward | Pew Research Center

Many are waiting to marry, but the percentage that chooses to never marry is growing.


----------



## Holland

Youngster said:


> Well, I just went through the thread 3 times now.....and I don't see where I said a disparaging remark about your opinion(I did about others) but regardless I apologize.
> 
> That's a great opinion, the demographic in question wants to have the single life longer. I wonder what the trend lines for this are, if it's a recent phenomena. Is it increasing/decreasing? Do people think the trend is tied to the economy? I wonder if it tracks race or education. How do these trends relate to US?


Personally I don't think it is a big deal that men in 20-34 bracket are not marrying, it is not a reflection on the so called inequality towards men in marriage. For every man that is not marrying there is a woman that isn't.
We live longer.
We can have children at a later age.
Women are now being educated for longer and strive for better careers.
Family sizes are generally smaller so no need to start having kids till later.
Financial considerations are taken into account.
Many young people want to travel and now have the money to do so then settle down.
Some men see marriage as a bad thing.
Some women see marriage as a bad thing.

My parents generation married at started families at age 20.
My generation married and started having kids at 30.
My brother and his partner are 45 and 40 respectively and having their first child early next yr.
But the stats here (Aus) are showing that the cycle is turning and first time parents are getting younger again.

Bachelor Nation, pft. Why not just accept that in our countries we are free to live to the time table we choose, to seek out the best possible in life and to be free.


----------



## Faithful Wife

We could expect this to happen Youngster, because marriage simply doesn't make sense for a lot of people. No one looks at you sideways anymore if you are in a LTR without being married, for instance.

But even so, the total percentage of people who never marry is small. The majority, by a very wide margin, do get married.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also now that gay marriage is legal, we will have to wait and see what that will do to the trends of the future.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Gee it is so funny how people who are brand new sign on to these types of threads...and talk to you as if they already know you. Almost as if they have been here before under a different name.

Strange.


----------



## Youngster

Holland said:


> Personally I don't think it is a big deal that men in 20-34 bracket are not marrying, it is not a reflection on the so called inequality towards men in marriage. For every man that is not marrying there is a woman that isn't.
> We live longer.
> We can have children at a later age.
> Women are now being educated for longer and strive for better careers.
> Family sizes are generally smaller so no need to start having kids till later.
> Financial considerations are taken into account.
> Many young people want to travel and now have the money to do so then settle down.
> Some men see marriage as a bad thing.
> Some women see marriage as a bad thing.
> 
> My parents generation married at started families at age 20.
> My generation married and started having kids at 30.
> My brother and his partner are 45 and 40 respectively and having their first child early next yr.
> But the stats here (Aus) are showing that the cycle is turning and first time parents are getting younger again.
> 
> Bachelor Nation, pft. Why not just accept that in our countries we are free to live to the time table we choose, to seek out the best possible in life and to be free.


Well, I'm not sure that this shift is or isn't a problem. What are the chances that there is an underlying societal issue driving this. Just thinking out loud, I wonder when this trend would become a problem.


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> Wanting out of a contract is not breaking the contract. There are few contracts that do not allow the participants to dissolve it and/or for one to with draw from it. There are not always penalties involved in doing this either. Contracts are not necessarily punitive.
> 
> If I form a corporation with one or more people, I can chose at anytime to end my relationship with the corporation. When I do, generally I can take my equity in that corporation with me, usually in the form of stock. Sometimes also with getting a share of cash and other assets.
> 
> If I form a partnership with another person, I can do the same thing. I can force the end of the partnership. If me and my partner cannot decide on the division of things to my agreement, then I can take it to court and fight it out there.
> 
> Getting a divorce is no defaulting on anything. It's ending a legal relationship.


Yes, it is a legal relationship, but not a contract. No one would sign a partnership contract that requires party A to pay money to party B when party *B* has violated the terms of the contract and wishes to dissolve the partnership. 

Yet if someone cheats on their marital partner, thus violating the terms of the marital agreement, then files for divorce, they are still entitled to a division of the marital assets on the same terms as if they were the injured party.

Furthermore, I notice that you have not replied to my point that contracts are enforced as written, not rewritten at the will of the government, as is the case with marital agreements.

I would be very happy to have the ability to make an actual marital contract that would be enforced as written, but there is no such thing, at least in the USA.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Youngster said:


> Well, I'm not sure that this shift is or isn't a problem. What are the chances that there is an underlying societal issue driving this. Just thinking out loud, I wonder when this trend would become a problem.


Until it is shown to be a problem, why don't we just let the young people do what they are going to do and see what happens? Why don't we just trust them and see how it plays out?

I see no reason to assume there is anything bad that will come from people waiting to marry longer, and some people never getting married.

And again...we don't know what will happen to these numbers and trends now that same sex marriage is legal. Perhaps it will fill in all those gaps and even increase the number of marriages.


----------



## Holland

Youngster said:


> Well, I'm not sure that this shift is or isn't a problem. What are the chances that there is an underlying societal issue driving this. Just thinking out loud, I wonder when this trend would become a problem.


Just talking from my own POV but honestly I don't see any problems here. Let's take away the insulting notion (and I truly believe that is all it is) that these men are not getting married because of some belief that women and marriage are the problems.

Life is is full of trends and cycles plus it is only natural that each generations wants more/better/different than the one before. It is not a gender issue, as many women don't want to get married as men, maybe some of their reasons are different but I don't see a major threat to society because of it.

The world does not need population growth to the extent we currently have. People have the most amazing opportunities ahead of them and marriage does not have to be part of life. 

Here is some interesting info from abs.gov.au

People that are married are having children at an older age while people that are unmarried are having children at a younger age. Maybe it is to do with education, money, higher/lower expectations of each group. Regardless people are still having children but to their own time tables.





> LATER CHILDBEARING
> 
> A range of factors has influenced changes in Australia’s birth rates. While the age at marriage is increasing, more time spent on educational pursuits, and concerns regarding financial stability,(Endnote 2) have also contributed to these changes.
> 
> While Australia’s total fertility rate has not changed significantly between 1990 and 2010 (1.90 babies per woman in 1990, compared with 1.89 babies per woman in 2010), the age at which women have their first baby has changed. In 1990, the median age of first-time mothers was 27.5 years. By 2010, this had increased to 28.9 years.
> 
> Since 2000, women aged 30-34 years have continued to record the highest fertility rate of all age groups. In 1990, the fertility rate for this age group was 102 babies per 1,000 women, rising to 123 babies per 1,000 women in 2010. Further, since 2005 the fertility rate for women aged 35-39 years has exceeded that of women aged 20-24 years.
> 
> Births outside of marriage
> 
> The proportion of births occurring outside registered marriage has increased over the last two decades. Overall, unmarried women bear children at younger ages than women in registered marriages.
> 
> In 2010, the median age of unmarried mothers was 27.3 years, just over three years older than in 1990 (24.0 years), and nearly four and a half years younger than the median age of married women giving birth in 2010 (31.7 years). The proportion of babies born outside registered marriage also rose during this time, from just over one fifth (22%) to just over one third (34%) of all births.
> 
> Unmarried fathers also have children at younger ages. In 2010 the median age of unmarried fathers was 29.9 years compared with 34.0 years for married fathers. The median age of fathers has increased over the last twenty years, by 2.6 years for both married and unmarried fathers.


----------



## Holland

Single.4.Ever said:


> Come on, is that the best you can do? One ad hominem after another?
> 
> Won't you at least try to debate with me on the essential issues here?
> 
> You can't. No one can, because I'M RIGHT.
> 
> I am irrefutably right.
> 
> NEWSFLASH: anything that fails 50% of the time is BROKEN, and needs to be fixed.
> 
> And some people (like me) have the nerve to say that the broken thing is broken, and they are the ones excoriated.
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Marriage has morphed into a hideous monster, and, thankfully, many are waking up to this fact.
> 
> It is no longer necessary! Marriage is done! It needs to be reconfigured.
> 
> People are waking up to this fact. Marriage is a bad deal! It no longer makes sense.
> 
> Sorry for being so subtle. :grin2:


Seems very OTT amd over emotional.

Again from abs.govt.au
nothing really that major going on........................



> 2013 KEY POINTS
> 
> There were 118,962 marriages registered and 47,638 divorces granted in Australia in 2013. Over the past five years there has been a gradual increase in the median age at separation and divorce. This aligns with a gradual increase in the median age at first marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> MARRIAGES
> The number of marriages decreased in 2013 by 4,282 (3.5%) and the crude marriage rate decreased from 5.4 in 2012 to 5.1 marriages per 1,000 estimated resident population in 2013.
> Civil celebrants have overseen the majority of marriages since 1999 and the proportion of marriage ceremonies overseen by a civil celebrant increased again to 72.5 per cent of all marriages in 2013.
> In 2013, the majority of brides (81.3%) and grooms (79.7%) had not been married before.
> The median age at marriage in 2013 was 31.5 years for males and 29.5 years for females. This was an increase of 0.1 years for both males and females since 2012.
> 
> 
> DIVORCES
> The number of divorces decreased in 2013 by 2,279 (4.6%) and the crude divorce rate decreased from 2.2 in 2012 to 2.1 divorces per 1,000 estimated resident population in 2013.
> The median duration from marriage to divorce in 2013 was 12.1 years a slight decrease from 12.2 years reported in 2012.
> The median age at divorce for males was 44.8 years of age and the median ages of females was 42.2 years of age for the divorces granted in 2013.
> *The largest proportion of divorce applications were from joint applicants, accounting for 41.2% of divorces. Female applicants accounted for 32.9% of divorce applications while male applicants accounted for 25.9%*.


I have bolded the last sentence as it is a tad irritating that so many seem to think that women initiate the vast majority of divorces, this is simply untrue here. But the over emotional will always let fiction override facts.


----------



## T&T

Single.4.Ever said:


> NEWSFLASH: anything that fails 50% of the time is BROKEN, and needs to be fixed.


How would you fix it?

If you were told you had a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery would buy a ticket? 

A great marriage IS like winning the lottery even if you go through hardship! :grin2:


----------



## Youngster

This is for Holland and FW......

See, I think we need to understand the reason behind the underlying trends and I'll tell you why.

I'm going to paraphrase a little but remember DDT(the insecticide)? 
Way back in the 40's America(and some parts of the world) were spraying the stuff everywhere. It was being sprayed to combat malaria, it was being spread to help crops, it was all over the place. 

After a while some naturalists noticed that the use of DDT coincided with a decline in the number of birds, particularly birds of prey. Well, people started looking at bird deaths, births, trends....Rachael Carlson wrote a book called silent spring. It was all very mysterious because DDT wouldn't just kill birds(or people) on contact or after ingestion but bird populations were declining. Scientists eventually discovered that DDT made the egg shells of birds of prey thinner, increasing the mortality of hatchlings. Eventually DDT was banned in the early 70's and since bird populations have rebounded. But imagine if we hadn't been looking at those trends.

What's my point? My point is that we are the birds. 

From global warming to diseases to birth rates to death rates to marriage rates. Every trend has an underlying cause, some good, some not so good. We need to understand these trends and determine if they are good or bad. As humans we have the unique ability to change our environment for our own well being. Without studying trends though we have no way to determine what are the right and wrong(or any) changes we need to make.


----------



## Holland

Given that the marriage rate in Aust has only decreased by 3.5% but the LAT (Living Together Apart) percentage of the population is between 6-9% and is a relatively new lifestyle choice it seems there is no real decrease in the number of people living in "marriage like" situation.

No real catastrophe to see, no big conspiracy, just normal folk getting on with it as they see fit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_apart_together


----------



## Holland

Youngster said:


> This is for Holland and FW......
> 
> See, I think we need to understand the reason behind the underlying trends and I'll tell you why.
> 
> I'm going to paraphrase a little but remember DDT(the insecticide)?
> Way back in the 40's America(and some parts of the world) were spraying the stuff everywhere. It was being sprayed to combat malaria, it was being spread to help crops, it was all over the place.
> 
> After a while some naturalists noticed that the use of DDT coincided with a decline in the number of birds, particularly birds of prey. Well, people started looking at bird deaths, births, trends....Rachael Carlson wrote a book called silent spring. It was all very mysterious because DDT wouldn't just kill birds(or people) on contact or after ingestion but bird populations were declining. Scientists eventually discovered that DDT made the egg shells of birds of prey thinner, increasing the mortality of hatchlings. Eventually DDT was banned in the early 70's and since bird populations have rebounded. But imagine if we hadn't been looking at those trends.
> 
> What's my point? My point is that we are the birds.
> 
> From global warming to diseases to birth rates to death rates to marriage rates. Every trend has an underlying cause, some good, some not so good. We need to understand these trends and determine if they are good or bad. As humans we have the unique ability to change our environment for our own well being. Without studying trends though we have no way to determine what are the right and wrong(or any) changes we need to make.


Yes I see your point and yes there are trends in marriage/divorce/ages of child bearing etc.

Have a look at the figures in my last two posts. The actual rates of marriage/divorce/child bearing are not changing dramatically. The ages and lifestyle choices are changing but they have since day dot. so while our daily lives are changing with the times, the nett result is not changing that much. People are still getting married and having children.


----------



## Holland

Single.4.Ever said:


> Let's take 100 married couples.
> 
> Let's say that 50 of them get divorced.
> 
> That leaves 50 married couples.
> 
> You're well aware that many people stay unhappily married, usually due to money and kids.
> 
> Let's say that 25 of the 50 remaining couples is "happy," and 25 are "unhappy" (we can substitute your own figures here, if you want)
> 
> If you accept my figures, you have a 1 in 4 chance of being happily married. That's 25%.
> 
> If you were to play Russian Roulette, and you put 4 bullets in the chamber, leaving 2 empty, would you play? That would give you a 33% chance of success. It's better odds, no?
> 
> But let's use your lottery analogy. And let's make it more reflective of reality.
> 
> Would you play the lottery if you had a 50% chance of winning? Here are the details:
> 
> If you win, you get $1,000,000.
> 
> Ahh, but if you lose....you have to PAY the lottery company $1,000,000.
> 
> Still wanna buy that ticket, son? :grin2:
> 
> NEXT!


So just don't get married, it is that simple.

I would love to do one of those birdman base jumps, there is a good chance it would be the most amazing experience of my life but also a good chance I would die. I'm not going to take that chance. Simple, just don't do the things you don't want to take a chance on.
There are plenty of people that engage in extreme sports knowing the possibility of death is high, they chose to take that risk, all power to them, I would not try and stop a grown adult from making that decision for themselves.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Youngster said:


> What's my point? My point is that we are the birds.
> 
> From global warming to diseases to birth rates to death rates to marriage rates. Every trend has an underlying cause, some good, some not so good. We need to understand these trends and determine if they are good or bad. As humans we have the unique ability to change our environment for our own well being. Without studying trends though we have no way to determine what are the right and wrong(or any) changes we need to make.


Ok, thanks for your opinion. 

It doesn't change mine, and it doesn't make me want to study the trends.

Instead I will just watch what our younger people do and trust that they are making their own way as they see fit, which is their right. I think they are smarter and savvier than previous generations were, and they have more on their minds than simply surviving. So of course, they will make different choices.


----------



## Holland

Single.4.Ever said:


> Yes! It is your decision! But be sure to thank the person who warned you of the danger, thereby allowing you to make a good decision. :laugh:


You might of missed the point that as adults we make our own decisions. If people are making decisions based on over hyped, inaccurate articles then that is not smart.


----------



## EleGirl

Youngster said:


> From earlier in the thread, the percentage of Americans who have never been married has been steadily increasing since 1960.....
> 
> Trends in the Share of Never-Married Americans and a Look Forward | Pew Research Center
> 
> Many are waiting to marry, but the percentage that chooses to never marry is growing.


I don't find that surprising at all.

Society used to push young people into marriage. Women needed to marry because most women had no way to support themselves.

Today things are quite a bit different. People marry because they want to have a relationship with someone they love. 

Co-habitation is also widely accepted in USA and other western countries.


----------



## Mr The Other

Holland said:


> Personally I don't think it is a big deal that men in 20-34 bracket are not marrying, it is not a reflection on the so called inequality towards men in marriage. For every man that is not marrying there is a woman that isn't.
> We live longer.
> We can have children at a later age.
> Women are now being educated for longer and strive for better careers.
> Family sizes are generally smaller so no need to start having kids till later.
> Financial considerations are taken into account.
> Many young people want to travel and now have the money to do so then settle down.
> Some men see marriage as a bad thing.
> Some women see marriage as a bad thing.
> 
> My parents generation married at started families at age 20.
> My generation married and started having kids at 30.
> My brother and his partner are 45 and 40 respectively and having their first child early next yr.
> But the stats here (Aus) are showing that the cycle is turning and first time parents are getting younger again.
> 
> Bachelor Nation, pft. Why not just accept that in our countries we are free to live to the time table we choose, to seek out the best possible in life and to be free.


Thanks, and well said!

Australia is an outlier it seems. Also, while most of the Western world had a financial crisis, Australia boomed. Meanwhile Greece is having the opposite effect.

It really is a case that people pair up permanently when their market value is highest and have kids when it is economically feasible. 

A shame that this does not suit people who which is dismiss all the issues facing the younger generation or the opposite sex.


----------



## tom67

naiveonedave said:


> it is a contract, but if you actually knew what the contract states and implies when you got married, most men would say no friggn way.


Amen brother.


----------



## moco82

EleGirl said:


> Most people cannot afford the attorney to draw up a good, solid prenup. So they default to the standard marriage contract.





> Prenups often lead to the most contentious and expensive divorces.


Poor execution does not negate the concept. I'm sure that if standard marriage "contracts" were out the window, the quality of prenups would improve and judicial precedent would build. Services become cheaper per unit as a market grows.

Also, since TAM is read around the world: I reckon it would be a less tumultuous transition in civil-law countries. (Would be a fascinating experiment in Quebec... and Louisiana?) Getting a marriage certificate would look a lot more like signing real-estate paperwork at the title lawyer's office. 

P.S. Do any insurance companies insure prenups?


----------



## Icey181

Anon Pink said:


> the author of the article in the OP used the term "perpetual adolescence" and that term means a man stuck in the emotional developmental stage of adolescence, thus a man who failed to develop adult emotional capability. If you have a beef with young men being categorized as being developmentally delayed because they are not married, take it to the author of the article.




The only offered reason to categorize these men as staying in "perpetual adolescence" is that they are not getting married.

That is it.

Almost every single "Where Have All the Good Men Gone," article immediately devolves into explaining why it is the _men's fault_ for being such _children_.



> There are plenty of young men who are wonderful and decent caring productive adults who simply aren't ready to marry or they haven't found the right person yet, this doesn't mean those men are developmentally delayed and stuck in adolescence! She is the one who who categorized unmarried young men as essentially developmentally delayed…


Yeah. She has denoted a rather clear, gender-bias against men, and holds them accountable for women's inability to find "Good Men" so to speak.



> and instead of refuting her opinions and assertions you say she has revealed that men don't marry because women won't play the game right (not fair that divorced men get totally screwed) Well that kind of reasoning is itself childish thinking.


Explain this.

Because it is logically unsound to say that men are developmentally challenged because they do not want to marry women. Either now or ever.

All of these articles basically boil down to entitled upper class women throwing an emotional tantrum that the men they want to marry are not running up to them and offering themselves up to be chosen from.

*Women are not entitled to husbands*.

Period.


----------



## tom67

Youngster said:


> It's great for everyone to post facts, opinion even conjecture so long as it's pertinent to the discussion. But rather than have a discussion about the thread title, or article, posters want to spew off anti-men or anti-women opinion......for the inevitable gender war.
> 
> You're so far away from the thread title, article and original discussion you don't even know it. How does any of this related to the thread title or article;
> 
> *I've known several women who decided to have a baby with no partner. They are very happy.
> 
> I also have many single mom friends who are very happy, too.
> *
> 
> Or this? Thanks for the grandpa remark appreciate it!
> 
> *Wow, you sound just like my grandpa.
> 
> *
> 
> Tell me how this relates to: *70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married
> 
> *
> 
> Tell me why do YOU think MEN are not getting married? Maybe it's white men, black men yellow men. Maybe they're all fat, bald too short, insecure. Too rich, too poor. Are men's standards too high?
> 
> I've tried to express what young men in this demographic have told me and I've been demonized.
> 
> Lots of really really relevant things we could discuss....but instead we're doing the gender war thing again, just like a couple weeks ago, and a couple weeks before that.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> |


Here is a great article...
The Sexodus, Part 1: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society - Breitbart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeIJBnO5gpM


----------



## T&T

Single.4.Ever said:


> Let's take 100 married couples.
> 
> Let's say that 50 of them get divorced.
> 
> That leaves 50 married couples.
> 
> You're well aware that many people stay unhappily married, usually due to money and kids.
> 
> Let's say that 25 of the 50 remaining couples is *"happy,"* and 25 are *"unhappy" *(we can substitute your own figures here, if you want)
> 
> If you accept my figures, you have a 1 in 4 chance of being happily married. That's 25%.
> 
> If you were to play Russian Roulette, and you put 4 bullets in the chamber, leaving 2 empty, would you play? That would give you a 33% chance of success. It's better odds, no?
> 
> But let's use your lottery analogy. And let's make it more reflective of reality.
> 
> Would you play the lottery if you had a 50% chance of winning? Here are the details:
> 
> If you win, you get $1,000,000.
> 
> Ahh, but if you lose....you have to PAY the lottery company $1,000,000.
> 
> Still wanna buy that ticket, son? :grin2:
> 
> NEXT!


Let's focus on that "happy" part. It's been proven that people in good relationships live longer. Hmmm...

Do you believe all single people are happy? :grin2:


----------



## moco82

Holland,

What does the gender/age pyramid look like in AU these days? I wonder what effect lesser male mortality may be having. The extreme examples of male/female ratios of IN and CN apart, there must be some effect in the Western world now that the naturally more numerous boys don't fall off the market as early as they used to.


----------



## Holland

Single.4.Ever said:


> Yes, but sometimes the truth is quite obvious.
> 
> If 50% of marriages end in divorce, and I compare marriage to a coin toss, am I being unreasonable?
> 
> *But it's also wrong to make decisions based on fearing what others will think of you. If you don't want to do some insane jump, others can do several things:*
> 
> a. assert that it is a safe jump, because they have done it before.
> 
> b. assert that the odds of living are high, so you should just do it.
> 
> c. tempt you with tales of how wonderful it is.
> 
> d. try to shame you into jumping, calling you names, such as "coward," or perhaps "little boy," or "perpetual adolescent" (etc.).
> 
> Will that persuade you to do it? Will the jump magically become safe? And the fellow standing near you says "Don't jump, because a high percentage of jumpers got killed." And you know this to be true.
> 
> What will you tell him? That his data are wrong? Who has your best interest in mind? :laugh:


Actually I said that I choose not to make that jump, not that I fear what others will think of me but because it is the right choice for me. Ultimately we should all make our own decisions on what it is we want and what is best for us, not based on fear of what others will think. Sadly too many people stay married because of what others will think.


----------



## moco82

EleGirl,

This topic has been research for a while: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2397&context=facpubs. Looks like I got some bedtime reading.

Also, it would be great to find some statistics on litigation over the dissolutions of pactes civils de solidarité in France. Those have been around for fifteen years and 90%+ have been formed by heterosexual couples.


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> Yes, it is a legal relationship, but not a contract.


“Legally, marriage is a form of contract. You can argue it all you want. It does not change the fact that it’s a contract.”

“Today, the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains, but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same. Today, the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains, but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.” 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage 

The contract that a couple signs is that they will live by the state laws governing marriage. They can also add a prenup and/or postnup.



technovelist said:


> No one would sign a partnership contract that requires party A to pay money to party B when party *B* has violated the terms of the contract and wishes to dissolve the partnership.
> Yet if someone cheats on their marital partner, thus violating the terms of the marital agreement, then files for divorce, they are still entitled to a division of the marital assets on the same terms as if they were the injured party.


In some states, adultery is considered a breach of the marital contract and a divorce settlement usually reflects this the divorce is files as fault.

In other states adultery is not considered a violation. There are many reasons for this. One of them is that proving infidelity is just about impossible. By the time the case is complete, the lawyers have all the money/assets. And usually nothing is proven anyway. And really, tax payers do not want to pay the court costs for lengthy at fault divorce cases. It can run hundreds of thousands of dollars for the tax payer.

If you do not want to have financial responsibly for your spouse, then don’t get married. Or only marry someone who has enough money/income that they even out the asset/income pool. 
There are other ‘violations’ that can come into play. Even in no-fault states, if a person can prove that their spouse spent marital assets on an affair, they the BS can sue to get that money back in the divorce settlement.

“Wasting” of marital assets is a ‘violation’ that can be taken to court. My ex stole quite a bit of money from me by paying things like is mother’s mortgage and moving money from my income into accounts in his mother’s name. I could not find every penny of it. But I did find enough to prove to the court that he and his mother had been doing this for a long time. I got the house to compensate me for him moving marital assets into hiding + a punitive finding.




technovelist said:


> Furthermore, I notice that you have not replied to my point that contracts are enforced as written, not rewritten at the will of the government, as is the case with marital agreements.


When I created my corporation I agreed to not only abide by the by-laws but also by the state and federal laws. Those laws dictate a lot of the relationship between me and other shareholders. But the laws underlying the corporation are rewritten from time to time at the will go the government. 



technovelist said:


> I would be very happy to have the ability to make an actual marital contract that would be enforced as written, but there is no such thing, at least in the USA.


You can create a pre-nup. That’s legal. 

You also cannot invent a new business structure in the USA or any other country. The legal business forms are defined by law.


----------



## Icey181

I wonder how often Pre-Nups are upheld despite challenges by a divorcing spouse?

Any one know?


----------



## EleGirl

moco82 said:


> EleGirl,
> 
> This topic has been research for a while: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2397&context=facpubs. Looks like I got some bedtime reading.
> 
> Also, it would be great to find some statistics on litigation over the dissolutions of pactes civils de solidarité in France. Those have been around for fifteen years and 90%+ have been formed by heterosexual couples.


pactes civils de solidarité in France are a form of civil union.

Islam has marriage contracts. There is the basic one that simply follows what's in the Qur'an and Sharia. These are usually used by poor couples.


Most educated and/or well to do couples negotiate a contract... many cases it's the fathers who negotiate it as long as both fathers are Muslim.

A niece of mine has a marriage contract that is about 100 pages long. It took months. 

The contracts take months and can cost thousands to negotiate. And if, in a divorce or even an argument between the couple, there is a strong dispute these can end up in court. If the court deems that the contract is flawed, the court can negate that part of the marriage contract. Why? Because there is no legal precedence to support that part of the contract.

The idea of many people inventing their own marriage contract is not new at all. The idea of a marriage contract that is defined by law come into place because of the complexity and problems with individual contracts.


----------



## moco82

EleGirl said:


> pactes civils de solidarité in France are a form of civil union.


There still an agreement detailing property division (not sure if any clauses are optional, though).


----------



## Runs like Dog

Why would they? Women that age want to be men.


----------



## EleGirl

Runs like Dog said:


> Why would they? Women that age want to be men.


We call that transgender now. The time it's done they are legally men.

Then there are the transgender men who want to women.

Oh, and lets not forget the new category... transracial.

But... I can assure you that most women have no desire to be men. >


----------



## moco82

EleGirl said:


> The idea of a marriage contract that is defined by law come into place because of the complexity and problems with individual contracts.


The kinks will get ironed out if there isn't a state-mandated option. Lazy people would soon enough have default state-by-state versions on RocketLawyer and LegalZoom. Additions and subtractions would become streamlined as well. The less exotic and the less a privilege of the wealthy, the less bumpy these contracts would get. Surely some people would want hyper-individualized agreements that give judges headaches, but I doubt they would be in the majority.


----------



## Runs like Dog

EleGirl said:


> We call that transgender now. The time it's done they are legally men.
> 
> Then there are the transgender men who want to women.
> 
> Oh, and lets not forget the new category... transracial.
> 
> But... I can assure you that most women have no desire to be men. >


I meant socially, culturally. Women that age are still of the 'I can have it all' mentality. They want to be leaders and movers and shakers and homeowners and not have kids or attachments. They want unlimited freedom, money, no strings, power, etc. In short they want to be what they think all men were 30 or 40 years ago. They are getting better jobs they go to college 50% more than their male peers, they're online, they're activists and everything else. 

Why would men want to marry them, what would be the point.


----------



## EleGirl

moco82 said:


> Poor execution does not negate the concept. I'm sure that if standard marriage "contracts" were out the window, the quality of prenups would improve and judicial precedent would build. Services become cheaper per unit as a market grows.
> 
> Also, since TAM is read around the world: I reckon it would be a less tumultuous transition in civil-law countries. (Would be a fascinating experiment in Quebec... and Louisiana?) Getting a marriage certificate would look a lot more like signing real-estate paperwork at the title lawyer's office.
> 
> *P.S. Do any insurance companies insure prenups?*


Now there's an idea


----------



## sapientia

None of this will matter in a few generations. If westernized men and women aren't reproducing, or producing fewer children, then China and India will have our genes diluted in only a few generations.

I admire Indians in particular. Educated women are highly valued, and they also make excellent mothers. They seem to have found the right balance between valuing family and contribution through work.

If my son ends up marrying such a woman, I will be thrilled for them. Western family values are kind of f-ucked up, IMO. Why do so many of us end us so far away from the support of our families? For a career? Fundamentally, from the perspective of having a supportive family environment for our kids (grandparents are great for watching kids while parents work), it's a terrible trade-off to sacrifice family for a paycheque.


----------



## EleGirl

moco82 said:


> There still an agreement detailing property division (not sure if any clauses are optional, though).


Yes, a huge consideration in civil unions is how property is handled.


----------



## tom67

This guy has some good links though I don't know how soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTFzBFTlMm0
Make your own decision.


----------



## moco82

EleGirl said:


> Yes, a huge consideration in civil unions is how property is handled.


So here is a long-running institution parallel to marriage in a big developed country that practically gave birth to civil law. Someone needs to study how smoothly dissolution disputes have gone to date. I'll do some googling in the morning.


----------



## RoseAglow

Youngster said:


> It's great for everyone to post facts, opinion even conjecture so long as it's pertinent to the discussion. But rather than have a discussion about the thread title, or article, posters want to spew off anti-men or anti-women opinion......for the inevitable gender war.
> 
> ...Tell me how this relates to: *70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married
> 
> *
> 
> Tell me why do YOU think MEN are not getting married? Maybe it's white men, black men yellow men. Maybe they're all fat, bald too short, insecure. Too rich, too poor. Are men's standards too high?


Well, again, "70% of Men Aged 20-34 Not Married" is not saying that men in this age group aren't getting married. It is saying that at the time they were asked the question, the man was not married.

This is not just semantics. Other reliable statistics, from Pew (from your link below) and US Census (Percent Never Married, 1970?2010) , show that actually over 60% of men in the US aged 34 had been married at least once as of 2010. The percentage of "never married" men in the US is nearly half that "70%" number being thrown across the headlines. 

Bump up another 5 years, and a recently as 2010, over 75% of men age 40 had been married at least once. 

There is no current "exodus" from marriage playing out in the statistics, not when 3 out of every 4 men age 40 have been married (and especially not when men are more likely than women to re-marry after divorce.) I still am not sure what data-set was used to find "70% of men 20-34 are not married" but it was clearly not the most recent US census data. 




Youngster said:


> That's a great opinion, the demographic in question wants to have the single life longer. I wonder what the trend lines for this are, if it's a recent phenomena. Is it increasing/decreasing? Do people think the trend is tied to the economy? I wonder if it tracks race or education. How do these trends relate to US?


I think these are excellent questions, actually. The whole publication that you link to here goes into some details (but not really very deeply, sadly). I thought it was a great read:



Youngster said:


> From earlier in the thread, the percentage of Americans who have never been married has been steadily increasing since 1960.....
> 
> Trends in the Share of Never-Married Americans and a Look Forward | Pew Research Center
> 
> *Many are waiting to marry, but the percentage that chooses to never marry is growing*


Yes, definitely marriage trends are changing. People are waiting later to get married. It used to be that women who were more highly educated were least likely to get married; this trend has somewhat over-corrected and currently a woman with an bachelors or greater, who married at age 25 or older, has the best odds of getting married and staying married. Education is also coming into play for men, where men with higher levels of education are also more likely to be married (in the same Pew article linked above.) This is also tied into finances. There are clear differences in race, currently. Changing trends cannot be explained by only "Male/Female"- the contributing factors are far more complex.

I think Faithful Wife brought it up earlier, but it will be very, very interesting to see the 2020 census data. We will have had 5 years of legalized gay marriage in the US, and that could take marriage and divorce trends into some different territories. If you look at the census data linked above, at 34 years, 27.2% of women had never been married (36.5% of men had never been married). I will be curious to see if the Never Marrieds goes down for either, but especially women, due to the available of marriage for homosexual couples.


----------



## Holland

sapientia said:


> None of this will matter in a few generations. If westernized men and women aren't reproducing, or producing fewer children, then China and India will have our genes diluted in only a few generations.
> 
> *I admire Indians in particular. Educated women are highly valued, and they also make excellent mothers. They seem to have found the right balance between valuing family and contribution through work.*
> 
> If my son ends up marrying such a woman, I will be thrilled for them. Western family values are kind of f-ucked up, IMO. Why do so many of us end us so far away from the support of our families? For a career? Fundamentally, from the perspective of having a supportive family environment for our kids (grandparents are great for watching kids while parents work), it's a terrible trade-off to sacrifice family for a paycheque.


Women in India are not valued in general, maybe educated ones but over all women are treated appallingly.



> Extent[edit]
> Year	Reported violence[1]
> 2008	195,856
> 2009	203,804
> 2010	213,585
> 2011	213,585
> 2012	244,270
> According to the National Crime Records Bureau of India, reported incidents of crime against women increased 6.4% during 2012, and a crime against a woman is committed every three minutes.[1][2] In 2012, there were a total of 244,270 reported incidents of crime against women, while in 2011, there were 228,650 reported incidents.[1] Of the women living in India, 7.5% live in West Bengal where 12.7% of the total reported crime against women occurs.[1] Andhra Pradesh is home to 7.3% of India's female population and accounts for 11.5% of the total reported crimes against women.[1]
> 65% of Indian men believe women should tolerate violence in order to keep the family together, and women sometimes deserve to be beaten.[3] In January 2011, the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES) Questionnaire reported that 24% of Indian men had committed sexual violence at some point during their lives.[3]


Wiki

Werstern values are f.ed up? Yes in many cases but they are nopthing in comparision to how badly women are treated in other parts of the world. Check out the UN stats
Fast facts: statistics on violence against women and girls


----------



## sapientia

My post wasn't about other parts of the world, but India specifically. Thanks, but I've seen firsthand how poorly women are treated in the 3rd world.

India is rising. There is still extreme poverty, yes, but they are definitely on the upswing. Particularly now with the instability in China, whose education system did not benefit from British influence.

They are educating like mad, learning from the West and, most importantly bringing it back home:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/2010-03-01/indias-rise-americas-interest

India: The next superpower? - Fortune


----------



## moco82

Holland, we best disregard the trolling. Throw in the sex ratio in the two countries cited as shining examples, and we'll soon have professional brides touring our countries. [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124415971813687173]


----------



## moco82

I was just about to ask for bets on the timing of this thread's closure. Hilarious.


----------



## Holland

sapientia said:


> My post wasn't about other parts of the world, but India specifically. Thanks, but I've seen firsthand how poorly women are treated in the 3rd world.
> 
> India is rising. There is still extreme poverty, yes, but they are definitely on the upswing. Particularly now with the instability in China, whose education system did not benefit from British influence.
> 
> They are educating like mad, learning from the West and, most importantly bringing it back home:
> 
> https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/2010-03-01/indias-rise-americas-interest
> 
> India: The next superpower? - Fortune


My reply was quite specifically about India. The stats below site how terrible it is there for women.



> *According to the National Crime Records Bureau of India, reported incidents of crime against women increased 6.4% during 2012, and a crime against a woman is committed every three minutes.*[1][2] In 2012, there were a total of 244,270 reported incidents of crime against women, while in 2011, there were 228,650 reported incidents.[1] Of the women living in India, 7.5% live in West Bengal where 12.7% of the total reported crime against women occurs.[1] Andhra Pradesh is home to 7.3% of India's female population and accounts for 11.5% of the total reported crimes against women.[1]
> *65% of Indian men believe women should tolerate violence in order to keep the family together, and women sometimes deserve to be beaten*.[3] In January 2011, the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES) *Questionnaire reported that 24% of Indian men had committed sexual violence at some point during their lives.*[3]


----------



## Forest

moco82 said:


> I was just about to ask for bets on the timing of this thread's closure. Hilarious.


Yeah, too lazy to care. Has the "free milk" topic been broached? Great progress.


----------



## sapientia

Holland said:


> My reply was quite specifically about India. The stats below site how terrible it is there for women.


Isn't our dialog about the future? It's like you didn't read the articles I posted. This isn't about a point in time, but the delta (i.e. change) that is happening.

Those stats will be very different in just 10 years.


----------



## Holland

sapientia said:


> Isn't our dialog about the future? It's like you didn't read the articles I posted. This isn't about a point in time, but the delta (i.e. change) that is happening.
> 
> Those stats will be very different in just 10 years.


Considering the stats in India have been increasing yearly (however not much is available for 2013 onwards) what makes you say that the trend will change? There are many that want change and the horror is being exposed but not much change is actually happening.

Are you suggesting that within 10 years men in India are going to have a major metamorphosis?

Women are slowly getting closer to equal rights in the Western world yet in a fantastic country like Aus the rates of violence against women and children is growing. How do you rationalise that?


----------



## tom67

Hypergamy lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nP1OSI-mgE


----------



## sapientia

Holland said:


> Considering the stats in India have been increasing yearly (however not much is available for 2013 onwards) what makes you say that the trend will change? There are many that want change and the horror is being exposed but not much change is actually happening.
> 
> Are you suggesting that within 10 years men in India are going to have a major metamorphosis?
> 
> Women are slowly getting closer to equal rights in the Western world yet in a fantastic country like Aus the rates of violence against women and children is growing. How do you rationalise that?


No, not the men. The women is where the change and rise is. Also the vast infrastructure investment that is happening from global institutional investors.

I don't know about Australia. I didn't observe any violence against women in the time I lived there. But probably not my demographic. What's the hypothesis there for the increase in violence?


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> I wonder how often Pre-Nups are upheld despite challenges by a divorcing spouse?
> 
> Any one know?


It depends on the jurisdiction, but generally it is a crap shoot.


----------



## EleGirl

Runs like Dog said:


> I meant socially, culturally. Women that age are still of the 'I can have it all' mentality. They want to be leaders and movers and shakers and homeowners and not have kids or attachments. They want unlimited freedom, money, no strings, power, etc. In short they want to be what they think all men were 30 or 40 years ago. They are getting better jobs they go to college 50% more than their male peers, they're online, they're activists and everything else.
> 
> Why would men want to marry them, what would be the point.


Women are not going to college 50% more than their male peers. Women make up between 50%-60% of the college population. The number varies depending on the school.

Are you saying that men do not like educated women who have careers, who have interests in life?

The hostility towards women on this thread is mind blowing.


----------



## Holland

sapientia said:


> No, not the men. The women is where the change and rise is. Also the vast infrastructure investment that is happening from global institutional investors.
> 
> I don't know about Australia. I didn't observe any violence against women in the time I lived there. But probably not my demographic. *What's the hypothesis there for the increase in violence?*


I would guess that it is the prevailing misogynistic attitudes as shown here on TAM.

Disclaimer, not ALL men. Pretty much all the men in my life are great men. But yes the men that commit these crimes have to take the blame where it lies, with themselves.


----------



## Icey181

EleGirl said:


> Women are not going to college 50% more than their male peers. Women make up between 50%-60% of the college population. The number varies depending on the school.


And just about every school is now majority female in both attendance and culture.

It makes for some interesting alterations to sexual dynamics in the hook-up culture.

My favorite was an article in which college-aged women were complaining that they could no longer refuse to have sex with men, because other women (who outnumbered them) were "out-competing" them by putting out faster.

And as usual, the focus of the article was on how men were the problem.



> Are you saying that men do not like educated women who have careers, who have interests in life?


As has been repeated, time and time again, it is the educated women who are demanding minimally a level of assortive mating that requires men of the same level of achievement that is quickly becoming a problem.

In general, men enjoy that women are intelligent and accomplished, but they are not the ones who demand to "marry up" when they make commentaries about their relationship dynamics.



> The hostility towards women on this thread is mind blowing.


The same can be said of the hostility towards men. So what?


----------



## Icey181

Holland said:


> I would guess that it is the prevailing misogynistic attitudes as shown here on TAM.
> 
> *Disclaimer, not ALL men. Pretty much all the men in my life are great men. But yes the men that commit these crimes have to take the blame where it lies, with themselves.*


Well, unless you have some solid evidence that _those men_ are posting here on TAM, in this very thread, I cannot see your commentary here as anything other than a thread derail.


----------



## sapientia

Holland said:


> I would guess that it is the prevailing misogynistic attitudes as shown here on TAM.
> 
> Disclaimer, not ALL men. Pretty much all the men in my life are great men. But yes the men that commit these crimes have to take the blame where it lies, with themselves.


Change is hard, but inevitable.

Have you read The Gate to Women's Country? You'd love it.


----------



## Anon Pink

naiveonedave said:


> JMO, and maybe I am too old fashion, but the lack of ostracism for children out of wedlock is killing large parts of the US. I certainly am not for backroom abortion or stuff like that, but the lack of father figures, especially in the African American community is a crime.


To really go into this would be a giant threadjack but I just wanted to say I'm conflicted with regard to ostracism. The major problem with ostracism is that it ONLY affects the single mother and NEVER the father. So while I agree with you about the need for a father to be present in the child's life, unless we can apply social ostracism equally to fathers too ...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *EnigmaGirl said*: "Real feminists don't require men to take care of them. They are raised to be self-sufficient. So we really don't care if men choose not to get married or not....makes zero difference."





> *RoseAglow said* : "For women who want to become a mom, there has never been a better time in history for them to be successful, with or without a wedding ring.


Pretty much.. the most I am getting from the exchanges in this thread is >> Feminists could care less about marriage... good riddance ..if it happens , once they finally laid down the hooking up , degree in hand, career in gear...making it...so be it... it's just a choice...no different than any other.... & many can now choose , without shame, to have children without fathers & are very happy ...as FW has spoken of a # of her girlfriends... 

Again.. the modern woman/ modern man no longer care... Both feel like this..







...

There is something very sad -when we resort to talking about each other LIKE THIS ...it goes page after page... When I think of a "Good man"... he would never feel or speak about a good woman like this...nor would a good woman feel this way about a worthy man....

Where does it all start.. it has to start with US.. but instead we resort to blaming the other.. so typical.. 

What I see is a more materialistic society chasing pleasure & status, success above ALL.. but do these things really fulfill the soul of men & women?? 

The American dream has shifted.. I think it was Bugged who said our priorities have changed ....she is on the money .....it's no longer about love & family...about growing together....it's about our careers, our independence FROM EACH OTHER.. and some are so PROUD. 

I did LIKE your post @Anon Pink when you said ...


> We know, through 60 years of child development research, *that children learn to have healthy relationships by being raised in families that modeled healthy relationships through healthy parent child attachment. We know that intimacy consists of the ability to be present, to share truthfully, to show empathy, and to care deeply.*
> 
> We know that attached parent/child relationship consists of the same intimacy requirements and we know, again through research, that parenting deficits in intimacy factors strongly contribute to maladaptive development in the child. It can therefore be safely correlated, through facts of research, that children raised in families that are not healthily attached will result in those children never learning to have healthy, attached, intimate relationships, or never WANTING healthy, attached, intimate relationships.


 and so the cycle keeps breaking down.. am I reading this wrong.. isn't this why we should FIGHT for more healthy marriages ??

Funny thing is.. I wasn't one of those statistics.. I didn't grow up in a loving atmosphere (My husband even felt I was emotionally abused by my step Mother).... but there I was.. I was one of those stupid uneducated young girls who dreamed of Love & marriage..

Us conservative types ....we're not modern thinkers like many of you.. we DO have legitimate concerns for the family structure.. and it's slow agonizing death....and the ramifications that will befall all of us...




> Where once the institution of marriage gave legitimacy to sexual relations and children, it no longer serves as much of a gatekeeper. This can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution, which paved the way for sex outside of marriage.
> 
> Consequently, nearly 40 percent of all U.S. children are now born out of wedlock. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the number of unmarried-couple households with children has risen to more than 1.7 million -- up from under 200,000 in 1970. Moreover, there are 9.8 million single mothers versus 1.8 million single fathers.
> 
> The ramifications of the breakdown of marriage and the subsequent rise in single-parent households are far-reaching and alarming. For example, children living with a single mother are six times more likely to live in poverty than are children whose parents are married. The same study found that children in stepfamilies and single-parent families are almost three times more likely to drop out of school than children in intact families. And living in a single-parent home can cause a disconnect among children between family and marriage
> 
> First, the loss of the traditional family structure has led to a destabilization in society of "mediating structures" -- neighborhoods, families, churches, schools and voluntary associations. When they function as they should, mediating structures limit the growth of the government.
> 
> But when these structures break down, people look to mega-structures, such as the state, for help. According to Wilcox, the public costs of family breakdown among working-class and poor communities exceed $112 billion a year "as federal, state, and local governments spend more money on police, prisons, welfare, and court costs, trying to pick up the pieces of broken families."


----------



## Faithful Wife

SimplyAmorous said:


> .. we DO have legitimate concerns for the family structure.. and it's slow agonizing death....and the ramifications that will befall all of us...


SA, what if young people are simply waiting longer to get married, and a percentage of them just never get married...and what if in the long run we find that this trend actually DOES cause more healthy marriages and less divorces? There is absolutely no evidence that this will not occur. There is no way to test what this new generation is doing. What if we just stood back and stopped worrying so much about them...and then they actually made the world better for themselves by marrying more responsibly?

That's what I see happening. A huge self correction by the young people due to their own choices, necessities, lifestyles, and progressive thinking. Their future will be different than our now. And I see no reason to think it will be a horrible future.


----------



## tom67

Who has more fun then people...
Well his hair color is not for me.:grin2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DtO724UGjM


----------



## always_alone

Runs like Dog said:


> I meant socially, culturally. Women that age are still of the 'I can have it all' mentality. They want to be leaders and movers and shakers and homeowners and not have kids or attachments. They want unlimited freedom, money, no strings, power, etc. In short they want to be what they think all men were 30 or 40 years ago. They are getting better jobs they go to college 50% more than their male peers, they're online, they're activists and everything else.
> 
> Why would men want to marry them, what would be the point.


And yet, the statistics show quite clearly that these are the women most likely to get and stay married. 

So it would seem that there is some point. Maybe you missed the bus?


----------



## always_alone

EleGirl said:


> The hostility towards women on this thread is mind blowing.


It is to be expected from a thread where the OP is basically a pile of fake stats used to rant against the evils of feminism.

What I find sad is how determined some are to cut off all emotional connection, self-fulfillment, happiness so they can get back at some hypothetical woman who somehow managed to rob him of all meaning in his life.


----------



## naiveonedave

Anon Pink said:


> To really go into this would be a giant threadjack but I just wanted to say I'm conflicted with regard to ostracism. The major problem with ostracism is that it ONLY affects the single mother and NEVER the father. So while I agree with you about the need for a father to be present in the child's life, unless we can apply social ostracism equally to fathers too ...


Excellent point. The peer pressure should be applied to both!


----------



## naiveonedave

Personal said:


> One does not need to be married in order to have children.


while true, your statement totally ignores the ramifications. Much better for said child to have a father. So much so, it should actually be a crime to not have one. Crime for the deadbeat father, crime for the mother to intentionally have children out of wedlock.


----------



## Runs like Dog

EleGirl said:


> Women are not going to college 50% more than their male peers. Women make up between 50%-60% of the college population. The number varies depending on the school.
> 
> Are you saying that men do not like educated women who have careers, who have interests in life?
> 
> The hostility towards women on this thread is mind blowing.


I don't think it's hostility I think it's a rational choice. The question was originally phrased as if there's something wrong or infantile about men refusing to get married. I'm suggesting that women have gone off in a different direction that doesn't include marriage. There's nothing wrong with it but it doesn't make them victims either. 

And yes, college admissions for women are about 50% higher for women than for men now. Across the nation about 60% of all college students are women. That trend is only continuing. In a decade there will be twice as many women as men in college.


----------



## Runs like Dog

always_alone said:


> And yet, the statistics show quite clearly that these are the women most likely to get and stay married.
> 
> So it would seem that there is some point. Maybe you missed the bus?


Not for 5-7 years later than their predecessors they don't. The average age for college educated women to get married is now on the cusp of 30. Statistics also 'show' that first time marriages at age 30-35 don't last longer at all because women have or should have more financial independence. Of course then we have to untangle the whole having kids in your mid-late 30's and complaining about feeling 'pressure' to put ones career on hold.


----------



## john117

sapientia said:


> I admire Indians in particular. Educated women are highly valued, and they also make excellent mothers. They seem to have found the right balance between valuing family and contribution through work.



Only because in most cases there's a mother in law or other extended family helping with the children, and only because success rarely gets into their head the way it does to men.

They do sound appealing as potential spouses but I have not seen many marriages to outsiders. They happen but not as often. Even 2nd generation.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> It is to be expected from a thread where the OP is basically a pile of fake stats used to rant against the evils of feminism.


I take it you have some proof that all of these statistics are fake?

I would love to see you actually support the notions that:
1) Women are not a majority of college attendees
2) Women are not approaching 60% of college attendees across the nation
3) 20-34 year old men really are getting married

You will be hard pressed to do so, considering each one of those trends have been well established and reported on for at least half a decade.

This is an interesting study done by the Pew Research Center:

Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center

A few fun tidbits from that study:


> Opinions on this issue differ sharply by age—with young adults much more likely than older adults to say society is just as well off if people have priorities other than marriage and children. Fully two-thirds of those ages 18 to 29 (67%) express this viewpoint, as do 53% of those ages 30 to 49. Among those ages 50 and older, most (55%) say society is better off if people make it a priority to get married and have children.





> A new Pew Research survey finds that about This share is down somewhat from 2010, when 61% of never-married adults said they would like to marry someday. Roughly one-third of today’s never-married adults (32%) say they are not sure if they would like to get married, while 13% say they do not want to marry.





> But the survey also finds that, among the never married, men and women are looking for distinctly different qualities in a potential mate. Never-married women place a great deal of importance on finding someone who has a steady job— For never-married men, someone who shares their ideas about raising children is more important in choosing a spouse than someone who has a steady job.


You cannot use the experiences and view-points of the current 34-50 generation in order to predict the future of the 20-34 generation.

They have divergent views on marriage, what is important for a marriage partner, and whether or not marriage actually represents a priority in life.

http://media.bonnint.net/dn/2/200/20078.jpg 



> What I find sad is how determined some are to cut off all emotional connection, self-fulfillment, happiness so they can get back at some hypothetical woman who somehow managed to rob him of all meaning in his life.


Of course, it is impossible for a mature man to not want to marry a woman. It _must_ be the petty revenge ploy of the immature, right?

All of this talk about a hostile culture on college campuses, social pressures to "man up" which come with the reward of stigmatization and denigration, and the utter imbalance in divorce and child custody laws must all be the fevered imagination of these angry adolescents…

The reality is this: These men are not "broken" nor are they stewing in self-imposed exile, unhappy, and unfulfilled.

What is actually happening is that an entire generation of men, who were told women do not need _them_, have flipped the script and realized they do not need _commitment_ in order to be happy.

It is not the _men_ writing these articles.

For their part the MGTOW guys seem perfectly fine with working, having their own place, having their friends, and hooking up for casual sex when they feel like it.

They are not the ones writing articles bemoaning the horror of an America in which men refuse to marry women at increasing rates…


Also, as an aside.
The shifts in marriage tendencies in America are, like all major socio-economic and cultural changes, relatively small and incremental when you confine your view to only a few years or a decade.

To put things in perspective:
The share of never-married adults has more than doubled amongst men (23% from 10%) and women (17% from 8%) since 1960, as has the actual gender gap itself (+5% men from +2% men).

The share of 18-32 year olds who are married has nearly halved in just ~25 years, down to 26% in 2013 from 48% in 1980.

The overall marriage rate has been consistently declining for over a decade. We are now down to a rate of 6.74 per 1,000 whereas we were at 8.2 per 1,000 in 2000. That is a 20% decline in just 15-years.

The interesting thing is that divorce rates have maintained steady….at approximately 50%.

The rate of divorce is down to 3.4 per 1,000, because the marriage rate itself has decline, not because divorces are less common.

Marriage is on the decline in general in this country and the current generation of 20-34 year olds look like they are going to send those trends even further south.

The interesting thing is that it is not the men who are out there writing books and articles complaining about it…


----------



## EleGirl

Anon Pink said:


> To really go into this would be a giant threadjack but I just wanted to say I'm conflicted with regard to ostracism. The major problem with ostracism is that it ONLY affects the single mother and NEVER the father. So while I agree with you about the need for a father to be present in the child's life, unless we can apply social ostracism equally to fathers too ...


I understand what you are saying. But I'm going to take it further. The person it affects the most is the child.

Mother and father can be held accountable for the child without putting a heavy, negative stigma on the child.


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> Pretty much.. the most I am getting from the exchanges in this thread is >> Feminists could care less about marriage... good riddance ..if it happens , *once they finally laid down the hooking up , degree in hand, career in gear...making it...so be it... it's just a choice...no different than any other...*. & many can now choose , without shame, to have children without fathers & are very happy ...as FW has spoken of a # of her girlfriends...


Then you've not been paying attention. Feminists want equality. Period. 

SA, just like your experience has shaped your perspective, I know you get mad when I point this out, your experience is not common AT ALL! But I am the same way about my perspective with CSA survivors healing and developing healthy sexuality. I am told I am a unicorn because my experience is not common.

The bolded part: you seem to believe that feminists are sleazy wh0res who only care about themselves as they seek their fame and fortune. Do you realize how sexist that is? A woman seeking a degree who owns her sexuality must also be a woman who cares nothing about the men with whom she has relationships? This is simply untrue.

If a woman has reached an age where she is comfortable in her career and educational goals and now would like a child, if she isn't optimistic about meeting an appropriate partner why should this woman not be able to have a child alone? Yes, children need two parents because parenting is damn hard, but if she can afford it and has other means of emotional support, she should go ahead and start her family. It won't be easy, and I wouldn't want my daughters to make this choice but if they really felt it unlikely to meet the kind of man they could build a life with...





> There is something very sad -when we resort to talking about each other LIKE THIS ...it goes page after page... When I think of a "Good man"... he would never feel or speak about a good woman like this...nor would a good woman feel this way about a worthy man....
> 
> Where does it all start.. it has to start with US.. but instead we resort to blaming the other.. so typical..


There are several men on this thread who are not throwing "woman/feminists bad" bombs, but most of the men are. The women on this thread are responding to inaccurate assumptions made in the article the OP posted to discuss.

And here you are, blaming feminism because of the prevalence of premarital sex. I find it telling you don't place any responsibility of the men engaging in premarital sex. You blame feminists for being sleazy and you blame feminist mothers for their son being hound dogs. Why do you hate educated sexually mature women?



> What I see is a more materialistic society chasing pleasure & status, success above ALL.. but do these things really fulfill the soul of men & women??
> 
> The American dream has shifted.. I think it was Bugged who said our priorities have changed ....she is on the money .....it's no longer about love & family...about growing together....it's about our careers, our independence FROM EACH OTHER.. and some are so PROUD.


The American Dream hasn't really shifted. People still want to build a good life, to reach their educational goals, to have enough earning power to do, have, and offer good things, and this still includes having a family. We women no longer have to dumb down to "catch a man" and we no longer have to cut our goals short in order to have a family. We are no longer an agrarian society living off the land. 

Some people are simple and enjoy the simple life. Others want more out of life. You seem to think those who want more out of life have a character flaw. Again, you're wrong.



> I did LIKE your post @Anon Pink when you said ... and so the cycle keeps breaking down.. am I reading this wrong.. isn't this why we should FIGHT for more healthy marriages ??
> 
> Funny thing is.. I wasn't one of those statistics.. I didn't grow up in a loving atmosphere (My husband even felt I was emotionally abused by my step Mother).... but there I was.. I was one of those stupid uneducated young girls who dreamed of Love & marriage..
> 
> Us conservative types ....we're not modern thinkers like many of you.. we DO have legitimate concerns for the family structure.. and it's slow agonizing death....and the ramifications that will befall all of us...


So you blame the disconnected family on feminism? You haven't been listening at all.





r214210 said:


> I'm sure those "little boys" will be just as grateful to have escaped a mother-in-law who would use shaming tactics on anyone with the audacity to decide what's in his own best interests.
> 
> Today's man faces such a Catch-22. Feminists have shaped this "Women Good/Men Bad" society in which we live. So why would anyone want to "man up" and become something society considers bad?
> 
> If he does NOT man up, he is still shamed by people like you (and countless authors of books calling men who seek respect "adolescents").


Once again, the term "perpetual adolescent" wasn't introduced by me, but the author of the article in the OP. Why would any PARENT want their daughter to marry a man who is an emotional adolescent?



> Respect is probably more important to men than Love is to women. If men are not afforded even the chance to earn it (damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't), most will push their chairs from the table and walk away. You can't blame them.
> 
> P.S. If this 40-year trend in marriage rates persists, your daughters will most likely end up alone. I'm glad you're okay with it.


I agree that women should be respectful of their husbands as husbands should be loving of their wives. But I don't agree that men aren't afforded the chance to earn it. Emotional adolescent men do not deserve respect of a man. They aren't real men. 

I think any parent would rather their child be alone the settle for the wrong person because they don't want to be alone.

As a side note, my daughter just broke up with her BF of almost 3 years. He called me to thank me for always being so welcoming and making him feel like a member of the family and told me he loved me and he would miss me. 





naiveonedave said:


> while true, your statement totally ignores the ramifications. Much better for said child to have a father. So much so, it should actually be a crime to not have one. Crime for the deadbeat father, crime for the mother to *intentionally have children out of wedlock.*


Then we go back to prefeminism when women were *forced* to marry because they got pregnant. No Thank You!

The answer, I think, lies in fathers. Today's fathers who are involved, present and emotionally connected with their kids. Those men will model for their kids how vital a father is in their lives, and not just the guy who pays for stuff. But even the guy who just pays for stuff has earned respect. I dropped the ball early on with acknowledging that but I've corrected that mistake.


----------



## EleGirl

Runs like Dog said:


> I meant socially, culturally. Women that age are still of the 'I can have it all' mentality. They want to be leaders and movers and shakers and homeowners and not have kids or attachments. They want unlimited freedom, money, no strings, power, etc. In short they want to be what they think all men were 30 or 40 years ago. They are getting better jobs they go to college 50% more than their male peers, they're online, they're activists and everything else.
> 
> Why would men want to marry them, what would be the point.


As someone else pointed out, statistics show that these are the women who form the most stable marriages. The divorce rate is lowest when the wife as a bachelor's degree... about 25%. And the divorce rate goes down the more education the woman has. 

Also as stated earlier on this thread. College populations are between 50%-60% women depending on the campus. We would expect women to be about 50% as women are about half the population.

As a whole, women are not getting better jobs then men. Women get job equivalent to those that men with equal education and experience get. I'm not sure why that is a problem.


----------



## EleGirl

Anon Pink said:


> The answer, I think, lies in fathers. Today's fathers who are involved, present and emotionally connected with their kids. Those men will model for their kids how vital a father is in their lives, and not just the guy who pays for stuff. But even the guy who just pays for stuff has earned respect. I dropped the ball early on with acknowledging that but I've corrected that mistake.


I absolutely agree that fathers are extremely important to their children. 

However, just as men are important to children, so are mothers. A child raised without their mother as a likely to be screwed up as children raised with out their father.

We need to strike a balance where both parents are equally important and children have equal access to both parents even when the parents are not together.


----------



## michzz

Not bothering to read 17 pages of this thread, so I apologize if this has been noted earlier.

While women have made strides in the workforce, they have not relinquished the divorce prize: spousal support.

Since the divorce rate is 50% (give or take) of all marriages, men are leery now about having that bite taken from them. So, they push off getting married. Then at some point a lot decide it isn't worth it at all.


----------



## Fozzy

naiveonedave said:


> while true, your statement totally ignores the ramifications. Much better for said child to have a father. So much so, it should actually be a crime to not have one. Crime for the deadbeat father, crime for the mother to intentionally have children out of wedlock.


How would you punish such a crime? Take the child away from it's parent? Put the child in the foster system?

What about children of rape?

What about children whose father died? Plenty of military kids running around fatherless now. Maybe we should take those kids away too?


----------



## Icey181

Anon Pink said:


> Then you've not been paying attention. Feminists want equality. Period.


No.

Feminists claim to want equality while doing everything in their power to punish men for heir heterosexuality, demonize them as potential rapists, alter laws and college rules to ensure that a man can be destroyed by false accusations while a woman need not concern herself with the consequences of making one, while also doing whatever is in their power to maintain a fundamental imbalance in divorce proceedings, spousal support, child custody, and criminal punishment.

You cannot support garbage like the Duluth Model or college-campus Affirmative Consent rules and also claim to be for equality.

Either you treat everyone as equals or women get special protections.

The two are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Anon Pink

I don't know why I bother ...

Divorce settlements are to ensure the children do not suffer "the material changes brought about by divorce."

You can cry all you want about how YOU were shafted but the judges only concern is that the children of that marriage suffer as little material change as possible. At least that's the way it works in my state.


----------



## Icey181

Anon Pink said:


> I don't know why I bother ...
> 
> Divorce settlements are to ensure the children do not suffer "the material changes brought about by divorce."
> 
> You can cry all you want about how YOU were shafted but the judges only concern is that the children of that marriage suffer as little material change as possible. At least that's the way it works in my state.


I live in New York.

If you get divorced in this state and happen to have a penis you are basically guaranteed to lose half of your stuff and lose custody…because you lack a vagina.

Divorce is an interesting issue; it is the one place where feminists have no issue with publicly maintaining the notion that women are weak and need to be provided for by men and that their primary purpose is childcare.

How else would they guarantee preferential results which gets them as much money and control of their children as possible?

If Feminism was truly concerned with equality then feminists would work to eliminate preferential female biases in legal matters such as divorce.

They do not.


----------



## naiveonedave

Fozzy said:


> How would you punish such a crime? Take the child away from it's parent? Put the child in the foster system?
> 
> What about children of rape?
> 
> What about children whose father died? Plenty of military kids running around fatherless now. Maybe we should take those kids away too?


crime is probably an overstatement, but in the big scheme of things, not supporting and raising the children you have (mother or father) is worse than most crimes, imo.

Rape children is such a one off, not worth discussing.


----------



## Runs like Dog

EleGirl said:


> As someone else pointed out, statistics show that these are the women who form the most stable marriages. The divorce rate is lowest when the wife as a bachelor's degree... about 25%. And the divorce rate goes down the more education the woman has.
> 
> Also as stated earlier on this thread. College populations are between 50%-60% women depending on the campus. We would expect women to be about 50% as women are about half the population.
> 
> As a whole, women are not getting better jobs then men. Women get job equivalent to those that men with equal education and experience get. I'm not sure why that is a problem.



Actually they're getting worse jobs BECAUSE more of them are in college. More debt, more under employment more failure to launch. In Obamerica, it's the college educated skilled labor pool that's been slammed the hardest of all. We'll never run out of trades jobs here but white collar jobs are dying every day.


----------



## moco82

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)


----------



## Cletus

Runs like Dog said:


> Actually they're getting worse jobs BECAUSE more of them are in college. More debt, more under employment more failure to launch. In Obamerica, it's the college educated skilled labor pool that's been slammed the hardest of all. We'll never run out of trades jobs here but white collar jobs are dying every day.


That's because the college educated labor pool got a degree in anthropology in a computer science world. And of course, you SHOULD blame Obama for that. It was all his idea, after all. 

There are ample job openings in the sciences - so many that we have corporate America crying about too few H1B visas granted every year to fill the positions for which there aren't enough homegrown applicants.


----------



## michzz

Anon Pink said:


> I don't know why I bother ...
> 
> Divorce settlements are to ensure the children do not suffer "the material changes brought about by divorce."
> 
> You can cry all you want about how YOU were shafted but the judges only concern is that the children of that marriage suffer as little material change as possible. At least that's the way it works in my state.


I buy your argument if we're discussing child support. But spousal support, as for my cheating ex-wife, had nothing to do with our grown children. 

She, a college-educated person who used to work, kept making excuses for not working (mainly to go screw around), was awarded a ghastly amount of spousal support in our divorce.

She has not lifted a finger to find employment.

It is this type of situation that many bachelors wish to avoid.


----------



## tech-novelist

Anon Pink said:


> I don't know why I bother ...
> 
> Divorce settlements are to ensure the children do not suffer "the material changes brought about by divorce."
> 
> You can cry all you want about how YOU were shafted but the judges only concern is that the children of that marriage suffer as little material change as possible. At least that's the way it works in my state.


If the judges cared about that, they would make the custodial parent (almost always the woman) liable for accounting how the support money was spent on the children.

Of course there is no such requirement, so it is easy to tell what the actual intent is.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> I live in New York.
> 
> If you get divorced in this state and happen to have a penis you are basically guaranteed to lose half of your stuff and lose custody…because you lack a vagina.


My experience with NY sadly corroborates that. Interestingly the divorces in that state that I know of were all presided over by a male judge. Not sure what is up with that.

I wonder what the difference is between NY and the state I live in where this is certainly NOT the case?


----------



## Married but Happy

Anon Pink said:


> I don't know why I bother ...
> 
> Divorce settlements are to ensure the children do not suffer "the material changes brought about by divorce."
> 
> You can cry all you want about how YOU were shafted but the judges only concern is that the children of that marriage suffer as little material change as possible. At least that's the way it works in my state.


But where are the judges and support systems to ensure the children suffer as little material change as possible when the husband or wife loses a job, or takes a lower paying job in a career change that they hope will lead to future improvements?

In divorce, there is just less money to go around as there are now two households. Not taking that reality into account is grossly unfair, and it mainly affects lower income men who can't afford to maintain their children's _former_ lifestyle and live a reasonable lifestyle themselves. If they hadn't divorced, the whole family would suffer - it should not be different in divorce.


----------



## michzz

I see spousal support, for anything other than a short transitional period of time, as a vestige of an earlier era.


----------



## Truthseeker1

Married but Happy said:


> But where are the judges and support systems to ensure the children suffer as little material change as possible when the husband or wife loses a job, or takes a lower paying job in a career change that they hope will lead to future improvements?
> 
> In divorce, there is just less money to go around as there are now two households. Not taking that reality into account is grossly unfair, and it mainly affects lower income men who can't afford to maintain their children's _former_ lifestyle and live a reasonable lifestyle themselves. If they hadn't divorced, the whole family would suffer - it should not be different in divorce.


Also when there is s second wife and family involved? Do judges readjust child support payments to ensure the second set of children are taken care of? I don't know - i'm asking,....


----------



## moco82

Cletus said:


> That's because the college educated labor pool got a degree in anthropology in a computer science world. And of course, you SHOULD blame Obama for that. It was all his idea, after all.
> 
> There are ample job openings in the sciences - so many that we have corporate America crying about too few H1B visas granted every year to fill the positions for which there aren't enough homegrown applicants.


Or just reaching to get them in high school before they get caught up in the claws of anthropology and art history: Business high school | The Economist



> RADCLIFFE SADDLER began working at IBM, where he analyses market trends, on July 13th. He applies his programming and technical skills to a digital platform that provides market research to his colleagues. It is a good job: he makes $50,000 a year, has a health-care package and a pension plan. Mr Saddler is 18 years old.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> If the judges cared about that, they would make the custodial parent (almost always the woman) liable for accounting how the support money was spent on the children.
> 
> Of course there is no such requirement, so it is easy to tell what the actual intent is.


Lol! Um...newflash....child support payments DO include a run down of all expenses and income of each spouse or ex-spouse, including how much is spent on things like lessons, clothing, food, housing, phones, etc. That's how the amount is calculated. So you have to actually show your expenses BEFORE the amount is calculated, not after.

And the amount can be adjusted every two years or anytime there is a significant change in income for either spouse or ex-spouse.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/calculating-child-support-faq-29150-2.html

How do courts calculate child support?

According to the federal Child Support Enforcement Act, each state has developed guidelines to calculate a range of child support to be paid, based on the parents' respective incomes and expenses. These guidelines vary considerably from state to state, which means that in virtually identical situations, the child support ordered in one state may be far more or less than that ordered in another state. Some states allow their judges considerable leeway in setting the actual amount, as long as the general state guidelines are followed. Others have very strict guidelines that leave the judges very little leeway.

Regardless of how much latitude judges are given, the guidelines in effect in most states specify factors that must be considered in determining who pays how much child support. These factors usually include:

the needs of the child -- including health insurance, education, day care, and special needs
the income and needs of the custodial parent
the paying parent's ability to pay, and
the child's standard of living before divorce or separation.

Courts often require each divorcing spouse to fill out a financial statement to provide a complete picture of the parents' financial situations before making a decision on child support. In the financial statement, each parent must detail his or her monthly income and expenses.

When a court sets child support, it often considers the family's pre-divorce standard of living and attempts to continue this standard for the children, if feasible. However, courts are aware of the difficulty of maintaining two households on the income that formerly supported one home. Maintenance of the same standard of living is therefore more of a goal than a guarantee.


----------



## NobodySpecial

technovelist said:


> If the judges cared about that, they would make the custodial parent (almost always the woman) liable for accounting how the support money was spent on the children.
> 
> Of course there is no such requirement, so it is easy to tell what the actual intent is.


I think the actual intent is to spend as little of the court's time and the taxpayers' money micromanaging people's lives, believe it or not.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Lol! Um...newflash....child support payments DO include a run down of all expenses and income of each spouse or ex-spouse, including how much is spent on things like lessons, clothing, food, housing, phones, etc. That's how the amount is calculated. So you have to actually show your expenses BEFORE the amount is calculated, not after.


Right, but after the payments start there is absolutely NO ACCOUNTABILITY whatsoever.

Thanks for making my point!


----------



## tech-novelist

NobodySpecial said:


> I think the actual intent is to spend as little of the court's time and the taxpayers' money micromanaging people's lives, believe it or not.


What reason is there not to allow the payer (the man in 90%+ of the cases) to require an accounting by the payee (the woman in 90%+ of the cases) if desired?

I know the reason, of course; that is a rhetorical question.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Right, but after the payments start there is absolutely NO ACCOUNTABILITY whatsoever.
> 
> Thanks for making my point!


As I said, you can renew the child support order every two years....which means, the parents BOTH must go through the process all over again, show their income and expenses, etc.

So how much more accountability are you expecting than that? Every month? Who would pay for the expense of the labor to go through someone's expenses and audit them every month?

And what about the accountability of the person paying the support? You know it is very easy to make money under the table and hide it, right?

Or are you only worried about women who cheat men out of money, while not concerned about men who cheat women (and their own children) out of money?


----------



## Runs like Dog

Cletus said:


> That's because the college educated labor pool got a degree in anthropology in a computer science world. And of course, you SHOULD blame Obama for that. It was all his idea, after all.
> 
> There are ample job openings in the sciences - so many that we have corporate America crying about too few H1B visas granted every year to fill the positions for which there aren't enough homegrown applicants.


the facts are, sadly for some, the facts. I suppose we could blame it on Bush though, because reasons.


----------



## staarz21

technovelist said:


> Right, but after the payments start there is absolutely NO ACCOUNTABILITY whatsoever.
> 
> Thanks for making my point!


You can actually request receipts for everything your child gets with your support payment. This would require a lawyer and going back to court if you find that the money is being spent elsewhere, but you can fight it.

ETA: I realize this may not be accepted everywhere. My best friend does this monthly with her ex (SHE pays him child support because she made more) - they are in Louisiana. It may be different elsewhere. She requests receipts monthly. He refused at first, and they went to court. They told him that if she asked, he had to show them.


----------



## Cletus

Runs like Dog said:


> the facts are, sadly for some, the facts. I suppose we could blame it on Bush though, because reasons.


Or, we could try something novel, and blame it on the college grads who got useless degrees. 

If you can't do the legwork to figure out that a degree in Art History isn't going to give you marketable skills, maybe you're not really college material after all.


----------



## moco82

Runs like Dog said:


> the facts are, sadly for some, the facts. I suppose we could blame it on Bush though, because reasons.


These circumstances take decades to evolve. No one presidency is complicit. No king or prime minister was to blame that only the Luddites' children or even grandchildren could catch up to economically to the pre-machine days.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Cletus said:


> Or, we could try something novel, and blame it on the college grads who got useless degrees.
> 
> If you can't do the legwork to figure out that a degree in Art History isn't going to give you marketable skills, maybe you're not really college material after all.


I'm not sure those apocryphal stories are completely on point. And if the only degrees worth having are in a narrow channel inside the narrow channel of STEM then we don't need colleges - not as they exist today. I'd be the first one to cajole people to explore something useful and practical but it's hard to know what that might be in the future. A generation ago everyone went into IT and now all those people are underemployed by India and Asia. In the future who's to say that geologists and petrochemical engineers will still be needed?


----------



## tech-novelist

Truthseeker1 said:


> Also when there is s second wife and family involved? Do judges readjust child support payments to ensure the second set of children are taken care of? I don't know - i'm asking,....


Actually, in some jurisdictions (e.g., Massachusetts), I believe the new wife is also held responsible for payments to the former wife!

Speaking of Massachusetts, if you want to earn a lot of money, tax-free, and you happen to be a woman, you can do much better getting pregnant by several high-income men and collecting child support from all of them than you could by going to college, and it doesn't require any student loans.

See Real World Divorce: Massachusetts for guidelines on the best way to do this.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> As I said, you can renew the child support order every two years....which means, the parents BOTH must go through the process all over again, show their income and expenses, etc.
> 
> So how much more accountability are you expecting than that? Every month? Who would pay for the expense of the labor to go through someone's expenses and audit them every month?
> 
> And what about the accountability of the person paying the support? You know it is very easy to make money under the table and hide it, right?
> 
> Or are you only worried about women who cheat men out of money, while not concerned about men who cheat women (and their own children) out of money?


The custodial parent never has to prove how much she actually spent on the children. Nice try, though.


----------



## tech-novelist

staarz21 said:


> You can actually request receipts for everything your child gets with your support payment. This would require a lawyer and going back to court if you find that the money is being spent elsewhere, but you can fight it.
> 
> ETA: I realize this may not be accepted everywhere. My best friend does this monthly with her ex (SHE pays him child support because she made more) - they are in Louisiana. It may be different elsewhere. She requests receipts monthly. He refused at first, and they went to court. They told him that if she asked, he had to show them.


Ok, and after he showed them, what happened?

Also, let's hear how this goes where it's the woman who is the custodial parent collecting child support and the man who wants to see the receipts. 

Yes, I know the laws are *theoretically* gender-neutral, but anyone who thinks they are applied in a gender-neutral way should be able to show a number of cases where a man was able to get child support payments reduced because the woman couldn't show that the money was being spent on the children.


----------



## NobodySpecial

technovelist said:


> What reason is there not to allow the payer (the man in 90%+ of the cases) to require an accounting by the payee (the woman in 90%+ of the cases) if desired?
> 
> I know the reason, of course; that is a rhetorical question.


And what does the payee do with disputes? Goes right back to the already overburdened court system. 

If I were a judge or a legislator, my attitude would probably be "well, you married the crazy b!tch" too. 

That could be the reason. Or it could be a massive conspiracy, even among divorced male legislators and judges.


----------



## tech-novelist

NobodySpecial said:


> And what does the payee do with disputes? Goes right back to the already overburdened court system.
> 
> If I were a judge or a legislator, my attitude would probably be "well, you married the crazy b!tch" too.
> 
> That could be the reason. Or it could be a massive conspiracy, even among divorced male legislators and judges.


In every other type of legal dispute, there are methods of holding people accountable for their actions. The victims aren't told "suck it up, loser!"

And of course, if anyone cared about the children, then the custodial parents *would* be held accountable for how they spent their "child support" payments.

But I'm afraid that this culture is so steeped in feminism that almost no one even notices the misandry.


----------



## Icey181

NobodySpecial said:


> My experience with NY sadly corroborates that. Interestingly the divorces in that state that I know of were all presided over by a male judge. Not sure what is up with that.
> 
> I wonder what the difference is between NY and the state I live in where this is certainly NOT the case?


Honestly, I think it has something to do with a very Progressive-Liberal mindset which tends to hold the men responsible for the failings of marriage and presumes women will always be better parents than fathers.

It does not make much sense to me and I have rarely found someone capable of explaining it to me in a way that did not come off as seriously misandrist and misogynistic all at once. :scratchhead:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anon Pink said:


> The bolded part: you seem to believe that feminists are sleazy wh0res who only care about themselves as they seek their fame and fortune. Do you realize how sexist that is? A woman seeking a degree who owns her sexuality must also be a woman who cares nothing about the men with whom she has relationships? This is simply untrue.


 did I say all of this.. I did not.. just because I can acknowledge the fact men have absolutely no need to marry women anymore -as they get all the sex they want... even more so.. with no strings at all... is just something based in reality..of what society has embraced.

And who suffers the most from this.... the women who actually DO want to marry.. to give to a man.. be a part of his life.. these APPEAR to be the more conservative minded women.. would anyone argue with this ?? Every woman on this thread who calls herself a feminist.. has argued how marriage is not necessary or may not even be desired.. and you're GOOD with it.. it's progress.. 

It is women LIKE ME who will get left out in the cold...due to these cultural shifts that ushered these changes along... I say this often.. with the needed changes for Choice.. many good things were lost along the way. You don't feel this way.. but I do.. it's not that I am not listening.. I read many articles.. I just have a difference of opinion.. just as most feminists and conservatives are at odds.. I could say the same thing about others here who don't "get me".. 

Beings I am one saddened by the changes.. I wanted to give my view on this thread.. 



> And here you are, blaming feminism because of the prevalence of premarital sex. I find it telling you don't place any responsibility of the men engaging in premarital sex. You blame feminists for being sleazy and you blame feminist mothers for their son being hound dogs. Why do you hate educated sexually mature women?


 You've never heard me saying I woudln't give a Playboy the time of day? ... where have you been Anon Pink! Everything we do ....everything we embrace leads to social norms...this trickles down to our children.. I am one who feels women, at one time.. cared more to hold the sexual boundaries.. in effect.. men cared more to woo us.. and treat us like Ladies.. they wanted to marry us, or at least felt it was good...

WE have removed all of this.. this is the fall out.. I posted because I am someone that doesn't embrace these cultural changes.. you can judge that any way you like.. We do not raise our sons to think it's OK and good to Fck a bunch of women... Our example before them is what they want for their own lives... nor our daughter to want anything to do with men who treat women like this, then wouldn't want to spend a life with her. 



> Some people are simple and enjoy the simple life. Others want more out of life. You seem to think those who want more out of life have a character flaw. Again, you're wrong.


 Yes.. Anon .. I am always wrong.. and will always BE WRONG .. when it comes to those who frown on where I am coming from..... I am the conservative unicorn on this thread.. for sure. This, however, doesn't make me hateful or sexist to have different views over yours or others though.. 

I worry when my daughter goes off to college in the atmosphere of partying , she will NOT fit in with the vast majority of students.. .. I do hope she finds a good guy early on.. so she can avoid this rat race, being pumped & dumped.. ..where men RUN from the idea of marriage.. I just don't have the hope for her that I had for myself back in the day.. IT'S NOT THERE... 



> Once again, the term "perpetual adolescent" wasn't introduced by me, but the author of the article in the OP. Why would any PARENT want their daughter to marry a man who is an emotional adolescent?


 I am not one who thinks that just cause a man doesn't want to marry means this.. He just doesn't see any incentive.. I completely understand where men are coming from in this ... I don't even blame them!... if he has not been raised to believe marriage is Important.. he has 10 strikes against him already...



> I agree that women should be respectful of their husbands as husbands should be loving of their wives. But I don't agree that men aren't afforded the chance to earn it. Emotional adolescent men do not deserve respect of a man. They aren't real men.


 I agree with you here... what equals a respectful man - not all of us would agree though.. 



> I think any parent would rather their child be alone the settle for the wrong person because they don't want to be alone.


 No parent wants to see their son or daughter marry a train wreck.. Myself included.. .. we encourage young relationships with sexual boundaries ... so our teens can get a taste what something REAL is all about... experiencing things together as friends, with the family... so they can grow together... and learn of each other... to see if they have what it takes.. if real compatibility is there.. I don't think it's right to assume all young people are as dumb and immature as many posts here have painted them.. like everyone has his or her head up their a** till they are like 30 plus yrs old.. depends on the person .. some are more mature at 20 than others are at 45 ... 



> The answer, I think, lies in fathers. Today's fathers who are involved, present and emotionally connected with their kids. Those men will model for their kids how vital a father is in their lives, and not just the guy who pays for stuff. But even the guy who just pays for stuff has earned respect. I dropped the ball early on with acknowledging that but I've corrected that mistake.


If a man gets a woman pregnant... his life changes...right then, right there... do we raise our sons with this moral value....somehow I don't think nearly enough..


----------



## NobodySpecial

technovelist said:


> In every other type of legal dispute, there are methods of holding people accountable for their actions. The victims aren't told "suck it up, loser!"


This is true. And I would not have any specific problem with accountability. IF our courts were not already a major CF with people playing out their personal dramas in them. 


> And of course, if anyone cared about the children, then the custodial parents *would* be held accountable for how they spent their "child support" payments.
> 
> But I'm afraid that this culture is so steeped in feminism that almost no one even notices the misandry.


Cuz feminism. Oy.


----------



## tech-novelist

NobodySpecial said:


> This is true. And I would not have any specific problem with accountability. IF our courts were not already a major CF with people playing out their personal dramas in them.
> 
> Cuz feminism. Oy.


The courts would have a lot less personal drama in divorce and child support cases if people were held accountable for their actions, as they would then be less likely to act irresponsibly.

Of course 90%+ of the child support receivers are women and 90%+ of the payers are men. 

However, this problem is not inherently gender-specific; I would have exactly the same position if those proportions were reversed.


----------



## Cletus

Icey181 said:


> Honestly, I think it has something to do with a very Progressive-Liberal mindset which tends to hold the men responsible for the failings of marriage and presumes women will always be better parents than fathers.


As something of a liberal progressive, I think you have it entirely backwards.

The notion that the woman is always the better caregiver is rooted in conservative notions of parenting from previous generations.


----------



## Icey181

Cletus said:


> As something of a liberal progressive, I think you have it entirely backwards.
> 
> The notion that the woman is always the better caregiver is rooted in conservative notions of parenting from previous generations.


And one that is sustained and codified by generation after generation of highly progressively liberal judges in the 2nd most left-wing state in the nation.

Here in New York it is the Conservatives, men and women, who find the manner of divorce proceedings fundamentally flawed and biased against men.

The Liberals who control both the electorate and the bench seem not to have an issue with it. 

Which leads me back to a basic question: If Feminists are so concerned with equality in all things, especially before the law, where is the New-York Feminists for Divorce Equality movement?

I must have missed them.


----------



## Cletus

Icey181 said:


> Which leads me back to a basic question: If Feminists are so concerned with equality in all things, especially before the law, where is the New-York Feminists for Divorce Equality movement?
> 
> I must have missed them.


It's not exactly fair to bash a group, any group, for not hewing to your agenda. They already have their hands full working for the justice they seek, and historically speaking, there's ample need. They likely don't even frame the question in the same terms as do you. Their goal is not to be unfair to men - that's simply an unfortunate side effect for some.

It really is something of a zero-sum game. Which means it is incumbent on the victims of Divorce Inequality to engage in their own lobbying for their own injustice. This is how the notion of self-interest works. If men by-and-large are getting shafted by the divorce courts, then these men will have to band together and become a wheel squeaky enough to warrant the application of some grease.

Most social systems seem to operate as a very large pendulum. The good ones slowly reduce the amplitude of the swings over time. The bad ones do not.


----------



## tech-novelist

Icey181 said:


> And one that is sustained and codified by generation after generation of highly progressively liberal judges in the 2nd most left-wing state in the nation.
> 
> Here in New York it is the Conservatives, men and women, who find the manner of divorce proceedings fundamentally flawed and biased against men.
> 
> The Liberals who control both the electorate and the bench seem not to have an issue with it.
> 
> Which leads me back to a basic question: If Feminists are so concerned with equality in all things, especially before the law, where is the New-York Feminists for Divorce Equality movement?
> 
> I must have missed them.


They ran off with Bigfoot.


----------



## tech-novelist

Cletus said:


> It's not exactly fair to bash a group, any group, for not hewing to your agenda. They already have their hands full working for the justice they seek, and historically speaking, there's ample need. They likely don't even frame the question in the same terms as do you. Their goal is not to be unfair to men - that's simply an unfortunate side effect for some.
> 
> It really is something of a zero-sum game. Which means it is incumbent on the victims of Divorce Inequality to engage in their own lobbying for their own injustice. This is how the notion of self-interest works. If men by-and-large are getting shafted by the divorce courts, then these men will have to band together and become a wheel squeaky enough to warrant the application of some grease.
> 
> Most social systems seem to operate as a very large pendulum. The good ones slowly reduce the amplitude of the swings over time. The bad ones do not.


I'm convinced that men will never band together to do that, for several reasons.

1. Most beta men don't believe it can happen to them.
2. When it does happen to them, they are devastated but usually think they are the exception rather than the rule.
3. Alpha men don't care because it doesn't happen to them. Either they don't get married in the first place, or their wives stay attracted to them so they don't frivorce.
4. Men generally don't get together for social issues anyway. They are competitive, so a disadvantage to another man is an advantage to them. And since they don't think it will happen to them (see above), why should they care whether it happens to others?


----------



## chris007

Men are largely incapable of doing this, because any man that tries to speak up against status quo is branded a woman hater and a misogynist. There are many other reasons for this, such as men tend to hold their own value systems and not willing to abandon those in need of group advancement. In other words, bee hive mentality is not present. However, I have seen a lot of progress made in the last 10-15 years and men are organizing and standing up to blind misandry and abuse of this scale.


----------



## tech-novelist

chris007 said:


> Men are largely incapable of doing this, because any man that tries to speak up against status quo is branded a woman hater and a misogynist. There are many other reasons for this, such as men tend to hold their own value systems and not willing to abandon those in need of group advancement. In other words, bee hive mentality is not present. However, I have seen a lot of progress made in the last 10-15 years and men are organizing and standing up to blind misandry and abuse of this scale.


What it will take to end institutionalized misandry is simple: the top 20% of men will have to refuse to get married or get women pregnant.

Will they do that, before the entire culture collapses due to the current devaluing of men? I don't know, but I'm hopeful that they might.


----------



## moco82

SimplyAmorous said:


> men [...] get all the sex they want... even more so.. with no strings at all... is just something based in reality..


Sounds like an awesome reality. Also a fantasy. It makes it hard to follow your post when the very first sentence is false.

P.S. Perhaps it should be qualified by saying that "Men that meet certain requirements [whatever percentage that ends up being, 10% or 70% of the male population] get all the sex they want". Otherwise it's akin to a study of entrepreneurship or disease that suffers from survivorship bias.


----------



## tech-novelist

moco82 said:


> Sounds like an awesome reality. Also a fantasy. It makes it hard to follow your post when the very first sentence is false.
> 
> P.S. Perhaps it should be qualified by saying that "Men that meet certain requirements [whatever percentage that ends up being, 10% or 70% of the male population] get all the sex they want". Otherwise it's akin to a study of entrepreneurship or disease that suffers from survivorship bias.


It's between 10% and 20% of the male population, according to everything I've read.


----------



## tech-novelist

moco82 said:


> Sounds like an awesome reality. Also a fantasy. It makes it hard to follow your post when the very first sentence is false.
> 
> P.S. Perhaps it should be qualified by saying that "Men that meet certain requirements [whatever percentage that ends up being, 10% or 70% of the male population] get all the sex they want". Otherwise it's akin to a study of entrepreneurship or disease that suffers from survivorship bias.





chris007 said:


> It is true, that top guys get to pick and choose, without much effort at all. Most men can be in that top 10-20%, all it really takes is the proper mindset and willingness to abandon traditional dating advice. Even the beta guys get to marry, mostly less attractive women who have or are about hit the wall and are looking for a steady paycheck for themselves and their future offspring, on many occasions single moms. The problem arises from the fact that they are marrying beta men whom they cannot and will not ever be attracted to. They still crave alpha attention and in many instances step out to get it outside of their marriage. 80% of men eventually end up married, but only 40% get to pass on their genes. It is not a coincidence at all. Lookup Alpha Widow, and see what you learn. While you are at it, look up womans sexual duplicity. It will cover this topic nicely.
> 
> Duplicity |


It is mathematically impossible for most men to be in the top 20%. Other than that, you're right!


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> I'm convinced that men will never band together to do that, for several reasons.
> 
> 1. Most beta men don't believe it can happen to them.
> 2. When it does happen to them, they are devastated but usually think they are the exception rather than the rule.
> 3. Alpha men don't care because it doesn't happen to them. Either they don't get married in the first place, or their wives stay attracted to them so they don't frivorce.
> 4. Men generally don't get together for social issues anyway. They are competitive, so a disadvantage to another man is an advantage to them. And since they don't think it will happen to them (see above), why should they care whether it happens to others?


Ok....so you are saying men cannot rally together and promote their agenda, make change, encourage voters, etc? Really? Gee, I actually credit men with a lot more agency than that. Sad that you think men are not only constant victims but also literally unable to defend themselves. 

No wonder you are so upset about it! Given that stance, of course it looks hopeless to you.

Anyway, your viewpoint makes a lot more sense to me now. Men are victims who are unable to protect themselves or their brothers. Got it.

Sooo.....since men are victims unable to protect themselves, I guess they will just continue to whine about their issues and do nothing about them. Check.

Thanks for explaining it so well. You have lined out the exact reason that no one takes the MRA seriously.


----------



## chris007

Cletus said:


> All I can say is that I'm glad that I never had to live in your post-apocalyptic dystopia, real or imagined.


Oh, but you already are. You just choose to ignore it. Truth can be inconvenient, but there is only one.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Interestingly the alpha male makes the assumption that the alpha female is the most attractive. (also egotistically assumes that the alpha male is most attractive. The Beta male does not need an over painted alpha female, infact he is not and can not be attracted to her. The beta male wants a faithful female and frequently finds one. 

Young men are not avoiding marriage to reduce the chance of paying child support. If that was the case the cheap and permanently effective vasectomy would be more popular than game systems. My opinion is that the young men are not interested in marriage because it does not fill their needs. My son stopped dating at 17. There is nothing being offered that he is interested in. 

MN


----------



## Truthseeker1

Mr. Nail said:


> Interestingly the alpha male makes the assumption that the alpha female is the most attractive. (also egotistically assumes that the alpha male is most attractive. The Beta male does not need an over painted alpha female, infact he is not and can not be attracted to her. The beta male wants a faithful female and frequently finds one.
> 
> Young men are not avoiding marriage to reduce the chance of paying child support. If that was the case the cheap and permanently effective vasectomy would be more popular than game systems. My opinion is that the young men are not interested in marriage because it does not fill their needs. *My son stopped dating at 17. There is nothing being offered that he is interested i*n.
> 
> MN


Wow, what caused him to stop dating?


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Thank you for illustrating that women don't care about men.
> 
> As a result of that, women vote for what they think benefits women. Men vote for what they think benefits society, because they are more altruistic than women. Therefore, no one can get elected if they don't pander to women.
> 
> The result is the misandry we see today. My prediction is that it will end when society collapses due to the betas checking out. *If you can't win, why play?*


Thank you for conceding that you did not win, and exiting from the game. I will take your comment as you talking for yourself, because you do not speak for all men.

The men who are still in the game know they aren't helpless victims of the world.

I care about those men. I do not care about MRA's.


----------



## Cletus

chris007 said:


> Oh, but you already are. You just choose to ignore it. Truth can be inconvenient, but there is only one.


No, my reality and that of my college age son is nothing like what you're spewing here. But then, we're privileged white folk, so what do I know?


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> I have won, so I'm not talking about me. I'm happily married, against long odds.
> 
> You are further underlining the fact that you don't care about men other than as utilities for the use of women; they mean nothing to you as people.
> 
> If they commit suicide after losing everything, including their children, in divorce, who cares? They're just losers.
> 
> If they give up on the possibility of marriage because all the women around them are chasing the alphas for hot sex, who cares? They're just losers.
> 
> You have forgotten the first rule of holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.


Except I never said one word about losers, people who commit suicide, or what I do care about men (you are saying I only care about them as utilities for the use of women). 

You can try to put words in my mouth all day long as you've always done here.

Yet none of those words are mine. They are your projection and what you think women are saying.

Again, here are MY words....I don't care about men who are MRA's. And it is only their involvement with the MRA crap which makes me not care about them. Any other details of their lives I know nothing about and don't have any thoughts or opinions about.

Since you also don't care about feminists apparently, should I assume you also don't care about women? 

Well, I don't assume that.

I just assume you have found yourself in a weird paranoid place that you can't get out of.

But feel free to go on and on with the projections. It makes no difference to me. What you think about what I think also makes no difference to me, for which I'm sure we are even.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Truthseeker1 said:


> Wow, what caused him to stop dating?


He has chosen to find approval from his peers (not refering to students his age, but refering to those who share his values and interests) instead of chasing after the attention of the ever fickle demands of young women in his age group. The gap between him and the kids he attends school with widens almost daily. He really is quite unimpressed with the girls who are in his circle. Even in the realm of his "peers" most of them are too unreliable. 

MN


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Divorce settlements are to ensure the children do not suffer "the material changes brought about by divorce."
> 
> You can cry all you want about how YOU were shafted but the judges only concern is that the children of that marriage suffer as little material change as possible. At least that's the way it works in my state.


This doesn't apply to alimony. 

And BOTH parents are financially obligated to support children in the event of a marital breakdown....not just the male.

Women have a duty to financially support their offspring too.




> Divorce is an interesting issue; it is the one place where feminists have no issue with publicly maintaining the notion that women are weak and need to be provided for by men and that their primary purpose is childcare.
> 
> How else would they guarantee preferential results which gets them as much money and control of their children as possible?
> 
> If Feminism was truly concerned with equality then feminists would work to eliminate preferential female biases in legal matters such as divorce.
> 
> They do not.



I'm a feminist and I certainly do.

I think alimony should be abolished. Its nonsense. I'm all for fair treatment in divorce. Zero alimony. Offset child support that obligates both parents to work and only benefits the child in the even that there is extreme income disparity. Reasonable accountability for child support to ensure its spendt mostly on the child. Default 50/50 parenting access.

I'm really getting sick and tired of females with golden uterus syndrome believing that feminism and hypocrisy are the same thing.

Please don't paint of all feminists with the same brush...its irritating.

I believe in equality...for both genders. I, for one, know I can't ask for fair treatment if I'm not willing act fairly.


----------



## Icey181

EnigmaGirl said:


> I'm a feminist and I certainly do.
> 
> I think alimony should be abolished. Its nonsense. I'm all for fair treatment in divorce. Zero alimony. Offset child support that obligates both parents to work and only benefits the child in the even that there is extreme income disparity. Reasonable accountability for child support to ensure its spend mostly on the child. Default 50/50 parenting access.
> 
> I'm really getting sick and tired of females with golden uterus syndrome believing that feminism and hypocrisy are the same thing.
> 
> Please don't paint of all feminists with the same brush...its irritating.
> 
> I believe in equality...for both genders. I, for one, know I can't ask for fair treatment if I'm not willing act fairly.


Kudos, nice to hear. I fully agree with your ideas about alimony and divorce.

Here is the weird thing; most "feminists" (self-identifying) are the radical 3rd Wavers of the modern age who do not take the stand you just did. There seem to be a lot of women who want to identify as feminists (the historical movement) but do not actually fit the feminist mold (modern 3rd wave activism).

That, in my view, is the issue.

Because those moderate feminists are functionally non-existent, they do not influence the rhetoric or the policies.

I would like to think that in the future more moderate feminists will take control of the movement.

But I am unsure. Kind of doubt it.


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> And who suffers the most from this.... the women who actually DO want to marry.. to give to a man.. be a part of his life.. these APPEAR to be the more conservative minded women.. would anyone argue with this ?? Every woman on this thread who calls herself a feminist.. has argued how marriage is not necessary or may not even be desired.. and you're GOOD with it.. it's progress..
> 
> It is women LIKE ME who will get left out in the cold...due to these cultural shifts that ushered these changes along... I say this often.. with the needed changes for Choice.. many good things were lost along the way. You don't feel this way.. but I do.. it's not that I am not listening.. I read many articles.. I just have a difference of opinion.. just as most feminists and conservatives are at odds.. I could say the same thing about others here who don't "get me"..


If all a man wants from marriage is sex, then they are already the type of man that would leave you out in the cold. Assuming, that is, that you didn't leave them out in the cold first.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I would like to think that in the future more moderate feminists will take control of the movement.
> 
> But I am unsure. Kind of doubt it.


Feminism is based on a very simple principle....equality.

I can't speak for all women or all feminists and they certainly don't speak for me. But if you believe that having a vagina entitles you to special treatment during and after marriage...and believe it entitles you to not doing your fair share....then I'm not sure how you define yourself as a feminist, sounds like hypocrisy to me.

When I got divorced, I didn't ask for alimony or child support (wouldn't have been eligible anyway because I was financially responsible during our marriage) and offered equal parental access. I feel good about how I handled things. I tried very hard to be reasonable and fair.

I'm not sure how women who financially rape their ex-husband's during divorce look at themselves in the mirror after. I'd be so ashamed.


----------



## RandomDude

Well 'tis the information age, and marriage is scary when accompanied by multitudes of horror stories!

Can't blame the modern 'consumer' in being careful with their investments


----------



## tom67

RandomDude said:


> Well 'tis the information age, and marriage is scary when accompanied by multitudes of horror stories!
> 
> Can't blame the modern 'consumer' in being careful with their investments


Like this
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3bbgsd/wife_cheats_on_husband_gets_knocked_up_and_has/
Can you say bloody MGTOW!


----------



## MountainRunner

EnigmaGirl said:


> I'm not sure how women who financially rape their ex-husband's during divorce look at themselves in the mirror after. I'd be so ashamed.


My first wife was quite proud of raping me financially (garnished 50% of my income) for over 10 years while I lived just above the poverty line. I financed her new Mustang and her weekly hair/nail appointments.

Fortunately, unlike many of the whiny woman-haters round these parts, I didn't let her behavior influence my opinion of women in general...In fact, I love women. My problem was I didn't learn to curtail how much I love them if'n you get my meaning (up until recently).

I myself am drawn toward strong, opinionated women who aren't afraid to say what's what. Intelligence is key as well. I need to have a partner I can discuss politics, science, technology...name it.

Some of you guys with your remarks, can't you see that your underlying opinions/thoughts "bleed" through in your words and actions? Jeez...If I were a woman, I would want to have nothing to do with some of you...and yet, some of you wonder why women don't throw themselves at you? LMAO!

You can rationalize your behavior all you want, but it is woefully obvious that some of you guys truly resent women.


----------



## john117

Resent people is more like it


----------



## sapientia

Runs like Dog said:


> I meant socially, culturally. Women that age are still of the 'I can have it all' mentality. They want to be leaders and movers and shakers and homeowners and not have kids or attachments. They want unlimited freedom, money, no strings, power, etc.* In short they want to be what they think all men were 30 or 40 years ago. *They are getting better jobs they go to college 50% more than their male peers, they're online, they're activists and everything else.
> 
> Why would men want to marry them, what would be the point.


Misogynistic, frightened fool. Women don't want to be men, they just want to BE.

Sorry that intelligent, accomplished women scare the **** out of you. My husband and son adore me and are proud of my success, as I am of theirs.


----------



## RoseAglow

> I meant socially, culturally. Women that age are still of the 'I can have it all' mentality. They want to be leaders and movers and shakers and homeowners and not have kids or attachments. They want unlimited freedom, money, no strings, power, etc. In short they want to be what they think all men were 30 or 40 years ago. They are getting better jobs they go to college 50% more than their male peers, they're online, they're activists and everything else.
> 
> Why would men want to marry them, what would be the point.



Women are able to be movers, shakers, homeowners, moms, all at the same time. Many do it every day. It's not done to compete with men, or to be men. It's just to be working, self-reliant, fulfilled people. Some people are happy being home, men included, others feel fulfilled doing other work. 

Some women and some men want unlimited freedom, money, no strings, power, etc. Men and women have the choice to be single, to not have kids, to live for themselves. It's not a female thing, it's not a male thing, it's a human thing. Not everyone wants to be parents. Not everyone wants to be married. Freedom of choice is a good thing.

There are plenty of women who are not interested in a career and would love to stay at home. If a man wants a traditionally-minded wife, they are out there! I have a good friend whose children have all married very young and are quite traditional. I was just at her youngest daughter's wedding earlier this month. The daughter isn't 20, she is marrying her first love. It still happens. 

Likewise, there are men who would prefer to marry a woman with a career. For these guys, there is very much a point. It was important to my husband that his wife had a job. He didn't want to have all the financial responsibility. He wanted a partnership. He is proud of my accomplishments and refers to me as his trophy wife, LOL. He talks with me about his job and asks for my opinions and experiences. It's something we bond over. 

Just like there are traditionally-minded men, there are egalitarian men as well. To each their own.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> Again.. the modern woman/ modern man no longer care... Both feel like this..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you realize that the “why by the cow” thing has been used for a long time to insult women, probably hundreds of years? It’s used to point out that the only value men find in women is sex. That we are just a slab of beef to them, or a milk cow. 

The quote “Why buy the entire pig when you can get the sausage free?” is used to throw back at men who use the first quote. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> There is something very sad -when we resort to talking about each other LIKE THIS ...it goes page after page... When I think of a "Good man"... he would never feel or speak about a good woman like this...nor would a good woman feel this way about a worthy man....


Yep, I agree that a good man would never compare a woman to a milk cow. Yet it was done on this thread. It’s been posted on many threads here on TAM.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> did I say all of this.. I did not.. just because I can acknowledge the fact men have absolutely no need to marry women anymore -as they get all the sex they want... even more so.. with no strings at all... is just something based in reality.. of what society has embraced.


Do you really think that the only reason that men marry only for sex? Really? I have a lot more respect for men than to think that is why most men marry. There is a lot more to men, women, marriage and life than sex. Sure sex is important, but it’s not the only important thing.

You are wrong that unmarried men can “get all the sex they want.. even more so.. with no strings at all...”

There are a lot of posts on TAM written by men who are frustrated that women do not fall at their feet. There is an entire industry, PUA, that pretends to teach men who cannot get dates/sex how to get it.

If men could get all the sex they wanted, with no strings attached, that would mean that most women were out there just throwing themselves at men. I don’t know where you get the idea that this is what it is like.. except maybe movies and TV. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> And who suffers the most from this.... the women who actually DO want to marry.. to give to a man.. be a part of his life.. these APPEAR to be the more conservative minded women.. would anyone argue with this ??


Did you know that there are a LOT of conservative women who are feminists? A lot of these women are not getting married right out of high school either. They grow into who they want to be before marriage.

Even feminists (conservative and/or liberal) usually desire to marry.. to give to a man.. be a part of his life..” Most of the women who self-identify as feminists on TAM are married, many happily. 

There are about 175 million men in the USA. You, or any mother woman who has your mindset (whatever that might be), will be able to find a man who would want exactly what you/she has to offer. You only need one man; not all 175 million.


----------



## EleGirl

Icey181 said:


> And one that is sustained and codified by generation after generation of highly progressively liberal judges in the 2nd most left-wing state in the nation.
> 
> Here in New York it is the Conservatives, men and women, who find the manner of divorce proceedings fundamentally flawed and biased against men.
> 
> The Liberals who control both the electorate and the bench seem not to have an issue with it.
> 
> Which leads me back to a basic question: If Feminists are so concerned with equality in all things, especially before the law, where is the New-York Feminists for Divorce Equality movement?
> 
> I must have missed them.


Yet, all over the country, these so called liberal judges and law makers have been changing the law to take into consideration the changes in society. Laws and courts change in response to social changes.

For example alimony is not the norm anymore because most women do earn an income. Mix that with the fact that most divorces occur in shorter term marriages. The result? Very few men (or women) every pay a penny of alimony. It's awarded in only 15% of all divorces. And most of that is short term rehabilitative support so that a SAHM/D can get back into the workforce.

Even California has adopted the notation that a spouse who has been a SAHM/D has to do what they can to become self reliant. If they don't, the person paying support can ask the court to end the support.


----------



## EleGirl

Mr. Nail said:


> He has chosen to find approval from his peers (not refering to students his age, but refering to those who share his values and interests) instead of chasing after the attention of the ever fickle demands of young women in his age group. The gap between him and the kids he attends school with widens almost daily. He really is quite unimpressed with the girls who are in his circle. Even in the realm of his "peers" most of them are too unreliable.
> 
> MN


How old is your son now?


----------



## EleGirl

EnigmaGirl said:


> Feminism is based on a very simple principle....equality.
> 
> I can't speak for all women or all feminists and they certainly don't speak for me. But if you believe that having a vagina entitles you to special treatment during and after marriage...and believe it entitles you to not doing your fair share....then I'm not sure how you define yourself as a feminist, sounds like hypocrisy to me.
> 
> When I got divorced, I didn't ask for alimony or child support (wouldn't have been eligible anyway because I was financially responsible during our marriage) and offered equal parental access. I feel good about how I handled things. I tried very hard to be reasonable and fair.
> 
> I'm not sure how women who financially rape their ex-husband's during divorce look at themselves in the mirror after. I'd be so ashamed.


I agree with you on many things. But here is something to consider.

From many of your previous posts, you believe that women should not be financially dependent on a husband.

But, most of the men who are posting on this threat are men who want a SAHM who is financially dependent on them. In the case where this is what the man and woman wants, it's not right in a divorce to throw her out on the street with no means of support. They both agreed to the SAHW/M model for their marriage.

If a man (or woman) does not want to be financially responsible for their spouse, then don't set it up that way.

If a couple is married for 35 years, she's been a SAHM and is not 55/60 years old, then he has an affair or leaves her... how is she going to be able to support herself?

Keep in mind that alimony is ordered in only 15% of divorces. In most of those cases it's temporary so that the receiving spouse has time to get back into the work force. So we are talking about the minority of cases.


----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


> Well 'tis the information age, and marriage is scary when accompanied by multitudes of horror stories!
> 
> Can't blame the modern 'consumer' in being careful with their investments


The modern woman has heard just as many horror stories of marriage. So more and more women are being very careful.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> Do you really think that the only reason that men marry only for sex? Really? I have a lot more respect for men than to think that is why most men marry. There is a lot more to men, women, marriage and life than sex. Sure sex is important, but it’s not the only important thing.


 you are reading into this.. it's not how I think.. but yes. the sexual union between 2 people who love each other is and SHOULD BE very very special.. it is something worth waiting for (for some of us)... there are those who use it all over the place.....and others who feel it belongs in the confines of an emotionally attached relationship and it a vital aspect of marriage...when it is withheld.. the vows have been trampled/ broken... 



> You are wrong that unmarried men can “get all the sex they want.. even more so.. with no strings at all...”
> 
> There are a lot of posts on TAM written by men who are frustrated that women do not fall at their feet. There is an entire industry, PUA, that pretends to teach men who cannot get dates/sex how to get it.
> 
> If men could get all the sex they wanted, with no strings attached, that would mean that most women were out there just throwing themselves at men. I don’t know where you get the idea that this is what it is like.. except maybe movies and TV.


Similar to this post ...



moco82 said:


> Sounds like an awesome reality. Also a fantasy. It makes it hard to follow your post when the very first sentence is false.
> 
> P.S. Perhaps it should be qualified by saying that "Men that meet certain requirements [whatever percentage that ends up being, 10% or 70% of the male population] get all the sex they want". Otherwise it's akin to a study of entrepreneurship or disease that suffers from survivorship bias.


Let me address this.. Yes.. you & Moco82 are absolutely RIGHT ...

Just because I didn't spell it out.. mentioning the ALPHA Hot men who have a much easier time at this... we have Personal , ConanHub (& Faithful Wife's husband also)...who can share their stories with ease in this area....some do get their pick with women falling at their feet....while others are salivating what they can't seem to get (you know the NICE guys who get friend zoned when they are younger & the girls go for all the Jocks & A-holes)... I am seeing this play out with a neighbor girl right now...and a very sweet guy who is her best friend.. I think she's a fool.. but OK.. we can't help what we are attracted to.. though the A-hole (& he's physically more homey even) -yet he has some sort of hold on her...

Meanwhile I want to tell this good guy..."please stop..you can do better.. she is not worth it".. something in me wants him to be treated RIGHT.. respected, cared for.. he's a great guy !..

Which is another contention I can see Men having -with women who ignored their type in their youth.. but then come looking for them after she has been treated badly, neglected, maybe even cheated on.. now she is seeking a man who is willing to settle down ....meanwhile she may have vastly more sexual experience over him! 

Meanwhile his expectations are high.. sex should be passionate, engaging, satisfying, respectful, lustful...a great sharing for both...but she has been there, done that.... So, for her ...sex may no longer be such a big deal.... Enter hurt on the part of the man... 

Clearly YES !... Women do not willingly have sex with unattractive men ... With that being said, *most women are having sex with a minority of men*...one article also mentioned the unattractive famous male...or if they feel he has high sexual capabilities (that's "Experience" ladies !)... and we all know ... Women are “choosier” than men...as we are pursued more ...

This article given on my Sex drive thread .... Women like casual sex just as much as men do 

I guess I ask.. shouldn't we look deeper.. into what a man is about, what he has to over over the long haul.. over his LOOKS, how much Fvcking he has done.. or if he is famous (status)... those are all -just very wrong reasons for "intimacy" -in my book. .. it's laid bare to just pleasure.. but in this.. it's not something special, or for that matter. lasting.. I realize many do not care about this.. I so get it.. even the men who can't get laid probably don't give a damn.. 

But again... so the marriage bed , therefore.. what is special about it.. why would it suddenly be different if this was our lifestyle before??? I realize everyone on here thinks my views are archaic... and yes.. it is most definitely harder to find a partner who holds these things as highly as I would. 

And I can easily see how men would be resentful over this.. if these men weren't good enough THEN.. why now.. cause she wants to settle down & her Playboys wasn't ready to put the ring on her finger.. she was just 1 of 100 of his lays....

There really is so much "settling" ..none of us want to feel we were settled for.. oh we can try to soothe by saying... "But she married YOU...she chose YOU" ... I think it speaks more to what is in someone's heart to not be giving it away to men who was just using the woman for his own pleasure.. but hey.. that's just ME. 



> Did you know that there are a LOT of conservative women who are feminists? A lot of these women are not getting married right out of high school either. They grow into who they want to be before marriage.


 yes. we have been through this..on every thread discussing feminism that I venture to post against the grain of thought... find me ONE .... just one on this forum Elegirl.... I think JLD may come the closest ... at least we have a few things in common... 



> Even feminists (conservative and/or liberal) usually desire to marry.. to give to a man.. be a part of his life..” Most of the women who self-identify as feminists on TAM are married, many happily.
> 
> There are about 175 million men in the USA. You, or any mother woman who has your mindset (whatever that might be), will be able to find a man who would want exactly what you/she has to offer. You only need one man; not all 175 million.


 well just as conservative feminists are in the minority... sure there are such men .. they would be the diamonds in the rough for me.. .I am very thankful -every day I found mine.. 

I just don't see this article as Spewing and full of crap ... these are legitimate concerns for some... if that wife who profanely told her husband to go Fvck someone else, the Hall pass thread... if her venting can be defended with such empathy, her right to post any way she pleases.. when she herself does not even give a darn how others think or feel.. it pains me to see others trash an article like this.. when some of us DO CARE ... about marriage..those who feel it's more than just a piece of paper...


----------



## *LittleDeer*

I'm afraid there is no such thing as friendzoned. Sometimes women and men don't find other people attractive or want intimate relationships with them and that's ok. If you are nice to people because you want a relationship or sex, then you aren't really nice- you are creepy and fake. Be a decent person to everyone because that's who you are. If people don't find you attractive tough!


----------



## Cosmos

> SimplyAmorous posted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elegirl posted:
> Did you know that there are a LOT of conservative women who are feminists? A lot of these women are not getting married right out of high school either. They grow into who they want to be before marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> yes. we have been through this..on every thread discussing feminism that I venture to post against the grain of thought...* find me ONE .... just one on this forum Elegirl.*... I think JLD may come the closest ... at least we have a few things in common...
Click to expand...

I suppose I could be termed a 'conservative' feminist (although I'm probably a mixture of a few types). I did the whole virginity until marriage (aged of 25) scenario, and have always been highly selective in who I shared my body with. 

My stance on pre-marital sex didn't assure me of a happy marriage, though. I endured a virtually sexless marriage until the age of 31, when I divorced... Did I regret my stance on virginity? Yes! Had I had sex with my ex before marriage I would have known about our sexual incompatibility and not even gone there.

Not all feminists are bed hopping 'w5ores.'


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> you are reading into this.. it's not how I think.. but yes. the sexual union between 2 people who love each other is and SHOULD BE very very special.. it is something worth waiting for (for some of us)... there are those who use it all over the place.....and others who feel it belongs in the confines of an emotionally attached relationship and it a vital aspect of marriage...when it is withheld.. the vows have been trampled/ broken...


Um, nowhere did I say anything about withholding sex. What does that have to do with the fact that most men do not marry only for sex. Most men are far deeper, far more loving and caring to just marry for sex.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Meanwhile I want to tell this good guy..."please stop..you can do better.. she is not worth it".. something in me wants him to be treated RIGHT.. respected, cared for.. he's a great guy !..


Surely you are aware that this sort of things happens as often to women as it does to men? 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Which is another contention I can see Men having -with women who ignored their type in their youth.. but then come looking for them after she has been treated badly, neglected, maybe even cheated on.. now she is seeking a man who is willing to settle down ....meanwhile she may have vastly more sexual experience over him!


And this happens to women a lot as well. A guy will chase the hot chicks, date them. Then when he wants to get married he decides that what he really needs is a woman who is more suited to settling down. Then he comes to the relationship with tons of emotional baggage and a lot more sexual experience. Now why wouldn’t that bother the woman?

Why you have empathy only for men in these situations is confounding. 


SimplyAmorous said:


> Meanwhile his expectations are high.. sex should be passionate, engaging, satisfying, respectful, lustful...a great sharing for both...but she has been there, done that.... So, for her ...sex may no longer be such a big deal.... Enter hurt on the part of the man...


Um, having sex before marriage does not make a person lose interest in sex. Nor does it make sex with someone the woman loves less desirable.
You have been married for years. You’ve had a lot of sex. Do you now take the attitude that you’ve been there, done that… so sex is no longer such a big deal? From what you have posted that’s hardly the case. So why do you think it would be different for women who have had some sex?

The woman who is more likely to not want a lot of sex in the marriage is one who has been brought up to think that good girls don’t do those things; that sex is dirty, etc. We see story after story here of men whose wives have this attitude about sex. They will only do a certain position, lights off, nor oral. Why? Because they were taught that sex is something that only bad girls do.

Change the gender in that post quote and see how much sense it makes. If the man has been there, done that.. .does it mean that he’s going to lose interest in sex with his wife.

Keep in mind that men chose to make their marriage sexless (or very low sex) just as often as women do. Why you are assuming that the guy is going to always want sex and it’s the woman who will lose interest is .. well unclear/



SimplyAmorous said:


> Clearly YES !... Women do not willingly have sex with unattractive men ... With that being said, *most women are having sex with a minority of men*...one article also mentioned the unattractive famous male...or if they feel he has high sexual capabilities (that's "Experience" ladies !)... and we all know ... Women are “choosier” than men...as we are pursued more ...


Keep in mind that not all women find the same men attractive. For example, I have often found the playboy and bad boy to be a HUGE turn off. Sure the guy might to very good looking and charismatic. But don’t can usually see right thought that. I’m often more attracted to the sweet guy who is not a knock out hot guy… but is very smart with a great sense of humor. (Not that have sex with them all, but I find that much more appealing than a fake “alpha man” that everyone seems to think attract women. Being “choosier” does not mean that women all choose the same ‘alpha males’.

It’s flat out untrue that most women are having sex with a minority of men. To say this assumes that women are [email protected] lined up to bang the very few “alpha males”. What an insulting way to look at women…. women cannot control themselves, they see an “alpha male” and they will all line up for the “alpha male”. That’s PUA/MRA nonsense. 

We can find articles that support any nonsense theory someone can think up. Just because it’s published on the internet does not mean it’s true.



SimplyAmorous said:


> This article given on my Sex drive thread .... Women like casual sex just as much as men do
> I guess I ask.. shouldn't we look deeper.. into what a man is about, what he has to over over the long haul.. over his LOOKS, how much Fvcking he has done.. or if he is famous (status)... those are all -just very wrong reasons for "intimacy" -in my book. .. it's laid bare to just pleasure.. but in this.. it's not something special, or for that matter. lasting.. I realize many do not care about this.. I so get it.. even the men who can't get laid probably don't give a damn..


‘Women like casual sex as much as men if the stigma is removed from accepting the offer and the experience involves a “great lover,” a U-M study notes.’

The study is based on asking men and women hypothetical questions about hypothetical situations. Thus the responses are hypothetical. Note that not one woman actually acted on it. So they were shown a picture of a good looking guy and asked if they hypothetically would be interested in sex with the guy.. AKA did she find him hot? And you are trying to use this a proof that women are superficial about sex? It’s a bit hard to look deeply into what a guy is like from a picture of a description of a hypothetical guy in a hypothetical situation. When women chose a man to marry, they tend to look a lot deeper than “is he hot”.


SimplyAmorous said:


> But again... so the marriage bed , therefore.. what is special about it.. why would it suddenly be different if this was our lifestyle before??? I realize everyone on here thinks my views are archaic... and yes.. it is most definitely harder to find a partner who holds these things as highly as I would.


Going by the above post, if a woman’s husband dies and she remarries, there would be nothing special about her sexual relationship with her husband? What about a man, if he remarries, does that mean that the sexual experience with his new wife is not special?

A lot of men sleep around before marriage. If your point of view was true for human nature, then there would be nothing special about his sexual life with his wife. Really?

What is special about sex with someone you love? That person is what is special. Having sex with that person that you love is what is special. 

It’s not that anyone thinks your view are archaic. It’s that you don’t seem to be able to accept that women who have experiences different than yours are still good women who can love a man. 

While this is something that you have not experienced, a sexual relationship with a spouse you love can be just as wonderful & special even if you’ve had sex with someone else before.


SimplyAmorous said:


> And I can easily see how men would be resentful over this.. if these men weren't good enough THEN.. why now.. cause she wants to settle down & her Playboys wasn't ready to put the ring on her finger.. she was just 1 of 100 of his lays....


Why do you think that women are all out screwing playboys? That’s not what’s going on. Some women are, most are not. 
Why would a woman feel special when the guy has sex with a lot of women, then he wants to marry her.. Someone he would not have dated before? Answer that.



SimplyAmorous said:


> There really is so much "settling" ..none of us want to feel we were settled for.. oh we can try to soothe by saying... "But she married YOU...she chose YOU" ... I think it speaks more to what is in someone's heart to not be giving it away to men who was just using the woman for his own pleasure.. but hey.. that's just ME.


You have talked to thousands upon thousands of women and you know for a fact that they are settling? Really?
Among the kind of women you seem to have such distain for, the divorce rate is 25% and below…. I rather doubt that there is a lot of “settling” going on. Most women and men marry people who they love. I don’t get why there is a need to paint so many women and settling (deceiving) their husbands.
Why do you think that the guy just used her for his own pleasure? Why not she used him? Or why not they had a long term dating relationship, maybe even a very serious one that did not work out?

The vast majority of single women are not out there screwing every Alpha guy, or non-alpha, they come across on a daily basis. Most are not really having much sex at all. Most single men are not either.
Married people have a lot more sex than single people do.


SimplyAmorous said:


> yes. we have been through this..on every thread discussing feminism that I venture to post against the grain of thought... find me ONE .... just one on this forum Elegirl.... I think JLD may come the closest ... at least we have a few things in common...


JLD is not conservative. Not by a long shot. She is very liberal. Liberal women are as likely to be stay at home moms and take on traditional roles as conservative women are.

Of all the women who post regularly on this forum, I believe that I am the most conservative. My bet is that in many ways I’m more conservative than you. 

Though I can find things in the 3 major parties that I agree with: dem, rep and independent. And I can find a lot in all that I do not agree with.

Of course we’d have to first make a list of what being conservative is. It’s not the far right evangelical bunch. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> well just as conservative feminists are in the minority... sure there are such men .. they would be the diamonds in the rough for me.. .I am very thankful -every day I found mine..


I disagree that a minority of female conservatives are not feminists. Sure they do not self-identify as feminists, but their attitudes are defiantly feminist. 

“But asked if they believe that "men and women should be social, political, and economic equals," 82 percent of the survey respondents said they did, and just 9 percent said they did not. Equal percentages of men and women said they agreed with that statement, along with 87 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents and 76 percent of Republicans.”

Poll: Few Identify As Feminists, But Most Believe In Equality Of Sexes

Try telling your daughter that she has to go back to live under the pre-feminist societal rule. See what she says. I doubt that you would be ready to give up the equality you have now either.




SimplyAmorous said:


> I just don't see this article as Spewing and full of crap ... these are legitimate concerns for some... if that wife who profanely told her husband to go Fvck someone else, the Hall pass thread... if her venting can be defended with such empathy, her right to post any way she pleases.. when she herself does not even give a darn how others think or feel.


The blog post by the ‘hall pass’ woman was a woman talking about herself. Surely she knows what is going on in her own head. A person can disagree with her offering her husband a hall pass. But she spoke about something that she is 100% accurate about.. she, and she alone, knows how she feels. Plus it’s a flipping blog. They are a dime a dozen.



SimplyAmorous said:


> it pains me to see others trash an article like this.. when some of us DO CARE ... about marriage..those who feel it's more than just a piece of paper...


The article posted in the OP was on very big news site. It was put out there as news, not personal experience. It does not defend marriage. 
The author makes a lot of unsubstantiated, insulting leaps to get to her conclusions. The assumptions she made about young men and young women are just down right insulting to the younger generation. And it does not support marriage. That article is a hit peace on the younger generation.

I find it “funny” that I am sticking up for the younger generation, saying that by and large they are good people who are just putting marriage off for about 5 years. I’m also sticking up for marriage, for a person to have the right to wait for marriage until they feel that they are mature enough, and have a strong foundation for marriage. Marriage has the best chance of survival when the couple has created a solid foundation. And for this I, what? Don’t love marriage? I’m sticking up for both the males and females.. and somehow that makes me an evil feminist?
I don’t think it’s fair to say that the other women posting here are not supporters of marriage. They, and I, are just not supporters of mandatory marriage and/or the idea that all people must marry by some arbitrary age. I’m all for letting people make their own choices… I believe that is a good conservative tenant.

You do not hold a monopoly in caring about marriage. Just because a person recognizes reality of our current society does not mean that they do not care about marriage.

For example, stating that today a woman does not have to be married to have a child is not saying that someone thinks it’s a wonderful thing to have children with no father in the picture. It’s just a statement of fact. The fact is that this is now accepted. And if men decide to stop marrying women to try to force women to drop equal rights, we will be seeing a lot of women having babies on their own. Babies are essential for the future of mankind. Losing equal rights is not.

To say that a woman has the right to decide whether or not she wants to be married is not anti-marriage. It is FACT. To say that it’s wrong for a woman to decide that she does not want to marry is saying that women have no choice and that marriage has to be forced on every woman. Do you really feel this way? Do you believe that women should not have the right to choose not to marry? Is it a conservative tenant to force women to marry? If it is, I’d like to see the rule book that says that. Not even the Bible says it. But you are not a religious person so what the Bible says does not matter.

I’m one of the strongest advocates for marriage on this forum. You certainly will not ever see me say that marriage is just a piece of paper. You will see a lot of others on this forum say that.. a lot who call themselves conservatives.. and a lot of men who trash feminism.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Bugged said:


> Is she pretty?
> I've never seen these *supposed *_nice guys_ being friend zoned by nerdie girls...they never went for nerdy girls..only popular, pretty girls..I was a late bloomer..never needed to friend zone anyone till I was in college..my sister was _very pretty_..she had dozens of friend zoned _nice guys_ around her...what makes you think these nice guys are profound in what they're after? That there's something that's not *just skin deep*?
> :|


She is NOT popular and NOT a knock out.. she is on the shy side.. never had guys crawling for her... and in saying all of that.. in my personal opinion, she is way above *HIM*.. he is an outcast with a foul mouth, seems to have self esteem issues... it really makes little sense to me.. he has NOTHING going for him, he's overweight, other than he seems a bad azz....,he has dumped her twice...in a matter of 2 weeks saying he can't get close to anyone , he has lost interest....

And the GOOD Guy is very smart (in the top 10 of his class)...has been there for her...and even CUTER for goodness sakes !...Not the dysfunctional mess this other one is...

Her own mother & myself can't understand it...we both feel she is passing up the best that has has come along for this girl.. who doesnt have guys coming around at all..we both feel she is passing up a good thing... 

One of our sons is friends with both these boys.. 2nd sons hates the Bad one, thinks this neighbor (who by the way LOVES our son) has lost her mind... he even texted her in the middle of the night once , the mother was telling me warning her about this kid.. because he feared for her.. ..he was looking out for her...

He's really disappointed in her being this stupid... and the other son - even said, he'd only be friends with him, they share the same deranged love of music & concerts ...(was in a band together for a short time).... but said he knows him well enough that even if he went with a girl, he'd be flirting the next day all over FB.. he appears to be one of those who is more comfortable doing it all online.. but doesn't get close to anyone.. 

HE is far more the nerd -even if a fowl mouthed one over the good guy, who is highly intelligent, and will go places when he goes to college.. the Bad boy is not even doing that.. they are both graduating.. honesty if you seen pics of both these guys.. you'd all wonder what in the world is wrong with this chick..

Maybe it's just the MYSTERY of the elusive guy .. or his deranged sense of humor.. that's all that makes sense to me. But hey.. thanks for asking. I have talked to the bad boy one on one when he was the lead singer in this band, coming to our house.. that Death metal screaming crap.. ya know.. I enjoyed his sense of humor, I think he has some intelligence in there...but really he IS an outcast .... he was pleasant to me.. I could see some charm there... 

But then I seen some of his postings on FB and WOW.. he comes off ANGRY , hateful... it's almost like a defense ... to hide or cover his insecurities.. 3rd sons GF has known him most of her life.. she feels he is very insecure .. but it's also like Narcissism too..... bragging boastful , not caring about anything or anyone. If this makes sense. Completely and utterly Emotionally UNavailable.... I told this girl..(she is a fixture hanging out at our house)..she talks to me.. if she wants THIS guy.. get ready for the roller coaster from Hell.. and still she is likely to end up with nothing but a broken heart...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Bugged said:


> Can you tell me what vows are we talking about?
> I'm a catholic and the catholic vows do not make any reference to sex...there's no 'to have and to hold' vow in the marriage rite...assuming that's what you are referring to...if you have a civil wedding the law doesn't make ANY reference to sex as well..at least in the countries I lived in...
> 
> 
> I thin the vows in the US were changed because of the predominance of protestantism..to make it more similar I don't know...


 I find the wedding vows beautiful personally.. to love, honor and cherish , TO ME.. Is about fulfilling each other's love languages..deeply caring for each other, having each other's backs.. I am a time & touch woman.. I need affection & LOVE LOVE LOVE sex!... so yeah.. these are vitally important to me...(my husband knows this all too well & is very happy about it !)

Here are some references.. to some of the vows... 



> "*To Be My Wedded Spouse*"
> This is recognition of the fact that you are not going to be just "living together," but that you are entering into a contract -- a covenant relationship.
> 
> When a couple gets married they are giving their word -- their sacred honor -- that they will keep the promises they make on that day. These vows should be sacred to them, for they are sacred to God.
> 
> "*To Have And To Hold From This Day Forward*"
> This part of the vow speaks of companionship. Sometimes young people get married and want to keep on acting like they are single so they can hang out with their friends. When you get married your closest companion is to be your spouse. Many young people do not know this, for they did not see it in the homes they grew up in -- their parents were strangers to each other.
> 
> One of the greatest things you can do for your children is to make sure they know that their parents are still madly in love with each other.
> 
> Old television programs, like the **** Van **** Show, used to show married couples sleeping in separate beds -- that is not a healthy picture of a good marriage. Children need to see that daddy came home from work and pinched mommy and mommy liked it! They need to see their parents hold hands in the mall and give tokens of affections to one another like cards and flowers. It affirms to the child that they live in a stable home.
> 
> *"For Richer Or Poorer"*
> Here you are vowing to love and honor each other regardless of whether you live in a million-dollar mansion or a rented apartment.
> 
> Financial problems are a leading cause of divorce in this country -- many of the problems start before the wedding day. A lot of young girls (who think they are grown women) marry some young man who doesn't have a great future -- then they expect him to furnish a home like their parents had -- even though it took their parents 25 years of hard work to acquire what they have.
> 
> Some young men think they have to have the hottest, fastest car in order to attract a young woman -- they usually end up with someone who is a lot more interested in possessions than in him.
> 
> 
> "*To Love And To Cherish*"
> In the Bible the word "love" is not spoken of as an emotion, but rather, it is an action. In the New Testament "love" means to "seek the highest good" of another person.
> 
> Men often fail to keep the vow they made to "cherish" their wife. When they were dating he always looked his best, sent flowers, cards or other tokens of affection and spoke tenderly to his beloved. Why stop this "cherishing" of your spouse just because you got married?
> 
> The difference between husbands and wives involves a lot more than the reproductive system. Husbands are commanded "dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7). Part of dwelling with them "with understanding" involves realizing that, generally speaking, women are more in touch with their emotions than men are. Husbands should not resent this -- but rejoice in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With My Body I Thee Honor"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible teaches that we are to honor our spouse with our bodies. The apostle Paul told the Hebrew brethren that "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled;
> 
> In marriage God has given instructions concerning sexual intercourse. Paul wrote, "Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1 Cor. 7:3-5). According to this passage, the rights of a wife are equal to that of her husband in the marital bed. Abstaining from sexual intercourse is only permissible when it is by mutual consent and for a short period of time when they are both given unto prayer and fasting. Sex is not to be used as a bartering chip in marriage!
> 
> Through inspiration Solomon told his son to find sexual fulfillment within marriage. "Drink water from your own cistern, and running water from your own well. Should your fountains be dispersed abroad, streams of water in the streets? Let them be only your own, and not for strangers with you. Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth. As a loving deer and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times; and always be enraptured with her love.
> 
> Jesus taught that it is possible for one to "cause" their spouse to commit adultery (Matt. 5:32). If a person refuses to honor their spouse with their own body they can cause their marriage partner to commit adultery -- in this case both parties have sinned and stand guilty before God of breaking their wedding vows.


I have no problem with these scriptures. I find them beautiful....though I do take issue & disagree with using SATAN as a scapegoat here...that doesn't work for me.. I'd blame the cold callous rejecting spouse (IF the other was love honoring & cherishing that is)....

My husband is a good man, he would never hurt me... I've always felt cherished ...(as for me.. I have gotten better over the years)....


----------



## Runs like Dog

sapientia said:


> Misogynistic, frightened fool. Women don't want to be men, they just want to BE.
> 
> Sorry that intelligent, accomplished women scare the **** out of you. My husband and son adore me and are proud of my success, as I am of theirs.


so what's YOUR explanation, please illuminate us.


----------



## tom67

Hey mountain are you Steve shives???:wink2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-HAbyOjYFw

The guy is an idiot.


----------



## always_alone

Runs like Dog said:


> so what's YOUR explanation, please illuminate us.


This has already been covered:

1. Stats are false, and it is nowhere near 70% that don't marry
2. There is a cross the board social change that people are marrying later, taking more time before making giant life decisions
3. There is a cross the board social change that means that fewer people are enamored with he institution of marriage, with more and more people in "common law" or cohabitation relationships

None of this spells the doom of society, as far as I can tell.


----------



## Runs like Dog

always_alone said:


> This has already been covered:
> 
> 1. Stats are false, and it is nowhere near 70% that don't marry
> 2. There is a cross the board social change that people are marrying later, taking more time before making giant life decisions
> 3. There is a cross the board social change that means that fewer people are enamored with he institution of marriage, with more and more people in "common law" or cohabitation relationships
> 
> None of this spells the doom of society, as far as I can tell.


So reality is wrong everything is fine. Ok then. But I do agree it really doesn't matter either way. All we need do is stop having laws that favor marriage. Eliminate them. Eliminate living wills and probate courts, medical proxies, tax deductions. Eliminate restrictions on who can sign a mortgage or a lease or a deed. Eliminate the notion that a 'family' has any legal construct at all. I'm actually in favor of it.


----------



## Married but Happy

The stats can be misleading. This Pew report is a good indication of reality. For instance, in 2010, 47% of adults 25 to 34 have never been married. "If current trends continue, 25% of young adults in the most recent cohort (ages 25 to 34 in 2010) will have never married by 2030. That would be the highest share in modern history." Most people do get married, but do so a little later in life.

Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center

Also note: "Many never-married young adults are not “single.” According to Pew Research analysis of the March 2013 Current Population Survey, about 24% of never-married Americans ages 25 to 34 currently live with a partner."


----------



## tom67

Runs like Dog said:


> So reality is wrong everything is fine. Ok then. But I do agree it really doesn't matter either way. All we need do is stop having laws that favor marriage. Eliminate them. Eliminate living wills and probate courts, medical proxies, tax deductions. Eliminate restrictions on who can sign a mortgage or a lease or a deed. Eliminate the notion that a 'family' has any legal construct at all. I'm actually in favor of it.


:iagree::iagree:
Why do you have to get a marriage license and sign a contract with the state.
70% of Japanese men are checking out their birthrate is dismal.

Japanese Herbivore Men, and How it Hurts the Global Economy (x/post from /r/Economics) : TheRedPill


----------



## always_alone

Runs like Dog said:


> So reality is wrong everything is fine. Ok then. But I do agree it really doesn't matter either way. All we need do is stop having laws that favor marriage. Eliminate them. Eliminate living wills and probate courts, medical proxies, tax deductions. Eliminate restrictions on who can sign a mortgage or a lease or a deed. Eliminate the notion that a 'family' has any legal construct at all. I'm actually in favor of it.


Reality is wrong? I don't think so. What's wrong is the interpretation of it.

Don't like legislation because it's biased? Work to change it. Fact is laws are changing all the time. Homosexuals are rapidly gaining the right to marry across the globe. Men can work to ensure division of property is equitable upon divorce. Indeed, this is already happening despite efforts here to pretend that it's not.

The "I can't do anything but sit on my a$$ and blame feminists" mentality isn't terribly productive, and is certainly not reflective of reality.


----------



## Runs like Dog

always_alone said:


> Reality is wrong? I don't think so. What's wrong is the interpretation of it.
> 
> Don't like legislation because it's biased? Work to change it. Fact is laws are changing all the time. Homosexuals are rapidly gaining the right to marry across the globe. Men can work to ensure division of property is equitable upon divorce. Indeed, this is already happening despite efforts here to pretend that it's not.
> 
> The "I can't do anything but sit on my a$$ and blame feminists" mentality isn't terribly productive, and is certainly not reflective of reality.



I wasn't kidding though. I'm not blaming feminists. I'm point our you're more or less right. Now stop complaining you got what you wanted.


----------



## EleGirl

Runs like Dog said:


> So reality is wrong everything is fine. Ok then. But I do agree it really doesn't matter either way. All we need do is stop having laws that favor marriage. Eliminate them. Eliminate living wills and probate courts, medical proxies, tax deductions. Eliminate restrictions on who can sign a mortgage or a lease or a deed. Eliminate the notion that a 'family' has any legal construct at all. I'm actually in favor of it.


I have another idea. 

Leave marriage as it is for those who want to marry.

Those who don't want to marry can just not marry.


----------



## EleGirl

tom67 said:


> Hey mountain are you Steve shives???:wink2:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-HAbyOjYFw
> 
> The guy is an idiot.


We are getting two things here from a few current threads on TAM.

1) women lie, there is not a problem with rape and sexual assault, the numbers grossly inflated.

2) men are raped and sexually assaulted as often as women are, the numbers who it.

So are you now saying that men are lying about their own rape and sexual assault? It cannot be both ways.


----------



## EleGirl

Runs like Dog said:


> I wasn't kidding though. I'm not blaming feminists. I'm point our you're more or less right. *Now stop complaining you got what you wanted*.


:scratchhead: What did she want that she now 'got'? Can you clarify?


----------



## RoseAglow

Runs like Dog said:


> So reality is wrong everything is fine. Ok then. But I do agree it really doesn't matter either way. All we need do is stop having laws that favor marriage. Eliminate them. Eliminate living wills and probate courts, medical proxies, tax deductions. Eliminate restrictions on who can sign a mortgage or a lease or a deed. Eliminate the notion that a 'family' has any legal construct at all. I'm actually in favor of it.


Why eliminate anything? Single and married people can write up their own living will, and their own will to determine who gets what after you die. They can determine their own medical proxy/power of attorney. Unmarried people can sign a mortgage, or lease an apartment. Unmarried people are still parents, children, and still get family benefits like Family Medical Care and Leave Act, Bereavement Leave, etc. Single people are still part of families. 

Being married or not doesn't affect any of those items. Marital status is a protected class against discrimination, and that includes people whose marital class is NOT married.


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> I agree with you on many things. But here is something to consider.
> 
> From many of your previous posts, you believe that women should not be financially dependent on a husband.
> 
> But, most of the men who are posting on this threat are men who want a SAHM who is financially dependent on them. In the case where this is what the man and woman wants, it's not right in a divorce to throw her out on the street with no means of support. They both agreed to the SAHW/M model for their marriage.
> QUOTE]
> If you look at the data that is out there, most women, even filthy rich women don't respect or won't marry a man that is not the breadwinner.


----------



## RoseAglow

naiveonedave said:


> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on many things. But here is something to consider.
> 
> From many of your previous posts, you believe that women should not be financially dependent on a husband.
> 
> But, most of the men who are posting on this threat are men who want a SAHM who is financially dependent on them. In the case where this is what the man and woman wants, it's not right in a divorce to throw her out on the street with no means of support. They both agreed to the SAHW/M model for their marriage.
> QUOTE]
> If you look at the data that is out there, most women, even filthy rich women don't respect or won't marry a man that is not the breadwinner.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the data shows that women want a man who has a good/stable job, not necessarily that they are the person who makes the most money.
> 
> This is going to be one of the interesting trends to watch, as more women become the breadwinners.
Click to expand...


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on many things. But here is something to consider.
> 
> From many of your previous posts, you believe that women should not be financially dependent on a husband.
> 
> But, most of the men who are posting on this threat are men who want a SAHM who is financially dependent on them. In the case where this is what the man and woman wants, it's not right in a divorce to throw her out on the street with no means of support. They both agreed to the SAHW/M model for their marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at the data that is out there, most women, even filthy rich women don't respect or won't marry a man that is not the breadwinner.
Click to expand...

About 50% of all married women earn as much, or more than their husbands.

Women want men who are productive members of society.


----------



## always_alone

EleGirl said:


> I have another idea.
> 
> Leave marriage as it is for those who want to marry.
> 
> Those who don't want to marry can just not marry.


So simple, so elegant, so easy!


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> Women want men who are productive members of society.


that is not what the data shows. They want men who have more resources than they do.


----------



## Nynaeve

SimplyAmorous said:


> yes. we have been through this..on every thread discussing feminism that I venture to post against the grain of thought... find me ONE .... just one on this forum Elegirl.... I think JLD may come the closest ... at least we have a few things in common...


*Raises hand*

I think I fit the description.

I was 34 when I had sex for the first time. With my husband. I was waiting until marriage for personal and religious reasons.

I'm also a stay at home mom (and I work part time from home). I don't believe that's what women have to be but for me, I think that's the best choice for my children.

Honestly, your posts often offend me when you talk about feminism. You seem to think that just because I care about women's equality that means I'm promiscuous, cold-hearted, man hating. Whatever. You believe the negative stereotypes and you stubbornly refuse to open your heart to women you prejudge. It's a shame. You usually seem like a compassionate and empathetic person. But you've made feminists "the other" and so you seem unable to empathize with us.


I know a TON of women just like me. We hang out online at the Facebook group "Christians for Biblical Equality" and blogs like Rachel Held Evans, Sarah Bessey, etc.

You should check out the book by Sarah Bessey called Jesus Feminist. It's a best seller. Because a lot of Christians with conservative morals (i.e. not promiscuous, believe in the sanctity of marriage and sex) are also feminists.

It's not as rare as you suggest. Maybe on TAM. But TAM isn't morally conservative for the most part.


----------



## RoseAglow

Nynaeve said:


> Honestly, your posts often offend me when you talk about feminism. You seem to think that just because I care about women's equality that means I'm promiscuous, cold-hearted, man hating. Whatever. You believe the negative stereotypes and you stubbornly refuse to open your heart to women you prejudge. It's a shame. You usually seem like a compassionate and empathetic person. But you've made feminists "the other" and so you seem unable to empathize with us.


I want to stand up SA here. I have had a lot of interaction with her, I am a feminist, working woman, I've had numerous boyfriends before finally settling down/getting married in my mid/late 30s. I have never felt judged by SA, she has always been warm and gracious with me.

It used to be the expectation that women and men would marry young, and would be virginal at marriage. This is changing, and I've always thought that this was the issue for SA. There aren't many people who follow this path. It is devalued now, there is a new expected path. I think she feels that this path is still valuable, even if overall, people disagree. 

I don't meant to speak for you, Simply Amorous; this has been my interpretation of your posts. 

I do think some people still follow this path. At this point in time, I think it's possible to find like-minded people in churches, online, etc. It is not a common path but it's still available.


----------



## Runs like Dog

EleGirl said:


> I have another idea.
> 
> Leave marriage as it is for those who want to marry.
> 
> Those who don't want to marry can just not marry.


The problem with that is that there are very large and important legal differences in the status of mates between those two things.


----------



## Runs like Dog

EleGirl said:


> :scratchhead: What did she want that she now 'got'? Can you clarify?


Yes, women wanted to pierce all those glass ceiling-ish restrictions and now that that's finally w/i reach it seems that many of them are just as miserable. Go be astronauts, go be titans of industry. You deserve it. But please stop complaining that equality isn't fulfilling.


----------



## Runs like Dog

RoseAglow said:


> Why eliminate anything? Single and married people can write up their own living will, and their own will to determine who gets what after you die. They can determine their own medical proxy/power of attorney. Unmarried people can sign a mortgage, or lease an apartment. Unmarried people are still parents, children, and still get family benefits like Family Medical Care and Leave Act, Bereavement Leave, etc. Single people are still part of families.
> 
> Being married or not doesn't affect any of those items. Marital status is a protected class against discrimination, and that includes people whose marital class is NOT married.



Ever tried to pull the plug on someone you're not married to? Ever get in a probate fight with the parents of your dead life partner? Ever try to get two unmarried people on the same loan agreement? Ever wind up in family court for parental rights over children of your ex life partner when they have their own survivors getting the state to take your kids away? Ever worry about survivor benefits under Social Security when you're not married to the decedent?


----------



## RoseAglow

Runs like Dog said:


> Yes, women wanted to pierce all those glass ceiling-ish restrictions and now that that's finally w/i reach it seems that many of them are just as miserable. Go be astronauts, go be titans of industry. You deserve it. But please stop complaining that equality isn't fulfilling.


I can't speak for others, but equality has been nutritious and fulfilling for me, LOL. I certainly would never want to go back.


----------



## Nynaeve

RoseAglow said:


> I want to stand up SA here. I have had a lot of interaction with her, I am a feminist, working woman, I've had numerous boyfriends before finally settling down/getting married in my mid/late 30s. I have never felt judged by SA, she has always been warm and gracious with me.


I'm not saying she's a bad person.

But I have often felt judged by her. The fact that you haven't doesn't change anything.

And if she's as warm and gracious as you say, then maybe that will mean something to her and make her consider her choices.




> It used to be the expectation that women and men would marry young, and would be virginal at marriage. This is changing, and I've always thought that this was the issue for SA. There aren't many people who follow this path. It is devalued now, there is a new expected path. I think she feels that this path is still valuable, even if overall, people disagree.
> 
> I don't meant to speak for you, Simply Amorous; this has been my interpretation of your posts.
> 
> I do think some people still follow this path. At this point in time, I think it's possible to find like-minded people in churches, online, etc. It is not a common path but it's still available.


I wanted that path. My "plan" was to get married by 22 and have kids in my 20s.

It didn't happen because life isn't always that easy to plan. I'm not one of these hot women who just has to bat her eyelashes and has men lining up for her. And I had standards. Like thinking sex was something worth waiting for, something special, something I wasn't going to do outside of a committed relationship. So that narrowed my options quite a bit.

That's what is disheartening about SA's posts. I have very similar views about sex as she does. And it is exactly those views that made it impossible for me, personally, to follow that "marry early and have kids" path.

Whether she means to be or not, she's judgmental. She's unkind. Because she believes a falsehood.


----------



## always_alone

RoseAglow said:


> I can't speak for others, but equality has been nutritious and fulfilling for me, LOL. I certainly would never want to go back.


Ditto. I can't recall ever complaining about it. Indeed, it's the only way I can imagine being fulfilled and happy!


----------



## RoseAglow

Runs like Dog said:


> Ever tried to pull the plug on someone you're not married to?


Yes. I didn't get married until my late 30s. I had several long-term relationships. ETA: I am assuming by "pull the plug" you mean break the relationship, not pull the plug for life support in which case, please read further down.



> Ever get in a probate fight with the parents of your dead life partner?


Thankfully, no. I note, though, that even married people have legal fights with their dead spouse's parents. Terri Schriver comes to mind, and Kasey Casum.



> Ever try to get two unmarried people on the same loan agreement?


My SIL and her boyfriend have their own house. They are on the same loan. It's not at all impossible. I've shared a lease with several men, some of them platonic roommates.



> Ever wind up in family court for parental rights over children of your ex life partner when they have their own survivors getting the state to take your kids away?


My husband helped raise his step-daughter from the time she was 1 until she was 10. When his marriage broke up, he lost all contact with his step-daughter. He considered her a daughter. He sometimes still gets upset wondering if she is safe. Being married didn't help him at all.



> Ever worry about survivor benefits under Social Security when you're not married to the decedent?


This is a true benefit of being married. It's one of those items where marriage provides "extraordinary care" over any other romantic relationship. It's up to each individual to decide whether or not getting married is worth the SS benefits. Nearly any other post-death benefit can be provided (401k, pension, bank accounts) etc. in a will.


----------



## Nynaeve

Runs like Dog said:


> Yes, women wanted to pierce all those glass ceiling-ish restrictions and now that that's finally w/i reach it seems that many of them are just as miserable. Go be astronauts, go be titans of industry. You deserve it. But please stop complaining that equality isn't fulfilling.


I think it's hilarious that you think you can convince us all that we're unhappy and unfulfilled just by telling us that's how we feel.

Oh good! A man is here to tell us wimmins how we feel about things. It's about time. Our poor little lady brainz have been overworked with trying to figure out what all these feels inside of us mean.


----------



## RoseAglow

Nynaeve said:


> I'm not saying she's a bad person.
> 
> But I have often felt judged by her. The fact that you haven't doesn't change anything.
> 
> And if she's as warm and gracious as you say, then maybe that will mean something to her and make her consider her choices.


IME she is very warm and gracious, and also pretty firey. I doubt she will change her opinion/values because they are heart-felt. If I could play God, I'd wish to open her heart more to feminism, because I don't think it dangerous to her. But I don't get to do that, she is entitled to her opinion, her experience is very different than mine, and I could be outright wrong, anyway! 



> I wanted that path. My "plan" was to get married by 22 and have kids in my 20s.
> 
> It didn't happen because life isn't always that easy to plan. I'm not one of these hot women who just has to bat her eyelashes and has men lining up for her. And I had standards. Like thinking sex was something worth waiting for, something special, something I wasn't going to do outside of a committed relationship. So that narrowed my options quite a bit.
> 
> That's what is disheartening about SA's posts. I have very similar views about sex as she does. And it is exactly those views that made it impossible for me, personally, to follow that "marry early and have kids" path.


I think your story is very cool. It is awesome to see a woman who stuck to her values. Even if you didn't marry young, you still got the family that you wanted, with the values that were important to you. 



> Whether she means to be or not, she's judgmental. She's unkind. Because she believes a falsehood.


TAM can be a rough place sometimes. I think ultimately, we are all judgmental. You prove that it is possible for a woman to avoid the hook-up culture and still get married, have a family. I hope that your experience gives SA some hope that she isn't the last of a dying breed. I hope it gives any lurkers the same message. Feminism hasn't killed that possibility.


----------



## EleGirl

Runs like Dog said:


> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have another idea.
> 
> Leave marriage as it is for those who want to marry.
> 
> Those who don't want to marry can just not marry.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that there are very large and important legal differences in the status of mates between those two things.
Click to expand...

Why is that a problem?

Some people think that marriage is just a piece of paper. They are wrong as you point out.

It is good to hsve different legal constructs so that people can chose their own path in life.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Mr. Nail said:


> My opinion is that the young men are not interested in marriage because it does not fill their needs. My son stopped dating at 17. There is nothing being offered that he is interested in.





Truthseeker1 said:


> Wow, what caused him to stop dating?





EleGirl said:


> How old is your son now?


I posted an incomplete thought here and because it has to do with the topic of the thread (young men choosing not to marry) And has nothing to do with child support, feminisms goals or any of the other current side trails. For that reason and the doirect questions I'm going to try to answer it completely and fill in the gaps. Here is the tale of one young man's decission to stop pursuing relationships with women.

My Son who is 17 1/2 years old. Stopped dating about a year ago. No enticements have succeded in getting him to reenter that world. Truth seeker thinks that a certain event may have led to that. That is probably in part true. S17 has had 5 girls who payed significant roles in his life. K, J, S, C, and B. 

K was the first and longest. she is the hometown girl who was always there. At around 13, she thought S17 had hung the moon and could do no wrong. Well young crush's are like that. Fortunatly the relationshop survived the disillusionment typical to relationships in Junor high. They have many shared evperiences but are in a permanent friend zone for atleast the past 2 years. Over that time he has been the shoulder as she has gone through boyfriend after boyfriend, breakup after breakup. He is the friend who brings her a pint of ben and jerrys when she is crying over the latest sorrow.

J was a torent short term thing. She was attracted to S17 because of his moody, angsty attitude. She wanted to be the light and joy in his life. He failed to fill that need for her and she turned on him like a rabid dog. Although their school and social circles interact they avoid eachother.

S is the one that broke him IMHO. S is a shy girl with a smile that will melt your heart. They were as inseperable as was possible due to work rules for 3-4 weeks. Then the relationship entered a LTR phase. With e-mail and cell phones they still remained quite close. In fact she became more and more brazen as the months passed. It became clear to me that she was using him as a toy to show to her girl friends. She wrote nice letters in the evening and daring letters at lunch. Eventually, she found another interest and she dropped him like yesterdays newspaper. To her he was a toy or an ornament. To him she was the ONE. This happened between 15 1/2 and 16. 

B was his one and only official Date. she was 2 years older than him. She showed him enough respect to stay interested untill she moved on to college. He liked her but was aware of the limitations of the situation and kept his heart close.

C, is the girl next door (actually a block away) She has always been interested in him. I suspect she has by now given up hope on him ever making a move. His attitude towars her is friendly, but non-committal. 

S17 has one year left in HS. He has spent some serious time working with the Navy recruiters. They can offer him a path to a carrer in a field he will do well in. His path for the next 8 years is pretty well lined out. There is no place in it for marriage. And, that dosen't bother him. He sees girls as overly (dramatically) emotional, and unpredictable. Some of that is certainly a result of his relationship with K. 

He really doesn't want to be involved again as a prop in her drama. He is too young yet to have given up on the idea of marriage, eventually. Prom for his Senior year? No he won't be asking anyone. If C were to ask him to Girls Choioce he wouldn't leave her hanging, but it would be as no strings attached, friends only. 

In short he believes girls only want guys as accessorys. He is not interested in that role. In his Venturing group there are a few girls. He is restricted from dating them and has learned his lesson on that. When I ask him about them. He explains who is compeating with whom for what and why he is avoiding getting involved.

There are a few adult women in his life who he respects greatly and would do whatever for. Perhaps he will meet one who is his age and available in the next 8-12 years. That could be interesting, might even work.

How does dad feel about this? Well given the options he has . . . . I would do the same.
MN


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> But, most of the men who are posting on this threat are men who want a SAHM who is financially dependent on them. In the case where this is what the man and woman wants, it's not right in a divorce to throw her out on the street with no means of support. They both agreed to the SAHW/M model for their marriage.
> 
> If a man (or woman) does not want to be financially responsible for their spouse, then don't set it up that way.


The contractual obligation during marriage is between the two people that set-up the arrangement. But that obligation...like any contractual obligation...ends under termination of the contract.

The partner that doesn't bother to work should assume the risk of their decision during the active contract because the working spouse assumes the burden of supporting that spouse during the contract.

After its over...you get off your butt and get a job....gravy train ends. 

15% of divorces ending in alimony judgments is wayyyyyy too much.

In addition, the CS tables are skewed because they don't impute an income to the non-working spouse and it penalizes the one spouse who does bother to earn a living during marriage. Both parents should be obligated by the courts to have to financially support children...not just one.

This isn't about what people choose during marriage. Its about acknowledging that adult choices have equal adult consequences for BOTH genders in the event of a marital dissolution.

You want to sit around and not work? There's a risk to that decision. Adult women are grown-ups...not toddlers...and need to own the consequences of their choices.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Yes, women wanted to pierce all those glass ceiling-ish restrictions and now that that's finally w/i reach it seems that many of them are just as miserable. Go be astronauts, go be titans of industry. You deserve it. But please stop complaining that equality isn't fulfilling.


lol...I'm certainly not miserable....neither are any of the career women in my circle. We're extremely happy women who spend most of our time trying to figure out how to use the myriad of choices we have because we worked hard most of our lives.

The only complain I've ever had in my career was simply that I had to debate my pay scale when I moved into executive management at my company. For some reason, they thought it was ok to modify the pay scale...and coincidentally, I was the 1st and am the only female executive manager at my company.

Eventually I won the battle but it was ridiculous I even had to have it.

They need more legislation to ensure equal pay for women. Other than that....life is freaking awesome!



> that is not what the data shows. They want men who have more resources than they do.


My husband probably makes more money than I do...I'm not exactly sure but his money is his money.

I make and manage my own money. 

I definitely would never support a man...nor do I think that men should support women...but my husband's actual income is his business.


----------



## NobodySpecial

RoseAglow said:


> IME she is very warm and gracious, and also pretty firey. I doubt she will change her opinion/values because they are heart-felt.


I have never really understood this. Opinions should be based on thinking, not feeling. Feeling and action is based on feeling. I mean, that is almost the definition of closed minded.

And I don't even know whom you are talking about.


----------



## RoseAglow

Mr. Nail, your son sounds like he has a good head on his shoulders. I don't see anything alarming in his teenage experiences or his decision. I will certainly be encouraging my son, when he is in high school, to date if he wants, but to not get overly serious with anyone. Most teenagers get their heart broken with a first love and still go onto have good relationships later on- at least, this has been my experience and that of most of my friends. I'd want my son to focus on school, and developing life/career skills.


----------



## RoseAglow

NobodySpecial said:


> I have never really understood this. Opinions should be based on thinking, not feeling. Feeling and action is based on feeling. I mean, that is almost the definition of closed minded.
> 
> And I don't even know whom you are talking about.


I define "close-minded" as someone who will not consider other perspectives. 

Some opinions are logic-based, but many are not. Many are value-based, and values are often based in emotion. How do you feel about marriage? Do you want to have kids? Do you want to have one sexual partner only, or do you want to have experiences with more than one person? These are all values. They aren't logical. People feel very strongly about some and not so strongly about others. We are not entirely logical creatures. We have a term for it: "gut-check." 

No one will ever be able to talk me into giving up my career, for instance. If we won the lottery, I would still work. My son would still be going to day care (unless my husband wanted to stay home with him, and I know he wouldn't, he's had that opportunity.) I don't care how "logical" it would be to stay at home while my son is young (outside of medical necessity or other very extreme circumstances.) I might listen to an argument but my opinion and decision on it will not change. It is a core value to me to be self-sufficient, to be productive at a job outside my family. It is not logical, it is emotional. I don't believe it makes me close-minded, I think it means I have a strong, deeply-felt opinion.


----------



## NobodySpecial

RoseAglow said:


> I define "close-minded" as someone who will not consider other perspectives.
> 
> Some opinions are logic-based, but many are not. Many are value-based, and values are often based in emotion. How do you feel about marriage?


There is a WORLD of difference between how do you feel about marriage and, say, will you marry me.

And there SHOULD be a difference. A person who has kids merely because s/he wants them may be very open minded, but they may also be very closed minded to the practicalities of giving said child the best life.

Feelings are. I want kids. Opinions are an attempt to understand truths. And truths are real despite our frequent inability to really get what the truth is. Should I have kids is a completely different questions. To the degree that a "should" question can be answered, it is still different than just do I want kids.

There is one poster on here whose entire opinion on feminism is based on FEELING all bad for the poor abused men on TAM regardless of whether there is any actually demonstrable reason to find feminism responsible for these people's plights. (That and she is very happy with her enjoyment of a traditional marriage, regularly inferring that people are slighting her when no one is. ) 

Finding a social movement as having a causal relationship with societal ills because you FEEL butt hurt is my definition of closed minded.

[/quote]
Do you want to have one sexual partner only, or do you want to have experiences with more than one person? These are all values. They aren't logical. People feel very strongly about some and not so strongly about others. We are not entirely logical creatures. We have a term for it: "gut-check." 

No one will ever be able to talk me into giving up my career, for instance. If we won the lottery, I would still work. My son would still be going to day care (unless my husband wanted to stay home with him, and I know he wouldn't, he's had that opportunity.) I don't care how "logical" it would be to stay at home while my son is young (outside of medical necessity or other very extreme circumstances.)
[/quote]
You have just picked a pretty good example of a place where there is not a lot of logic to staying home. Why do people make problems where none exist? 



> I might listen to an argument but my opinion and decision on it will not change. It is a core value to me to be self-sufficient, to be productive at a job outside my family. It is not logical, it is emotional. I don't believe it makes me close-minded, I think it means I have a strong, deeply-felt opinion.


Would bet a dollar you have given it some thought too.


----------



## Cosmos

NobodySpecial said:


> I have never really understood this. Opinions should be based on thinking, not feeling. Feeling and action is based on feeling. I mean, that is almost the definition of closed minded.
> .



IMO, we should be able to hold on to our own values whilst being able to explore and consider the opinions and beliefs of others. Over the years, I like to think that doing so has helped me to question and re-evaluate some of my own beliefs and, where necessary, modify some of my opinions. This is how we grow.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cosmos said:


> IMO, we should be able to hold on to our own values


What is a value? Why is it so important to hold onto it, if is demonstrated to be incorrect? Is there such a thing as a value that cannot be either incorrect or correct? If so, why value it?



> whilst being able to explore and consider the opinions and beliefs of others. Over the years, I like to think that doing so has helped me to question and re-evaluate some of my own beliefs and, where necessary, modify some of my opinions. This is how we grow.


I agree with this bit completely.


----------



## Cosmos

NobodySpecial said:


> What is a value? Why is it so important to hold onto it, if is demonstrated to be incorrect? Is there such a thing as a value that cannot be either incorrect or correct? If so, why value it?


By values, I'm talking about ideals such as honesty, integrity, loyalty and responsibility. Whilst some of our values may stay constant throughout our lives, others will certainly develop and change as we do.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cosmos said:


> By values, I'm talking about ideals such as honesty, integrity, loyalty and responsibility.


Bap I was about to drift the thread so far away. Mods. I didn't. I was good.


----------



## Mr. Nail

NobodySpecial said:


> Finding a social movement as having a causal relationship with societal ills


I'm pretty sure that societal ills are caused by social movements.

The real question is, Is there a societal ill? The original post quoted a slanted article. The statistics presented were worthless because the class was too large, and non marital (but near marital) relations were excluded.

The conclusion, That women were being denied the wedding they dreamed of, was unsupported. I wonder if these women are still dreaming of that wedding? Are men denying them that dream in malice? In short is it fear of divorce, cost of dream weddings, or ease of cohabitation the real cause for lack of wedding parties?

MN


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> I'm pretty sure that societal ills are caused by social movements.


As are, often, their remedy.


> The real question is, Is there a societal ill? The original post quoted a slanted article. The statistics presented were worthless because the class was too large, and non marital (but near marital) relations were excluded.
> 
> The conclusion, That women were being denied the wedding they dreamed of, was unsupported. I wonder if these women are still dreaming of that wedding? Are men denying them that dream in malice? In short is it fear of divorce, cost of dream weddings, or ease of cohabitation the real cause for lack of wedding parties?
> 
> MN


Oh wait. No wedding for my kids? I can totally get behind that trend!


----------



## Mr. Nail

NobodySpecial said:


> Oh wait. No wedding for my kids? I can totally get behind that trend!


Looks like one vote for the high cost of dream weddings.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> Looks like one vote for the high cost of dream weddings.


:scratchhead:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Nynaeve said:


> Honestly, your posts often offend me when you talk about feminism. You seem to think that just because I care about women's equality that means I'm promiscuous, cold-hearted, man hating. Whatever. You believe the negative stereotypes and you stubbornly refuse to open your heart to women you prejudge. It's a shame. You usually seem like a compassionate and empathetic person. But you've made feminists "the other" and so you seem unable to empathize with us.


 Just as you feel this way.. I feel this way as well..when I offer a different point of view...... on the one hand Elegirl takes the time to quote me & engage in a conversation -which I appreciate...(I think)... but on the other hand I feel picked apart.. every little thing I say is under a microscope.. if she feels I only mention men -or come to their defense... she wants to know why I don't feel this way about women.. then I feel misunderstood ... I do care about the mistreatment of anyone... male or female... 

I get on my own sons if I feel they slighted or hurt their Girlfriends...because I am sensitive....I can see it in their eyes.. I've had some heart to hearts - taking the side of the woman BIG TIME & I didn't care if my own son didn't like me for it either....I was not there to make myself look good.. but because I care about them both...it's NOT about me.. I've felt he's too preoccupied to realize how he has hurt her a few times -with his attitude... once on the night she was in a Junior Miss Pageant even.. he sucked for support.. and I mean SUCKED!!!... she gives MORE.. she is there MORE for him...she was making excuses FOR HIM to me.. I was touched by that... but I FELT FOR HER.. *NOT HIM*.. . I don't just stick up for some select group, meaning men... I will bite my own - if I feel they have screwed up...and could have handled something better...if they care about their relationships...or yeah.. he should let her go.. 

But that's in real life.. how can anyone really know this. or me.. .I must come off in a bad way here.. so much that others feel I don't understand anything......it makes you feel alone... somewhat ostracized...on this forum anyway..

We all look to express ourselves , our experiences...we hope to find acceptance , at least some understanding among others .. ( @RoseAglow gave me this - thank you)... 

I know others feel as you do Nynaeve...even worse...it does sting... 



> I know a TON of women just like me. We hang out online at the Facebook group "Christians for Biblical Equality" and blogs like Rachel Held Evans, Sarah Bessey, etc.
> 
> You should check out the book by Sarah Bessey called Jesus Feminist. It's a best seller. Because a lot of Christians with conservative morals (i.e. not promiscuous, believe in the sanctity of marriage and sex) are also feminists.
> 
> It's not as rare as you suggest. Maybe on TAM. But TAM isn't morally conservative for the most part.


I'm actually no longer a Christian.. (even if I appreciate a # of scriptures, I like Proverbs & Ecclesiastes)........ After all.. I like some Porn (I get judged for that too!)... . .. I don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin, I think Pegasus was right...I could go on...but who am I... no one.. just to say... I have many issues with evangelicalism / christian theology .. ..now all the christians can throw me out too! 

Thankfully my christian friends still embrace me.. flaws, doubts, questions , even christopher hitchens books on my shelf ....it's like we have more in common over what we don't.. the friendships are still worthwhile.. (Obviously they are not fundamentalists, or they would have dusted off their feet)... 

I'd like to have that with others here too, yes, even the feminists on this forum.. but I'm guarded... do to some experiences I've had ... I hope this sheds a little more light... for whatever it is worth.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Yes pull the actual plug.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Nynaeve said:


> I think it's hilarious that you think you can convince us all that we're unhappy and unfulfilled just by telling us that's how we feel.
> 
> Oh good! A man is here to tell us wimmins how we feel about things. It's about time. Our poor little lady brainz have been overworked with trying to figure out what all these feels inside of us mean.



Why else does thread exist at all?


----------



## Nynaeve

SimplyAmorous said:


> I know others feel as you do Nynaeve...even worse...it does sting...


Well, I'm sorry to bring you pain, honestly. But why not just accept that you've got a blind spot or a prejudice and consider a change of heart?

I have no doubt that you're an excellent mother to your sons and that you empathize with women in real life.

But in the abstract, you seem intractable. When discussing it on TAM... why aren't you willing to concede that not all (maybe even not most) feminists are the stereotype that you keep suggesting?

You asked for just one example of a conservative feminist. I am one. But you brushed past that to discuss something else. Why no acknowledgement? Why no "hey, I guess it's possible I've been wrong about this. Maybe I should reevaluate."?



> I'm actually no longer a Christian.. (even if I appreciate a # of scriptures, I like Proverbs & Ecclesiastes)........ After all.. I like some Porn (I get judged for that too!)... . .. I don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin, I think Pegasus was right...I could go on...but who am I... no one.. just to say... I have many issues with evangelicalism / christian theology .. ..now all the christians can throw me out too!
> 
> Thankfully my christian friends still embrace me.. flaws, doubts, questions , even christopher hitchens books on my shelf ....it's like we have more in common over what we don't.. the friendships are still worthwhile.. (Obviously they are not fundamentalists, or they would have dusted off their feet)...
> 
> I'd like to have that with others here too, yes, even the feminists on this forum.. but I'm guarded... do to some experiences I've had ... I hope this sheds a little more light... for whatever it is worth.



I wasn't suggesting you check it out because I thought you were Christian. I was suggesting you check it out to give you an idea of just how many conservative feminists are out there. 

I'm trying to provide evidence for my claim that it's not as rare as you seem to think.

You may not have the Christian part in common, but the conservative, "sex is special" part you do.

And many Rachel Held Evan's blog commenters are former Christians.

[I'm not much of a Christian myself anymore. I don't go to church anymore and I don't believe the Bible is the literal word of God or the final answer to all of life's questions. I'm not sure what I believe about miracles, the virgin birth, etc, anymore. I just know that the teachings and life of Jesus Christ are good and worth aspiring to. So that's how I try to live.]


----------



## RandomDude

Ack! The whole "virgin birth" thing seems to indirectly imply that non-virgins are simply not "pure" and "unclean" or whatever

Meh anyway, carry on...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> Um, nowhere did I say anything about withholding sex. What does that have to do with the fact that most men do not marry only for sex. Most men are far deeper, far more loving and caring to just marry for sex.


 I am just going to claim STUPID on me - on this one...I am not sure what I said wrong or how it got construed or that I even said what you think I said ! If that's what you got out of it.. It wasn't my intention.. 




> And this happens to women a lot as well. A guy will chase the hot chicks, date them. Then when he wants to get married he decides that what he really needs is a woman who is more suited to settling down. Then he comes to the relationship with tons of emotional baggage and a lot more sexual experience. Now why wouldn’t that bother the woman?


 I don't see that it bothers many women at all.. they Love a man with experience.. many say this.. and feel strongly here. 



> Why you have empathy only for men in these situations is confounding.


 It's not only for men..(see my last post)...I think we see what we are sensitive to & you pick up on this from me..probably because it is ME. 



> Um, having sex before marriage does not make a person lose interest in sex. Nor does it make sex with someone the woman loves less desirable.
> You have been married for years. You’ve had a lot of sex. Do you now take the attitude that you’ve been there, done that… so sex is no longer such a big deal? From what you have posted that’s hardly the case. So why do you think it would be different for women who have had some sex?


 where my thought processes was.. and I see it played in posts by some women.. they had bad sexual experiences not feeling loved by men.. then when they marry.. they can not understand why their husband desires the emotional with sex.. Listen.. my own mother was ruined by sleeping with many men in a short period of time.. I understand no one cares about my lousy childhood & what I had to witness in her demise...but casual sex destroyed her life.. and enjoyment of sex...opening up to these men who treated her worse than a DOG, some of them.... she said after that .. she felt NOTHING.. it meant NOTHING to her.. (these were her words.. her experience).. I loathe men like this.. I have no sympathy for them.. to treat women like that (yes I said this [email protected]#...mark it down -please)... . but also she could have stopped it .. never started it.. In my world.. we need to have some control.... what we experience can have a profound effect on us in the future.. 

It doesn't have to be sexual... it can be trust issues, one woman I know.. her ex H was always late- didnt come home... hanging at the bar.. when the next husband did this the 1st time, not coming home when he said.. that was all re-lived, the worry over took her..she started to shake....



> The woman who is more likely to not want a lot of sex in the marriage is one who has been brought up to think that good girls don’t do those things; that sex is dirty, etc. We see story after story here of men whose wives have this attitude about sex. They will only do a certain position, lights off, nor oral. Why? Because they were taught that sex is something that only bad girls do.


 Both of our examples can be a cause.. Yours AND mine.. can we agree on this.. or do we have to argue on whose example is more valid? 



> Change the gender in that post quote and see how much sense it makes. If the man has been there, done that.. .does it mean that he’s going to lose interest in sex with his wife.


 I do not believe it does ..I feel men can compartmentalize sex more easily over women.. but there again.. many will not agree with me on this.. it's these little divides that separates me from the modern thinking woman (I didn't say feminist here).. 



> Keep in mind that men chose to make their marriage sexless (or very low sex) just as often as women do. Why you are assuming that the guy is going to always want sex and it’s the woman who will lose interest is .. well unclear/


 this is still another thing I don't agree on.. but you will tell me I am wrong.. I feel statistically speaking.. men have the higher sex drive , they complain more when they aren't getting it ...women are more likely to reject...their drive is "fluid" -harder to pin down.. not all orgasm.. bla bla bla...Yes, I did the thread.. to listen to your side.. and all the women here.. but I still feel as I originally did.. look at all the women defending the hall pass Mom.. because they related to her! 



> Keep in mind that not all women find the same men attractive. For example, I have often found the playboy and bad boy to be a HUGE turn off. Sure the guy might to very good looking and charismatic. But don’t can usually see right thought that. *I’m often more attracted to the sweet guy who is not a knock out hot guy… but is very smart with a great sense of humor. (Not that have sex with them all, but I find that much more appealing than a fake “alpha man” that everyone seems to think attract women. Being “choosier” does not mean that women all choose the same ‘alpha males’.*


 Hey, there is something We Have in common ! :smile2:



> It’s flat out untrue that most women are having sex with a minority of men. To say this assumes that women are [email protected] lined up to bang the very few “alpha males”. What an insulting way to look at women…. women cannot control themselves, they see an “alpha male” and they will all line up for the “alpha male”. That’s PUA/MRA nonsense.


 it was pointed out to me that many men can't Get laid -even you did this yourself.... but now it's not a minority of the Hot Alphas.. Geez.. can I say anything that is acceptable to you.. it's like trying to hit a bulls eye.. I am going to miss every time ... and fall short ... I still feel it's easier.. but whatever.. if I was them. and had no values or beliefs to treat women with care....testosterone riding high.. I'd bang as many as I could too.. it's like that old John Cougar song "I need a lover that won't drive me crazy...some girl to thrill me & then go away....".. hey. he was HOT...with that song ringing in their heads.. how many do you think didn't pull their pants down.. that's just life.. 

Do I have a judgement on it.. Yeah. I kinda do. I feel it breeds more lousy men.. and yeah.. those men are not worth it.. no matter how hot they are.. but again.. this is all silly. cause it's sex.. it's addicting.. and hot bodies are just too much temptation... 



> We can find articles that support any nonsense theory someone can think up. Just because it’s published on the internet does not mean it’s true.


 I am fully aware . Believe it or not...When I am interested in a particular subject/ issue ... I go to reading a tirade of articles.. googling hrs into the night...I will ask others how they feel.. I NEED to hear both sides of an issue.... I want a balanced view, what the real statistics is..... I do not even LIKE fiction Elegirl.. I want the facts or it's all a waste ...but that still doesn't mean I will end up with the some worldview as you or another poster here. .. Enter in our personal experiences, our beliefs, our emotions.. there is no judge in the sky who brings the hammer down if we are off a bit.. we may not be with the person we are with.. Isn't so much *subjective* in our world today anyway ? 




> The study is based on asking men and women hypothetical questions about hypothetical situations. Thus the responses are hypothetical. Note that not one woman actually acted on it. So they were shown a picture of a good looking guy and asked if they hypothetically would be interested in sex with the guy.. AKA did she find him hot? And you are trying to use this a proof that women are superficial about sex? It’s a bit hard to look deeply into what a guy is like from a picture of a description of a hypothetical guy in a hypothetical situation. When women chose a man to marry, they tend to look a lot deeper than “is he hot”.


 I think you have more of an opinion on what you THINK I am trying to prove than I ever even entertained !



> Going by the above post, if a woman’s husband dies and she remarries, there would be nothing special about her sexual relationship with her husband? What about a man, if he remarries, does that mean that the sexual experience with his new wife is not special?


 saying "Nothing special" is blackening my point totally.. it's ALWAYS special when you are deeply in love. I was referring to causal sex.. not a number of emotionally romantically attached relationships . Big difference.. world of difference. we can ALL Love more than one man or woman in our lifetimes.. 

But if you don't even remember someone's name after Fvckign them.. well.. this is not even in the same category.. 



> A lot of men sleep around before marriage. If your point of view was true for human nature, then there would be nothing special about his sexual life with his wife. Really?


answered with above. 



> What is special about sex with someone you love? That person is what is special. Having sex with that person that you love is what is special.


 We agree.. of course ! You thirst to know them on the deepest level, emotionally and physically.. you care about them.. 



> It’s not that anyone thinks your view are archaic. It’s that you don’t seem to be able to accept that women who have experiences different than yours are still good women who can love a man.


 The part about Loving... I feel it may be more of a struggle to reach the vulnerable places of intimacy -if one has lived a certain lifestyle...turning their emotions off or denying them ...knowing the rules of Hooking up...Yes... I feel the baggage may not be worth it - I am speaking about casual sex here... not emotionally attached , exclusive "in love" intimacy, passionate sex.. there is nothing more fulfilling in this life!... it can hurt down the road.. but really Elegirl.. this to me is a RISK.. just as you feel women who dont' get a degree & depend on a man HAS it's RISKS.. you feel this way due to your experiences and you feel strongly.. 

I feel as I do .. do to what I witnessed from my Mother and vowed that would never happen to me.. when I hear a feminist come off like an AMY GLASS in the smallest way.. I will feel offended.. she is boasting how much better she is .. smarter.. has a fuller life. she doesn't need a man.. she is this.. she is that.. it stings.. but it's many people's opinions -that sound like judgement to others who have chosen such a lifestyle.. I feel this is similar. my personal feelings may sting to others .. as I see the risk not being worth it.. 

WE all choose our own RISKS in life .. one was not at all acceptable to me.. where the other WAS.. we both see these risks differently.. and have been shaped by our own experiences.. I don't want my daughter , sensitive as she is.. to go down the path of my mother.. it would be better if she died first.. (and that's a sorry thing to say , isn't it)...



> While this is something that you have not experienced, a sexual relationship with a spouse you love can be just as wonderful & special even if you’ve had sex with someone else before.


 I agree.. and I never meant it otherwise.. if this is what others are reading into my posts... you have misinterpreted me.. and continue to do so. I never mentioned the Wh___ word.. or Virgins.. others did this.. in reference to my posts.. 



> Why do you think that women are all out screwing playboys? That’s not what’s going on. Some women are, most are not.
> Why would a woman feel special when the guy has sex with a lot of women, then he wants to marry her.. Someone he would not have dated before? Answer that.


 She probably would feel special because no other could get him to commit.. and I don't think many men commit unless they are hopelessly in love.. unless she is a sugar Mama... I think the other way around.. women are more apt to marry for status, money (over men, that is).. in comparison.. (I am awaiting the backlash )... 



> You have talked to thousands upon thousands of women and you know for a fact that they are settling? Really?
> Among the kind of women you seem to have such distain for, the divorce rate is 25% and below…. I rather doubt that there is a lot of “settling” going on. Most women and men marry people who they love. I don’t get why there is a need to paint so many women and settling (deceiving) their husbands.


 Have you not met women who couldn't find Mr Right and their clock was ticking . 2 women I know did this.. one was tired of being alone .. the other wanted kids.. they both got bored with these men after they had kids......one cheated.. the other divorced ... settling happens on both sides.. I'm not trying to paint all woman this way either...of course not.. I guess we all settle in some ways though ..we can't have it all ....it's about making the best with who has entered our lives.. 
. 


> Why do you think that the guy just used her for his own pleasure? Why not she used him? Or why not they had a long term dating relationship, maybe even a very serious one that did not work out?


 Don't understand the question.. all apply to various all over the world. 



> JLD is not conservative. Not by a long shot. She is very liberal. Liberal women are as likely to be stay at home moms and take on traditional roles as conservative women are.


 I know she is very liberal politically.. yes.. There are different areas of being conservative. ... I don't fit them all either.. The word , similar to other buzz words, that often get stereotyped.. can conjure up a variety of things.. depending on experiences we've had with a said "conservative" or a said "liberal".. or ______ and we could be way off..if we don't give them the opportunity to show otherwise. 



> Of all the women who post regularly on this forum, I believe that I am the most conservative. My bet is that in many ways I’m more conservative than you.


 you very well could be... that's the thing I was getting at.. the areas could be very different.. but the word still used.. 



> Though I can find things in the 3 major parties that I agree with: dem, rep and independent. And I can find a lot in all that I do not agree with.


 Another thing we agree on.. I feel the same way!



> Of course we’d have to first make a list of what being conservative is. It’s not the far right evangelical bunch.


 I would not want to be associated with them either... I don't like food and money wasted.. I am fiscally very conservative. (If I am using this word right)... I am big on being responsible -if we fck something up.. we need to fix it.. not expect someone else to pick up the tab.. I believe that's a conservative stance.. we need to care for our lower income, and poor people.. but I sympathize more with those who are responsible.. not doing things to destroy our world and society.. where it will cost the rest of us more money. 



> I disagree that a minority of female conservatives are not feminists. Sure they do not self-identify as feminists, but their attitudes are defiantly feminist.


 that would probably describe me then.. I am not against women's rights and choices at all.. I wonder why so many feel the need to self identify ....the radicals have tainted the word...I cant help but feel this way....



> “But asked if they believe that "men and women should be social, political, and economic equals," 82 percent of the survey respondents said they did, and just 9 percent said they did not. Equal percentages of men and women said they agreed with that statement, along with 87 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents and 76 percent of Republicans.”


 I am in the 82%

Poll: Few Identify As Feminists, But Most Believe In Equality Of Sexes I didn't read this.. but I can relate to not wanting to self identify.. it's that simple.. and I very much dislike being told I am against women if I happen to feel this way...



> I’m also sticking up for marriage, for a person to have the right to wait for marriage until they feel that they are mature enough, and have a strong foundation for marriage. Marriage has the best chance of survival when the couple has created a solid foundation. And for this I, what? Don’t love marriage? I’m sticking up for both the males and females.. and somehow that makes me an evil feminist?
> I don’t think it’s fair to say that the other women posting here are not supporters of marriage. They, and I, are just not supporters of mandatory marriage and/or the idea that all people must marry by some arbitrary age. I’m all for letting people make their own choices… I believe that is a good conservative tenant.


 it would also be quite a stretch to feel I am for mandatory marriage.. or that people should all marry by a certain age .. if a person can not commit. , be faithful , devoted .. they should not.. Yes. choice is what democracy is all about.. 



> You do not hold a monopoly in caring about marriage. Just because a person recognizes reality of our current society does not mean that they do not care about marriage.


I can always count on you to set me straight, can't I.. 



> For example, stating that today a woman does not have to be married to have a child is not saying that someone thinks it’s a wonderful thing to have children with no father in the picture. It’s just a statement of fact. The fact is that this is now accepted. And if men decide to stop marrying women to try to force women to drop equal rights, we will be seeing a lot of women having babies on their own. Babies are essential for the future of mankind. Losing equal rights is not.
> 
> To say that a woman has the right to decide whether or not she wants to be married is not anti-marriage. It is FACT. To say that it’s wrong for a woman to decide that she does not want to marry is saying that women have no choice and that marriage has to be forced on every woman. Do you really feel this way? Do you believe that women should not have the right to choose not to marry?


 How can you get from anything I have said... .. to "forced mandated marriage?"... that's outrageous! 

Forcing anything is WRONG WRONG WRONG.. I can not stand anything forced.. If it's not given because it's something a couple both wants... given from the heart... such things would be worthless to me...


----------



## EleGirl

EnigmaGirl said:


> The contractual obligation during marriage is between the two people that set-up the arrangement. But that obligation...like any contractual obligation...ends under termination of the contract.
> 
> The partner that doesn't bother to work should assume the risk of their decision during the active contract because the working spouse assumes the burden of supporting that spouse during the contract.
> 
> After its over...you get off your butt and get a job....gravy train ends.
> 
> 15% of divorces ending in alimony judgments is wayyyyyy too much.
> 
> In addition, the CS tables are skewed because they don't impute an income to the non-working spouse and it penalizes the one spouse who does bother to earn a living during marriage. Both parents should be obligated by the courts to have to financially support children...not just one.
> 
> This isn't about what people choose during marriage. Its about acknowledging that adult choices have equal adult consequences for BOTH genders in the event of a marital dissolution.
> 
> You want to sit around and not work? There's a risk to that decision. Adult women are grown-ups...not toddlers...and need to own the consequences of their choices.


I disagree when it comes to a mutually agreed upon SAHM/D situation. It's clear going into the marriage and SAHM/D agreement that what the marriage contract says. 

If, after 30/40 years of marriage, the SAH gets nothing then any woman who agreed to be a SAH is an absolute idiot for doing it. 

Men will need to accept that few women would agree to such and arrangement as there is no security in it at all.


----------



## EleGirl

Mr. Nail said:


> I'm pretty sure that societal ills are caused by social movements.
> 
> The real question is, Is there a societal ill? The original post quoted a slanted article. The statistics presented were worthless because the class was too large, and non marital (but near marital) relations were excluded.
> 
> The conclusion, That women were being denied the wedding they dreamed of, was unsupported. I wonder if these women are still dreaming of that wedding? Are men denying them that dream in malice? In short is it fear of divorce, cost of dream weddings, or ease of cohabitation the real cause for lack of wedding parties?
> 
> MN


No, women are not so superficial that they spend their lives dreaming of a wedding. There is a whole lot more to life than a wedding. Sure some day most women will want to form a committed relationship.. married or not. But dreaming of wedding? LOL

It's that women realize that we have to support ourselves. WE cannot depend on men support us. We know that's fool's play. So more and more women are making sure that we can take care of ourselves and our children. 

So it takes time to get established. 

Young men are doing the same thing.. .getting established.

75% of men and 83% of women marry after age 25. That's MOST people. A large portion of the others are cohabitating. And some never get married.

But this has been explained over and over again on this thread ... so don't know how else to say it.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> on the one hand Elegirl takes the time to quote me & engage in a conversation -which I appreciate...(I think)... but on the other hand I feel picked apart.. every little thing I say is under a microscope..


When I post in conversation with you, you quote me & engage in a conversation picking everything I say apart. Since you don’t like being addressed in the same manner you address others… I’ll keep this short.

No one on this thread has any problem at all with your lifestyle. No one has ever put you down for your choices and your lifestyle. Your lifestyle is not even all that much different from that of most of the women here. Yes my lifestyle is different than yours. That does not matter. At least it does not matter to me.

Now on the other hand, on this thread, you have said some very unkind things about most of the women posting on this thread. My posting with you was an attempt to at least get you to look through the window of our lives to see that we are not out whoring ourselves. We are not anti-you, or anti-marriage, or anything else. And we certainly are not your mother. 

You seem to think that the young women who put off marriage until after 25 are out having sex with every guy they can find. Most are not. And again they are not your mother.


----------



## EleGirl

Runs like Dog said:


> Yes, women wanted to pierce all those glass ceiling-ish restrictions and now that that's finally w/i reach it seems that many of them are just as miserable. Go be astronauts, go be titans of industry. You deserve it. But please stop complaining that equality isn't fulfilling.


It's your imagination that women are complaining that equality is not fulfilling. I don't know what purpose that fantasy fills for you.

I also don't know why you are upset at women having equal rights. 

You see I'm very happy about having equality. Because of it I have been able to support myself and my children. Shoot even my husbands while that lasted.

Unless you are offering to support me at the level to which I have supported myself, I don't see were your input on my response to equality is any of your business.

Now if you are willing to support me, pleas PM me. I'll give you my bank account info so you can do a monthly electronic transfer. I'll also let you know what the amount is that I need monthly. >


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Nynaeve said:


> *Raises hand*
> 
> I think I fit the description.
> 
> I was 34 when I had sex for the first time. With my husband. I was waiting until marriage for personal and religious reasons.
> 
> I'm also a stay at home mom (and I work part time from home). I don't believe that's what women have to be but for me, I think that's the best choice for my children.
> 
> Honestly, your posts often offend me when you talk about feminism. You seem to think that just because I care about women's equality that means I'm promiscuous, cold-hearted, man hating. Whatever. You believe the negative stereotypes and you stubbornly refuse to open your heart to women you prejudge. It's a shame. You usually seem like a compassionate and empathetic person. But you've made feminists "the other" and so you seem unable to empathize with us.


 thank you for your post... and a bit of your story... it couldn't have been easy waiting as long as you have Nynaeve... that's an amazing story.. with strong convictions.. 

I think if all of us was to walk in the others shoes for a time.. things would be more clear as to WHY we feel as we do.. You have had a fellowship of friends who identify with your world view..you feel a part of their group..... this has not been my experience.. in any way.. 

I do wonder though, which comes back to my hurt / how many feminist articles make me feel...is how you handle reading those that Mock your beliefs or things you hold dear? ..does this not happen to you? ... what do you do with it?? Just continually give yourself feedback that THIS doesn't matter somehow... how does this not splinter your mind in regards to the movement.. Remember YOU have a group - and you said a TON of them who look through your eyes.. that you resonate with....I have to resort to google & seek different articles to counteract the ones that shake me up and make me feel more alienated.. Maybe IF I read more than the ones that have bothered me or belittled my way of life , or beliefs.. I would feel more like you... the movement has brought with it.. so many radicals that it has tainted the view of outsiders.. I am not alone in feeling this way by any means..

I have sat with my oldest christian son & his roommate -and they have shared their experiences with feminists on campus.. I distinctly recall them looking me in the eyes telling me how these women have no use for men like them.. these are not controlling brow beating men by any means... something within their messages are turning the hearts of many men away.. I look up to these guys..I think highly of them... I had no way of counteracting or trying to make them believe these women that made them Feel that way... were all wrong, that they were misunderstood.. was it wrong for me to trust my own son.. . he has rubbed up against MORE within a group that goes against his beliefs also.. that's all I can take from that.. 

Another question I have is.. it doesn't appear to me , while we are always uplifting our side that many feminists are looking to understand the man's side.. I don't always like what they say either I hate the fact many men have lost the want to marry today and feels it's best for them.. ...arguing with them why they are wrong will not win their hearts to us.. if they feel heard by us and understood.. it has more of a chance for some constructive dialog...

I feel this is what I am missing too.. I don't feel understood by *the majority* of feminists .. but I am expected to just conform anyway.. who does that.. 

If just the heart of choice or equality was the main topic of feminism... it would never be an issue with me.. at all.. but it delves so far too much , the topics on this forum - into these splinter groups vying for my mind... I don' agree with "sl** walk"... I feel as women, we should dress more moderately.. do conservative feminists feel this way ?? am I allowed to feel this way and still think I am one.. someone will say I am a bad one.. judging women ! this gets very tiring that I have to suspend how I personally think anytime I present myself on this forum - then told I can still be a feminist ! 

I see many "camps" in feminist ... I can never tell which type of feminist Is before me ...will it be an Amy Glass who must remind me how stupid I am, how stupid my husband is to allow me to stay home.. or a Jessica Valenti that feels (and has written a book to explain it) if you want or choose to save yourself for one man...this is hating other women...I bought the book by the way.. even though I felt it very much belittled such women... She has some good points, things I can agree with .. but still I felt nothing but an outsider - I don't resonate with her way of thinking at all... and she IS surely a well respected feminist. isn't she?? 


I am not even as particular in my sexual views as you are.. I would have NEVER lasted into my 30's.. I wouldn't have even lasted into my early 20's.. I don't care about waiting till marriage so much ( I did more then, this is true, but my feelings on this has evolved )..... I don't even think it's necessarily wrong to have casual sex if a woman can handle it.. mind blower for those reading this I am sure -( I do not believe I could.. I'd become a sex addict -seeking love in all the wrong places , & the type of men I prefer would not want me).. that's how I honestly feel ...so it would be awfully damaging to me personally... I am far too much of a romantic and too sensitive for that. 



> I know a TON of women just like me. We hang out online at the Facebook group "Christians for Biblical Equality" and blogs like Rachel Held Evans, Sarah Bessey, etc.
> 
> You should check out the book by Sarah Bessey called Jesus Feminist. It's a best seller. Because a lot of Christians with conservative morals (i.e. not promiscuous, believe in the sanctity of marriage and sex) are also feminists.
> 
> It's not as rare as you suggest. Maybe on TAM. But TAM isn't morally conservative for the most part.


 I have never heard of this book.. I did look it up. it is very well received .. with over 200 5 star reviews.. I read some reviews.. I can't say I understand how she took verses from the Bible and turned them around so much -some verses come off very damning...I myself take issue with these things ... even if I have not spoken on it much.. I have found myself spending more time defending my own thoughts ...over anything else... I can only make sense of the Bible by feeling it was written by men.. or I would take issue with God himself and find him Cruel.. 

I couldn't tell what the feminist viewpoint was from the book exactly?



Nynaeve said:


> You asked for just one example of a conservative feminist. I am one. But you brushed past that to discuss something else. Why no acknowledgement? Why no "hey, I guess it's possible I've been wrong about this. Maybe I should reevaluate."?


 I'm sorry...I felt the need to explain myself to Elegirls comments.. 



> I wasn't suggesting you check it out because I thought you were Christian. I was suggesting you check it out to give you an idea of just how many conservative feminists are out there.


 and I am happy you pointed it out to me.. noone else ever has on here.. or I would not have made my original comment. you open up a whole new area of interest .. but still I have no idea where your group is coming from either or how you deal with those who DON'T feel as you do.. what you do with it ? 



> You may not have the Christian part in common, but the conservative, "sex is special" part you do.
> 
> And many Rachel Held Evan's blog commenters are former Christians.
> 
> *[I'm not much of a Christian myself anymore. I don't go to church anymore and I don't believe the Bible is the literal word of God or the final answer to all of life's questions. I'm not sure what I believe about miracles, the virgin birth, etc, anymore. I just know that the teachings and life of Jesus Christ are good and worth aspiring to. So that's how I try to live.]*


I agree whole heartily with all you said here.. .. just so you know.... I have tried to explain my beliefs in post #24 on this thread.. where I have come from.. and why I am now Here.. 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/politics-religion/139209-what-church-faith-you.html


----------



## Cosmos

> Nynaeve said:- You asked for just one example of a conservative feminist. I am one. But you brushed past that to discuss something else. Why no acknowledgement? Why no "hey, I guess it's possible I've been wrong about this. Maybe I should reevaluate."?


A similar post of mine was completely brushed aside, yet in one thread alone there are two of us!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> And we certainly are not your mother.
> 
> You seem to think that the young women who put off marriage unit after 25 are out having sex with every guy they can find. Most are not. And again they are not your mother.


I was not trying to imply that others are like my mother, what happened to her was a tragedy -where she didn't recover in healthy ways...it's lessons had a profound effect on me as a young girl.... it's not something I can ever erase, it's deeply personal , emotional for me.. even now.. It's just one story.. I almost feel like I need to apologize because you feel it's a worthless mention..

and Cosmos... I was not trying to brush you you aside ... you know I've always enjoyed your contributions here.. it was nice to see you back .


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Bugged said:


> i never had casual sex and I only had one partner. I don't bond having sex, I don't feel any emotional connection. I think it's just fun. Some people are like that. Simple.


 Before I came here.. I always thought this was a given ... I do think its important to be compatible with someone like minded here... I could not handle this in a man.. I would be devastated.. I know he would feel the same. .. the emotional connection is even more important to him than the physical.. he is very sensitive to my desire even, or he would never touch me.. I don't mind this.. as I feel the same way.. we "get" each other. 



> it's probably a social construct...women today do not fear shaming for their sexuality so they can compartmentalize easily. Depends on many factors i think..upbringing could be one of those.


 I believe you are right on this. 



> I don't understand...what does it mean?


 I heard that song the other day on the radio.. I need a lover .. the words were awful.. he just wanted to use her.. what I was trying to say is. he's a Rock star.. and even though he is singing something like that.. he wouldn't have any trouble finding women to oblige him.. groupies & such.. this all contributes to the man being praised who gets a lot of women. 



> so if men are lousy it's because women are sleeping with them so it's women's fault??


 It's a case where I feel it makes him feel more entitled to women .. that's it's OK to use them.. "to find a lover that will thrill you & just go away " "I need a lover that won't drive me crazy- Some girl that knows the meaning of a Hey hit the highway"... some of the lyrics... .

If that's what they both want.. then no one gets hurt.. I am just pointing out that if one doesn't feel this way , to be careful to not get involved with them... 



> what makes you think she might do that?


 getting involved with a wrong crowd can change a young girls life .. peer pressure.. what goes on at College campuses is a real concern to me as a mother of a daughter .. I hope she will be strong enough to hold onto what we have taught her...many cave to "fit in" & find acceptance .




> and SOME (I'm sure you meant SOME women)men are committing to marry for looks and sex..is it much better?


 No, it's not better.. it just IS what it is though. a reality type thing..


----------



## TheFlood117

20-34 are the millennial and post millennial generation of men. 

These men, are the first men and first generation to have LESS opportunity and economic upward growth than their parents. It has never happened in America, but it has now, lol. 

Thus men don't have the socioeconomic ability to marry and maintain a marriage. 

Marriage is just as much a joint venture in income as it is "love" for men. 

Any man who has been married will tell you that. 


Why aren't young people marrying????


Cause they don't have any money for a house, 2 kids and white picket fence, why marry?

Fairly simple. 


Also, women have changed. I'm back in the game and young women are a lot more slvtty than they used to be, and guys are just wising up. 


And good for them. 

Looking back, I wished I never married. Cause divorce and it's aftermath was very difficult and I had a somewhat amicable divorce all things considering.

Although I will say this, I think marriage is indicative of a healthy society, both socially and economically. And thus what I said in my opening is.... True and kinda concerning for the future of our country. But with 21 trillion dollars in debt, I think we have more pressing issues than why aren't millennials marrying....


----------



## *LittleDeer*

I don't think there are hordes of women desperate to marry who can't find men. That hasn't been my experience anyway. 

SA, I can understand how your experiences shaped your thinking and choices, as will your daughters. 

Personally I wouldn't want my daughter to feel shamed or awkward about sex, or my son. I think being comfortable with themselves and able to feel free to make informed sexual choices, is important. If you shame young people for being who they are, and for many young people (teens) that means interested in sex and sexual relationships-if you tell them they are wrong, that there is something wrong with them or dirty or ****ty etc, they will most likely not tell you what they are thinking and feeling and planning on doing. It can create a very harmful dynamic. 

As parents of course we don't want to condone reckless potentially harmful behaviour, however I believe that teaching young men and women to value themselves and to enjoy sex in a healthy loving relationship is a good thing.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

TheFlood117 said:


> 20-34 are the millennial and post millennial generation of men.
> 
> These men, are the first men and first generation to have LESS opportunity and economic upward growth than their parents. It has never happened in America, but it has now, lol.
> 
> Thus men don't have the socioeconomic ability to marry and maintain a marriage.
> 
> Marriage is just as much a joint venture in income as it is "love" for men.
> 
> Any man who has been married will tell you that.
> 
> 
> Why aren't young people marrying????
> 
> 
> Cause they don't have any money for a house, 2 kids and white picket fence, why marry?
> 
> Fairly simple.
> 
> 
> Also, women have changed. I'm back in the game and young women are a lot more slvtty than they used to be, and guys are just wising up.
> 
> 
> And good for them.
> 
> Looking back, I wished I never married. Cause divorce and it's aftermath was very difficult and I had a somewhat amicable divorce all things considering.
> 
> Although I will say this, I think marriage is indicative of a healthy society, both socially and economically. And thus what I said in my opening is.... True and kinda concerning for the future of our country. But with 21 trillion dollars in debt, I think we have more pressing issues than why aren't millennials marrying....



You mean that females enjoy sex as much as males do. There is still a stigma against females. Lots of people do not judge me for playing sex games in college but when it pertains to a female, it is quite the opposite.

Tbh, I do not know the number of women I have had sex with, because I never counted. Why should a female not worry about males being promiscuous as well, does that not tell females that that particular partner might cheat on them also. What about males with a high count? We have more derogatory terms for females who enjoy sex, funny how that works. There is a perception that a female is only worth how some males preceives how virginal she is.

Also, most of my female cousins make twice what their husbands make. They are the bread winner of the family. Most of my female cousins break the six figure mark when it comes to salary. The men that they are with have to be confident in themselves because they do earn less and play more of a supportive role. I make more than my gf, and if I do ever get married, I hope she can support my career since it has more potential.

Males complain that females are slvtty, but when they have sexual hang-ups because of how they are judged, like not giving bj's, then they are worthless. Reason why some females are sexually dysfunctional, and it boils down to insecurity.

Calling a female a slvt because there is a threat against one's own ego that they should be the best sex partner, have the biggest c0ck, and do everything they did in the past with another sexual partner. If they do not, then they feel as their SO does not love them. For instance anal. Because you did something in the past, you owe me now, what a loving sentiment, even if anal make cause discomfort.


----------



## Cletus

TheFlood117 said:


> 20-34 are the millennial and post millennial generation of men.
> 
> These men, are the first men and first generation to have LESS opportunity and economic upward growth than their parents. It has never happened in America, but it has now, lol.
> 
> Thus men don't have the socioeconomic ability to marry and maintain a marriage.


Well, c'mon now. It's not like men went from having it all to destitute in a single generation. They took a small step back, not a leap off of a cliff. 



> Why aren't young people marrying????
> 
> 
> Cause they don't have any money for a house, 2 kids and white picket fence, why marry?


I was still in college when I married, and owed more than I owned. My adult children aren't living with their significant others and foregoing marriage because of money - that just ain't the reason, at least for them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mr.Fisty said:


> You mean that females enjoy sex as much as males do. There is still a stigma against females. Lots of people do not judge me for playing sex games in college but when it pertains to a female, it is quite the opposite.
> 
> Tbh, I do not know the number of women I have had sex with, because I never counted. Why should a female not worry about males being promiscuous as well, does that not tell females that that particular partner might cheat on them also. What about males with a high count? We have more derogatory terms for females who enjoy sex, funny how that works. There is a perception that a female is only worth how some males preceives how virginal she is.
> 
> Also, most of my female cousins make twice what their husbands make. They are the bread winner of the family. Most of my female cousins break the six figure mark when it comes to salary. The men that they are with have to be confident in themselves because they do earn less and play more of a supportive role. I make more than my gf, and if I do ever get married, I hope she can support my career since it has more potential.
> 
> Males complain that females are slvtty, but when they have sexual hang-ups because of how they are judged, like not giving bj's, then they are worthless. Reason why some females are sexually dysfunctional, and it boils down to insecurity.
> 
> Calling a female a slvt because there is a threat against one's own ego that they should be the best sex partner, have the biggest c0ck, and do everything they did in the past with another sexual partner. If they do not, then they feel as their SO does not love them. For instance anal. Because you did something in the past, you owe me now, what a loving sentiment, even if anal make cause discomfort.


Thank you so much for this post, Mr. Fisty.


----------



## Nynaeve

SimplyAmorous said:


> I do wonder though, which comes back to my hurt / how many feminist articles make me feel...is how you handle reading those that Mock your beliefs or things you hold dear? ..does this not happen to you? ... what do you do with it??


Of course it happens to me.

SA, I hold the ideals of feminism dear. How do you not see that the things that YOU are saying about feminism and feminists is precisely the kind of "mockery" that you think feminists are saying about you?

I deal with it by thinking critically about it. Does their claim have merit? Is it logical? Is the tone of 'mockery' that I perceive really intended as mockery of my beliefs or is it someone else simply expressing their own feelings? Where is the author's angst, anger, etc, coming from?

Usually, I find that the criticism/mockery isn't logical or reasonable. Often laughably so. Usually I can shrug it off or laugh at the absurdity. Sometimes it gets under my skin. When it does, it's because it's coming from someone I want to respect. In those cases I end up ranting to my husband and then letting it go.

But I have learned the hard way - through years and years of online debate - that just because a contrary opinion upsets me doesn't mean that the person offering it is trying to upset me. That's how I came to be not really a Christian anymore. It used to upset me when atheists mocked Christianity and Christians. I used to get defensive. I used to want to believe (and therefore did believe) the negative stereotypes about atheists that Christians like to cling to. But at some point I realized I was being dishonest with myself. I wasn't really giving due consideration to their points of view or their arguments. I was projecting bad motives and "mockery" onto a lot of what was not actually intended as such. Sure, there are some jerk atheists. But there are also a lot of jerk Christians. And some of that mockery comes from a place of being hurt by those they are mocking.



> Just continually give yourself feedback that THIS doesn't matter somehow... how does this not splinter your mind in regards to the movement.. Remember YOU have a group - and you said a TON of them who look through your eyes.. that you resonate with....I have to resort to google & seek different articles to counteract the ones that shake me up and make me feel more alienated.. Maybe IF I read more than the ones that have bothered me or belittled my way of life , or beliefs.. I would feel more like you... the movement has brought with it.. so many radicals that it has tainted the view of outsiders.. I am not alone in feeling this way by any means..


Wait... so you're telling me that you've NEVER read a feminist article that you didn't feel was belittling you or your way of life?

Honestly, SA.... I have a hard time believing that. Either you've really not read many or, IMHO, you're projecting onto the articles something that isn't there.

There's a reason we call it a prejudice. Are you sure you're not pre-judging?



> I have sat with my oldest christian son & his roommate -and they have shared their experiences with feminists on campus.. I distinctly recall them looking me in the eyes telling me how these women have no use for men like them.. these are not controlling brow beating men by any means... something within their messages are turning the hearts of many men away.. I look up to these guys..I think highly of them... I had no way of counteracting or trying to make them believe these women that made them Feel that way... were all wrong, that they were misunderstood.. was it wrong for me to trust my own son.. . he has rubbed up against MORE within a group that goes against his beliefs also.. that's all I can take from that..


So, you're going to base your opinion of the entirety of feminism on hearsay you heard from a college student about college students?

SA, if you can't see how foolish that is than I don't know what to tell you. You can't judge those young women based on how your son told you he thinks they feel about him. Just because you trust him doesn't mean that he's 100% right about those young women.

I mean, come on. How would you like it if people judged you like that? Can we please do a little bit of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you?



> Another question I have is.. it doesn't appear to me , while we are always uplifting our side that many feminists are looking to understand the man's side..


There are actually many male feminists. So, pretty sure they understand the "men's side."

Look, these are such tired old stereotypes. Feminists are constantly empathizing with men. Trying to help men. Trying to understand and work with men. Just look at the HeForShe campaign.

We have fathers, brothers, husbands and sons too, SA. FFS. We empathize with men all time. 

[qute]I don't always like what they say either I hate the fact many men have lost the want to marry today and feels it's best for them.. ...arguing with them why they are wrong will not win their hearts to us.. if they feel heard by us and understood.. it has more of a chance for some constructive dialog...[/quote]

So, we have to agree with these men in order to win them to our side? But then if we agree with them, we're basically joining their side. So... that's not really winning them over, is it? That's called surrendering.

I'm not going to agree that someone is right and stop arguing my point of view or my position just because I want someone to like me. If logic and facts proved their interpretation was the correct one, then they can present the logic and facts and win ME over. 

Look. I don't actually think men and women are at war with one another. And the truth is that even on this issue, there isn't one, unified "male position." There are plenty of men who disagree that men are not wanting marriage and plenty more that disagree as to why. 

So, the idea that feminists are just refusing to empathize with men and that's why we disagree on this topic is illogical.



> I feel this is what I am missing too.. I don't feel understood by *the majority* of feminists .. but I am expected to just conform anyway.. who does that..


Nobody expects you to conform, SA. Disagreeing with the things you say, and telling you why we think you're wrong is not requiring conformity. It's disagreeing.

It's this kind of sentiment that makes me think it's just a matter of prejudice for you. You're extremely defensive. It reminds me of Christians claiming they're being persecuted because of gay marriage.



> If just the heart of choice or equality was the main topic of feminism... it would never be an issue with me.. at all.. but it delves so far too much , the topics on this forum - into these splinter groups vying for my mind... I don' agree with "sl** walk"... I feel as women, we should dress more moderately.. do conservative feminists feel this way ?? am I allowed to feel this way and still think I am one.. someone will say I am a bad one.. judging women ! this gets very tiring that I have to suspend how I personally think anytime I present myself on this forum - then told I can still be a feminist !


You don't have to agree with any of it to not be judgmental about it. 

I've not been around her a long time, so maybe I just haven't seen it happen. But what I have seen is definitely not anyone getting upset with you for how you live your life or even for what you believe. 

What I have gotten upset about, and what I've seen others get upset about, is the things you say about feminists. You don't have to say or imply that we're all wh8res and slvts. How can you not see that thinking of us all in such a derogatory way is insulting to us?

You seem to me to be doing a lot of the things you are accusing others of doing.

Why can't you just accept and believe that not all feminists - indeed, not even most feminists - are these terrible, hateful people? You don't have to agree with feminism to do that.



> I see many "camps" in feminist ... I can never tell which type of feminist Is before me ...will it be an Amy Glass who must remind me how stupid I am, how stupid my husband is to allow me to stay home.. or a Jessica Valenti that feels (and has written a book to explain it) if you want or choose to save yourself for one man...this is hating other women...I bought the book by the way.. even though I felt it very much belittled such women... She has some good points, things I can agree with .. but still I felt nothing but an outsider - I don't resonate with her way of thinking at all... and she IS surely a well respected feminist. isn't she??


Jessica Valenti? No, not really. *sigh*

Why do you need to tell which kind of feminist you're talking to? Why do you need to label us? Why can't you just read our words and deal with what we say, when we say it? Why do you need to judge me according to whether I agree with Valenti or Grass or whoever?

Why do you feel the need to do that?



> I couldn't tell what the feminist viewpoint was from the book exactly?


I don't understand your question? I think the gist of the book is that Jesus was a feminist because of how he treated women. It's not all based on one verse of the Bible.



> and I am happy you pointed it out to me.. noone else ever has on here.. or I would not have made my original comment. you open up a whole new area of interest .. but still I have no idea where your group is coming from either or how you deal with those who DON'T feel as you do.. what you do with it ?


Again, I don't understand your question. I deal with those who don't agree with me in various ways depending on the circumstances and the person. Some I debate with. Some I ignore.

My journey to feminism started out because of my Christian beliefs. I was very active in the church. All my life. I studied the Bible deeply - like, seminary level stuff. But I was told by my church that I wasn't allowed to teach the Bible or preach to men. Just because I'm a woman and that's how they interpreted some Bible verses. I didn't agree with how they interpreted things. I got interested in studying it and came across Christians for Biblical Equality. They aren't specifically feminist but there's a lot of overlap so I was also introduced to a lot of feminism online. And eventually I came to identify as a feminist.


----------



## Icey181

Mr. Fisty said:


> Males complain that females are slvtty, but when they have sexual hang-ups because of how they are judged, like not giving bj's, then they are worthless. Reason why some females are sexually dysfunctional, and it boils down to insecurity.


There is a difference between a sexually promiscuous woman who refuses to do certain things sexually with a current LTR that they did with hook-ups in the past and a sexually conservative girl who is uncomfortable with experimenting sexually.

They are not the same person.



Mr. Fisty said:


> Calling a female a slvt because there is a threat against one's own ego that they should be the best sex partner, have the biggest c0ck, and do everything they did in the past with another sexual partner. If they do not, then they feel as their SO does not love them. For instance anal. Because you did something in the past, you owe me now, what a loving sentiment, even if anal make cause discomfort.


Standard go-to response:

If a man refused to go all out for romantic gestures with his current SO, but did so with a previous one, I take it the women would be in the wrong to be offended and take it as an insult?


----------



## Icey181

Nynaeve said:


> Why do you need to judge me according to whether I agree with Valenti or Grass or whoever?
> 
> Why do you feel the need to do that?


Because if you endorse the writing and view-points of radical misandrist feminist authors all of your attempts to claim SA is illegitimately prejudiced against feminism ring hollow.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Icey181 said:


> There is a difference between a sexually promiscuous woman who refuses to do certain things sexually with a current LTR that they did with hook-ups in the past and a sexually conservative girl who is uncomfortable with experimenting sexually.
> 
> They are not the same person.
> 
> 
> Standard go-to response:
> 
> If a man refused to go all out for romantic gestures with his current SO, but did so with a previous one, I take it the women would be in the wrong to be offended and take it as an insult?



Yes, I am realistic enough to know that everyone has a variance on how much of a biological factor is triggered. If I do not invoke the same level of lust as another partner, then that is the reality.

If someone put up with cheating with their prior relationship, but then decides to make it a hard boundary now, then if the other does not want that boundary they are free to leave. Every relationship is different.

If a female does not like the level of romance, then find someone else instead, obviously that person is not correct for you. If it is jealousy, then that is there issue to work on. I am not going to tell my gf she is the most beautiful girl I have dated, but she is still attractive to me. I am cool with not being the best sex partner, as long as I find the relationship fulfilling, why waste energy and make myself miserable. The relationship is between me and her, and whatever parameters we set for that relationship.

If she does not give me bj's, then I am fine with that, even if she gave them in the past to others. The fact is, the others are not in the relationship.

The question she should ask herself is the level of romance sufficient enough. If she is jealous, as stated, she needs to work on her issues.


----------



## MountainRunner

SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't see that it bothers many women at all.. they Love a man with experience.. many say this.. and feel strongly here.


Agreed...And the same goes for many of us guys. Speaking for myself, I love a woman who has "experience" and would go so far as to say that I wouldn't dream of ever entering into a serious relationship with a woman who has never had another lover other than me.

I know some guys "fret" over their SO's past, but the way I look at is...."She picked me to stay with and that says something."


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I was not trying to imply that others are like my mother, what happened to her was a tragedy -where she didn't recover in healthy ways...it's lessons had a profound effect on me as a young girl.... it's not something I can ever erase, it's deeply personal , emotional for me.. even now..


I hear your pain, SA. I am so sorry for what happened to your mom. I can only imagine the anger you feel for the way she was treated, and the fear you must have had growing up, that the same could have happened to you. 

No one wants their mother to have ever been abused or to feel unloved. I wish I knew what to say to lessen the hurt.


----------



## NobodySpecial

TheFlood117 said:


> Marriage is just as much a joint venture in income as it is "love" for men.
> 
> Any man who has been married will tell you that.


I think the key here is "has been". Those who are still happily married would tell you otherwise. Or at least my husband would.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Nynaeve said:


> Of course it happens to me.
> 
> SA, I hold the ideals of feminism dear. How do you not see that the things that YOU are saying about feminism and feminists is precisely the kind of "mockery" that you think feminists are saying about you?
> 
> I deal with it by thinking critically about it. Does their claim have merit? Is it logical? Is the tone of 'mockery' that I perceive really intended as mockery of my beliefs or is it someone else simply expressing their own feelings? Where is the author's angst, anger, etc, coming from?
> 
> Usually, I find that the criticism/mockery isn't logical or reasonable. Often laughably so. Usually I can shrug it off or laugh at the absurdity. Sometimes it gets under my skin. When it does, it's because it's coming from someone I want to respect. In those cases I end up ranting to my husband and then letting it go.


 Ok.. this is good advice.. I need a tougher skin at times.. I'm not perfect.. but I'd like to believe I am still a good person...with right intentions...

It's hard to overlook when you feel another is taking it further than just agreeing to disagree but trying to CHANGE me.. not accepting me for me.. this is a harder pill to swallow.. I think you can understand this.. and what Icey said.. the association with such authors.. it's a concern to me.. Yes.. 



> But I have learned the hard way - through years and years of online debate - that just because a contrary opinion upsets me doesn't mean that the person offering it is trying to upset me. That's how I came to be not really a Christian anymore. It used to upset me when atheists mocked Christianity and Christians. I used to get defensive. I used to want to believe (and therefore did believe) the negative stereotypes about atheists that Christians like to cling to. But at some point I realized I was being dishonest with myself. I wasn't really giving due consideration to their points of view or their arguments. I was projecting bad motives and "mockery" onto a lot of what was not actually intended as such. Sure, there are some jerk atheists. But there are also a lot of jerk Christians. And some of that mockery comes from a place of being hurt by those they are mocking.


 I can relate to what you say here very much.. I wanted to argue with someone online who said Hitler was a Christian (like where is this coming from!)..... so I got to learning the whole reasoning behind this.. Came to learn things that SHOCKED ME.....like "On Jews & their lies" written by Luther & how Hitler distributed this during the Holocaust, near everything LUther SPOKE.. Hitler put into action.. he USED Luthers writings to blind the people.. 

I dug deeper to where some of these doctrines came from..the debates that ensued..... who won... and who was deemed the Heretics...from this - the official loosing of my religion... 

When watching Larry King Live yrs ago.. James McAauther -,(a Preacher) he would be on the show a good bit...along with an Atheist and another -always ENJOYED the debates... 95% of the time I resonated MORE with the Atheist over how the Christian presented himself... 

Our attitude , even if we have the facts right, or whatever it may be..., can destroy many things.. (don't read into this -by any means.. I am not referring to anyone .. and I mean it for myself also )...and yes.. I have missed it many times.. 




> Wait... so you're telling me that you've NEVER read a feminist article that you didn't feel was belittling you or your way of life?


 I have found most of them speak so much about being independent & not depending on a man- like if I choose this lifestyle & allow my husband to provide for me...that I was not living up to feminist ideals.. Yes I feel outside of this..Mostly these type articles.. I would search Traditional views / feminism ...it's a difficult mix for many. I don't have issues with a Man taking the Lead in the marriage either, if he is a good man, having our best interests at heart.. this matters tremendously.



> Honestly, SA.... I have a hard time believing that. Either you've really not read many or, IMHO, you're projecting onto the articles something that isn't there.
> 
> There's a reason we call it a prejudice. Are you sure you're not pre-judging?


 I try to be very logical & listen to both sides.. ... and No.. they are not always putting my way of life down DIRECTLY.. but again.. so much talk about being independent... only makes me feel like a loser.. but I LOVE my life the way it is, my choices.. it's not like someone like ME could be a spokesperson for anything feminist.. that would be a JOKE.. I've read articles -where some feel women like me is slowing the cause down.. .. what am I supposed to do with that?? 

It's not something I find inspiring in any way.. or even encouraging.. .the articles about SAHM's.. Yes they are out there.. I have found them.. but even THEY will speak how they've had to deal with others looking down on them... 



> So, you're going to base your opinion of the entirety of feminism on hearsay you heard from a college student about college students?
> 
> SA, if you can't see how foolish that is than I don't know what to tell you. You can't judge those young women based on how your son told you he thinks they feel about him. Just because you trust him doesn't mean that he's 100% right about those young women.
> 
> I mean, come on. How would you like it if people judged you like that? Can we please do a little bit of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you?


 Nynaeve...all I can say here is... without knowing our son & his friend.. these 2 men ...I think the world of them.. it's not because he is my son either (if he was an idiot , I would probably say so- and make myself look like a lousy mother)..... he is very OPEN, warm , friendly.. so willing to listen to others, try to see their side.. be there for them.. volunteering his time.. he is somewhat of a pushover.. and loves women.... (and always greatly respects them)....

I DO trust our conversation.. he is like me.. if there is something Good to say.. he will say it - even if he is against something.. .. I have taught him critical thinking all my life.....to be open to others views... his roommate.. so many discussions / debates on Calvinism/ religion when we visited.. .. Loved this guy... I do trust the things they spoke that was said to them.. .

For all we know , they were around the more radical ones... or those who would look down on their world views.. they most definitely felt this from them. I will not say it was misplaced & automatically jump to the defense of women I never met either.... he is coming to visit soon.. I will revisit this conversation!.. I know he mentioned the vagina monologue chronicles ..trying to explain this to me. but I forget what all he said now.. . 




> So, we have to agree with these men in order to win them to our side? But then if we agree with them, we're basically joining their side. So... that's not really winning them over, is it? That's called surrendering.
> 
> *I'm not going to agree that someone is right and stop arguing my point of view or my position just because I want someone to like me. *If logic and facts proved their interpretation was the correct one, then they can present the logic and facts and win ME over.


 I feel the same way in this..No.. it's not about agreeing but deeply listening , acknowledging segments of truth in how they feel.. giving this back to them. and coming to the table.. working it out.. not giving up.. not closing down...finding some common ground.. . you may see a lot of this. but it doesn't appear so according to many men.. I would say the same thing for them.. to acknowledge our concerns & give each other a little leeway.. even in our disagreement ...so peace can be found.. 

It's not like we are all married to each other.. we're not going to agree on a number of things.. and it's OK. 



> Look. I don't actually think men and women are at war with one another. And the truth is that even on this issue, there isn't one, unified "male position." There are plenty of men who disagree that men are not wanting marriage and plenty more that disagree as to why.
> 
> So, the idea that feminists are just refusing to empathize with men and that's why we disagree on this topic is illogical.


 of course I agree there is no lumping ALL men or ALL women or throwing the added "feminists" buzz word into the mix.. this being my downfall on this thread... running with the word being used IN THE ARTICLE....I just connected what was being said here.. (knowing those who self identify) and spoke (you can add "out of my a**) if you like..

This was my blunder then...

Honestly my entire life...I have looked upon people in 2 ways..*1)* are they good, safe, honest, have integrity (this encompasses many things) .. or *2)* are they shady, will lie.. talk behind my back, use me, hurt me?..... .. Men or women.. same thing. these are my filters....and only time & shared experiences can answer those.... what religion , what gender, what color, it doesn't matter to me .. to pass the friend test. .. these are my requirements....

Now to pass the lover test is a ton more lengthy... but not the friend test.. 

If they can not accept me for Being ME.. it does all go to hell though... As I am sure you all feel this way as well.. ..and should . 



> Nobody expects you to conform, SA. Disagreeing with the things you say, and telling you why we think you're wrong is not requiring conformity. It's disagreeing.


 I am all for this >>







.. 



> It's this kind of sentiment that makes me think it's just a matter of prejudice for you. You're extremely defensive. It reminds me of Christians claiming they're being persecuted because of gay marriage.


 now I disagree here.. I do not feel I have been extremely defensive.. I have taken the time to explain myself as best I could & to where I felt I was being misunderstood...

I am extending my attempt to understand your side.. but yes, it's hurtful to still be met with your feeling this way.. if I speak. if I share.. 



> What I have gotten upset about, and what I've seen others get upset about, is the things you say about feminists. You don't have to say or imply that we're all wh8res and slvts. How can you not see that thinking of us all in such a derogatory way is insulting to us?


 I have not said this ONCE In this thread.. it's hurtful to me -that others consistently INSIST I am doing this... Like above.. I apologize .. if I used the word feminist in a way that brought this on.. it was WRONG as this encompasses half the world & all varieties of faiths, beliefs, you name it.. 



> Why can't you just accept and believe that not all feminists - indeed, not even most feminists - are these terrible, hateful people? You don't have to agree with feminism to do that.


 I never felt this anyway.. and No -I do not feel this way. for the Record.. Rose Aglow is a wonderful feminist.. so is JLD.. love her ... even though I don't self identify nor any of my friends in real life.. we just don't have these sort of conversations ... I understand now.. not to use this word.. Frankly I want to erase it from my TAM keyboard after this thread. *Lesson learned.* 



> Jessica Valenti? No, not really. *sigh*
> 
> Why do you need to tell which kind of feminist you're talking to? Why do you need to label us? Why can't you just read our words and deal with what we say, when we say it? Why do you need to judge me according to whether I agree with Valenti or Grass or whoever?
> 
> Why do you feel the need to do that?


 because I feel my lifestyle / values is very much looked down upon by these 2 examples... it's that simple.. if someone praises them, their work.. I know they look down on many traditional ideals....It's an association. 



> My journey to feminism started out because of my Christian beliefs. I was very active in the church. All my life. I studied the Bible deeply - like, seminary level stuff. But I was told by my church that I wasn't allowed to teach the Bible or preach to men. Just because I'm a woman and that's how they interpreted some Bible verses. I didn't agree with how they interpreted things. I got interested in studying it and came across Christians for Biblical Equality. They aren't specifically feminist but there's a lot of overlap so I was also introduced to a lot of feminism online. And eventually I came to identify as a feminist.


 I have a female evangelist friend. seen her yesterday...great Lady... our neighbors have a Female Preacher..(or whatever the name is for that)...they are upset because she had to move to another church.. she was well loved...just saying..


----------



## Cletus

SimplyAmorous said:


> It's hard to overlook when you feel another is taking it further than just agreeing to disagree but trying to CHANGE me.. not accepting me for me.. this is a harder pill to swallow.. I think you can understand this.. and what Icey said.. the association with such authors.. it's a concern to me.. Yes..


Now I KNOW you've been around here long enough to understand that the single biggest sticking point in these forums are the folks who have no ability to look outside of their life experience to see anything useful.

Everyone of my in-laws is like this. Constant whining about how the world is all wrong with the implication that if only everything was Their Way (TM), life would be all peachy. There's no shortage of the same mentality here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SA, I don't see anyone trying to change you. Are you saying just because people believe something other than what you believe that this alone means they are trying to change you?


----------



## jld

Cletus said:


> Now I KNOW you've been around here long enough to understand that the single biggest sticking point in these forums are the folks who have no ability to look outside of their life experience to see anything useful.
> 
> Everyone of my in-laws is like this. Constant whining about how the world is all wrong with the implication that if only everything was Their Way (TM), life would be all peachy. There's no shortage of the same mentality here.


I think we are all like this to some degree.

I am constantly telling men to become stronger in themselves, to not take their wives' emotions personally, to become the rock in their storms, to reach out with empathy. That's my message.

But it is not the message for every man. Some men need the wife to be the rock for them. And those wives are happy to do it. 
__________________


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> SA, I don't see anyone trying to change you. Are you saying just because people believe something other than what you believe that this alone means they are trying to change you?


I don't mean on the threads.. it was behind the scenes.. that is all I want to say.. I found it very hurtful and well.. that's my problem obviously.. but to share about your life for a couple yrs.... then be met with that..it's like being slapped in the face.. and no, I don't need friends like this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok, I understand now.


----------



## Trickster

For any marriage to last, there needs to be total unconditional love. Does unconditional love really exist? At this point in my life, I believe that unconditional love only works if we are getting our needs met.

Several years ago, I had a conversation with my best friend from H.S. he asked me what took me so long to get married and start a family. He always saw ms as a family man. I imaging most girls back then probably thought the same thing about me. I was in love with the idea of being in love. I was the diehard romantic. I was never much into dating girls who I went to school with because I knew their previous bf's. I did date a few girls from other schools. It was a good thing I didn't know their previous bf's.

So off to the Navy. I had a couple LTR relationships, but it was just sex. I never went out on an actual date with any of them. Most lasted for a couple of years. I hoped it would of turned into love. It never did.

So when I met my wife, I knew from the start I wanted to marry her. She was my first real gf and I was her first bf. She was 25, she was a virgin, I knew she was a good girl, I knew she wouldn't cheat, I knew she'd make a good mother and I Knew she wouldn't leave or abandoned me. After 23 years, all that holds true.

I love my wife more than I have ever loved anybody. The only condition I have/had was that she love me in return. I don't believe she loves me or ever really did in the way I always wanted her to. So, in a sense, my love is conditional. Most people no longer have unconditional love. As soon as our needs no longer get met, we bolt. Young as well as divorced people know this. 

Why get married? People change. Change is necessary for individual growth. Some people in LTR's grow and change together. Most however, grow and drift apart. I believe both the man and the woman, to some degree, needs to be in love with the idea of being in love. For myself, I am no longer in love with the idea of being in love. Maybe that will change in the future.


----------



## sapientia

Runs like Dog said:


> so what's YOUR explanation, please illuminate us.


Both women and men of western nations are spending more becoming educated and trained to become employed that marriage isn't high on their priority list. Feminism really doesn't come into it, for me at least, though I empathize with some groups who are still escaping the poverty trap. For those interested, my giving back is to support a fund for women starting their own businesses. In addition to interest-free financing, these women are also provided mentoring support from those of us who have 'gone before'.

I have a son who will be going away to university soon. The youth today don't seem as concerned with getting boy/girlfriends as my generation. When they do, it's much more casual.

So I think, aside from the stat being misleading as posted previously, we are seeing an emphasis on higher education as we shift increasingly towards a knowledge-based economy. Both men and women require this training to become employed so it makes perfect sense to me they delay marriage and children until they are financial stable. Education takes time.

There is a terrible saying, which has a kernel of truth: The rich (western nations) keep getting richer and the poor... have children.

I'm a humanist. Not a feminist.


----------



## Runs like Dog

So the entirety of this thread is false then. It's not men who don't marry it's people. Everyone.


----------



## EleGirl

Runs like Dog said:


> So the entirety of this thread is false then. It's not men who don't marry it's people. Everyone.


It's people up to the age of about 25. People are just getting married later, after they get into a better place financially.


----------



## McDean

EleGirl said:


> Well, the laws that govern the contract are out there for all the public to read. Few do, I don't know why they don't bother to do this, but they don't.
> 
> Perhaps this is something that should be taught. High school would be a good place.
> 
> I did take a class in the topic, given by some attorney before I married.
> 
> The contract is gender neutral. As more and more women are able to support themselves, things like 50/50 custody are becoming the norm. Alimony is paid in only 15% of divorces and it is usually only transitional. Very few divorces include long term, or life long, alimony.
> 
> The divorce rate is not 50%, it's about 30% over all.
> 
> It's about 50% for the very young and very poor. The older the couple is and the more education they have the lower the divorce rate. These divorces usually happen early in the marriage, so they are short term marriages. These folks have no assets and there is no alimony. NO one is fleeced.
> 
> For example marriages where the woman is 25 or older and has a degree is about 25%. The more education, the lower the divorce rate.
> 
> Most people have little to no assets to speak of so most do not even divide assets... except they each keep the car that they drive. And they get to keep their own clothes.
> 
> More and more states are moving away from the idea of alimony. A SAHP can get rehabilitative alimony for a short time. But it's rare.


Some good points but I fear that another wave of statistics are about to hit, or at least will hit in the coming years. When both the man and a woman in a relationship have the means to live on their own a-ok - they have no barrier to leaving to do just that. I think it is good that women have found greater independence. Sadly I wonder if it doesn't make it easier for both men and women to not put effort into making relationships last. 

My grandfather told me the biggest issue for younger generations is they fight so hard to get each other but not keep each other. I am a higher level executive, the divorce rate is staggering, the cheating rate is even big and I see it with both men and women at this level and guess who they remarry (when they do) if they divorce at this level....yep another executive. Similar to the doctor who had one spouse support them through med-school etc. and then dumps them for someone in the medical field after they hit the good life....

Divorce rates are going to go up. Young men might be a leading indicator of what is to come.....Marriage, as most of us thought of it growing up, may simply go away or change so much that those of us in older groups will hardly recognize it....

Maybe I'm just jaded.....


----------



## Runs like Dog

EleGirl said:


> It's people up to the age of about 25. People are just getting married later, after they get into a better place financially.


My eldest is getting married this year. He will be 30. But it wasn't so much financial aspects since they've been together on their own financially for years. I think the core issue is stability - where one sees oneself being and doing 5 or 10 years down the road.


----------



## sapientia

Runs like Dog said:


> So the entirety of this thread is false then. It's not men who don't marry it's people. Everyone.


Yes.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

SimplyAmorous said:


> I have found most of them speak so much about being independent & not depending on a man- like if I choose this lifestyle & allow my husband to provide for me...that I was not living up to feminist ideals.. Yes I feel outside of this..Mostly these type articles.. I would search Traditional views / feminism ...it's a difficult mix for many. I don't have issues with a Man taking the Lead in the marriage either, if he is a good man, having our best interests at heart.. this matters tremendously.


I hope you don't mind me posting a reply to you SA. I know we don't always agree and I certainly do identify as feminist, and I've been reading this debate with interest. 

I am unsure where this comes from, as I have been a stay at home mother. I personally believe it's an extremely valuable role and all of the feminists I am friends with believe it's completely undervalued. None of them including me look down on SAHM. 



> I try to be very logical & listen to both sides.. ... and No.. they are not always putting my way of life down DIRECTLY.. but again.. so much talk about being independent... only makes me feel like a loser.. but I LOVE my life the way it is, my choices.. it's not like someone like ME could be a spokesperson for anything feminist.. that would be a JOKE.. I've read articles -where some feel women like me is slowing the cause down.. .. what am I supposed to do with that??


I think that may be the issue, you are seeing things that aren't there, or taking on board something negative that is not really there. If it is there, it would be a minority of feminists who believe those things. I do read an awful lot of literature about feminist issues, and probably have come across a few feminists who said things I thought were ridiculous. 
I don't agree with every feminist or their writings. I never felt like a loser when I was a SAHM, in fact I felt less supported by those who claimed not to be feminists and who thought I was bludging off my husband etc. 





> Nynaeve...all I can say here is... without knowing our son & his friend.. these 2 men ...I think the world of them.. it's not because he is my son either (if he was an idiot , I would probably say so- and make myself look like a lousy mother)..... he is very OPEN, warm , friendly.. so willing to listen to others, try to see their side.. be there for them.. volunteering his time.. he is somewhat of a pushover.. and loves women.... (and always greatly respects them)....


On this it could he that he picks up your dislike of feminists and feminism and is projecting that and also taking the wrong angle. It's like when someone is brought up prejudice to a group or individul, they tend to see the "bad" things about that group, and only notice extreme points of view. It can be very difficult change your thinking or view things without prejudice once ingrained.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*LittleDeer* said:


> I hope you don't mind me posting a reply to you SA. I know we don't always agree and I certainly do identify as feminist, and I've been reading this debate with interest.
> 
> I am unsure where this comes from, as I have been a stay at home mother. I personally believe it's an extremely valuable role and all of the feminists I am friends with believe it's completely undervalued. None of them including me look down on SAHM.
> 
> 
> I think that may be the issue, you are seeing things that aren't there, or taking on board something negative that is not really there. If it is there, it would be a minority of feminists who believe those things. I do read an awful lot of literature about feminist issues, and probably have come across a few feminists who said things I thought were ridiculous.
> I don't agree with every feminist or their writings. I never felt like a loser when I was a SAHM, in fact I felt less supported by those who claimed not to be feminists and who thought I was bludging off my husband etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this it could he that he picks up your dislike of feminists and feminism and is projecting that and also taking the wrong angle. It's like when someone is brought up prejudice to a group or individul, they tend to see the "bad" things about that group, and only notice extreme points of view. It can be very difficult change your thinking or view things without prejudice once ingrained.


I feel that way with just about every self proclaimed feminist on this forum Little Deer (though not all).. when I say this.. I mean those who are very vocal about it...it doesn't help when every time I share a view ..that I am told just how wrong I am, misinformed, that I am reading things into this, that, that I am projecting...when I have truly tried to give another side.. with articles, things said to me, my experience ...it just gets brushed off...all I get is defense on the other side.. 

My experience (and I haven't been just a SAHM since giving birth to our 1st son 25 yrs ago...I have always worked , though not as many hrs as he, and No...I could not support myself on what I make alone, hardly)... my experience is very different over yours.. I have friends who may say they are feminist -*if I asked*.. but it's NEVER a topic even brought up... like EVER... these are the ones I feel most embraced by...there are so many things we have in common.. even those who have a career.... but on this forum.. it's pounded, opinions are very strong.. 

Yes, I do feel more embraced by those with a more traditional mindset /lifestyle or at least those who don't judge it.. those who love being married, having a man in their lives, something that's very important to them.. not feeling ashamed if we depend on him, especially if he prefers it that way. I don't feel we are allowed to be proud, somehow.. 

Could be because I am from a smaller town, not the big city, the culture is different.. I don't think I am all that unreasonable... but I know I am to the the rest of you... I am often reminded of it.. how I have everything interpreted all wrong . so I just shriek away.... I have learned my lesson here.. I have vowed to stay away from these threads and NOT use the word..it's just not worth the backlash to me and how it makes me feel ..


----------



## Anonymous07

Runs like Dog said:


> So the entirety of this thread is false then. It's not men who don't marry it's people. Everyone.


Pretty much, yes. 

I don't think it's so much age related, as it is more about people who grow up in divorced homes. I'm in my mid-twenties and most of my friends grew up with divorced parents. Both myself and those who grew up with parents who are still married, all married on the younger side. Those who have divorced parents are not married yet. 

There are so many factors for why people marry or don't marry, it's hard to say this is the reason why, but I do believe that is a big part of it. I'm sure it also has to do with maturity and other factors as well. Kids these days are babied a lot more, so they are not expected to grow up as fast.

That is just what I have noticed.


----------



## Forest

SimplyAmorous said:


> I feel that way with just about every self proclaimed feminist on this forum Little Deer (though not all).. when I say this.. I mean those who are very vocal about it...it doesn't help when every time I share a view ..that I am told just how wrong I am, misinformed, that I am reading things into this, that, that I am projecting...when I have truly tried to give another side.. with articles, things said to me, my experience ...it just gets brushed off...all I get is defense on the other side..
> 
> My experience (and I haven't been just a SAHM since giving birth to our 1st son 25 yrs ago...I have always worked , though not as many hrs as he, and No...I could not support myself on what I make alone, hardly)... my experience is very different over yours.. I have friends who may say they are feminist -*if I asked*.. but it's NEVER a topic even brought up... like EVER... these are the ones I feel most embraced by...there are so many things we have in common.. even those who have a career.... but on this forum.. it's pounded, opinions are very strong..
> 
> Yes, I do feel more embraced by those with a more traditional mindset /lifestyle or at least those who don't judge it.. those who love being married, having a man in their lives, something that's very important to them.. not feeling ashamed if we depend on him, especially if he prefers it that way. I don't feel we are allowed to be proud, somehow..
> 
> Could be because I am from a smaller town, not the big city, the culture is different.. I don't think I am all that unreasonable... but I know I am to the the rest of you... I am often reminded of it.. how I have everything interpreted all wrong . so I just shriek away.... I have learned my lesson here.. I have vowed to stay away from these threads and NOT use the word..it's just not worth the backlash to me and how it makes me feel ..


Ever get the feeling that some of the strongest proponents of the importance of free speech put down those trumpets when you have an opinion that differs from theirs? Its like a crazy alternate universe/politically correct take on McCarthyism. The worst part is that its working; you just said you'd avoid the topic now.

In the context of this discussion, how can you be _wrong_ about how you feel? Its about as logical as telling you what you can and can't put in your stew.


----------



## Trickster

SimplyAmorous said:


> I feel that way with just about every self proclaimed feminist on this forum Little Deer (though not all).. when I say this.. I mean those who are very vocal about it...it doesn't help when every time I share a view ..that I am told just how wrong I am, misinformed, that I am reading things into this, that, that I am projecting...when I have truly tried to give another side.. with articles, things said to me, my experience ...it just gets brushed off...all I get is defense on the other side..
> 
> My experience (and I haven't been just a SAHM since giving birth to our 1st son 25 yrs ago...I have always worked , though not as many hrs as he, and No...I could not support myself on what I make alone, hardly)... my experience is very different over yours.. I have friends who may say they are feminist -*if I asked*.. but it's NEVER a topic even brought up... like EVER... these are the ones I feel most embraced by...there are so many things we have in common.. even those who have a career.... but on this forum.. it's pounded, opinions are very strong..
> 
> Yes, I do feel more embraced by those with a more traditional mindset /lifestyle or at least those who don't judge it.. those who love being married, having a man in their lives, something that's very important to them.. not feeling ashamed if we depend on him, especially if he prefers it that way. I don't feel we are allowed to be proud, somehow..
> 
> Could be because I am from a smaller town, not the big city, the culture is different.. I don't think I am all that unreasonable... but I know I am to the the rest of you... I am often reminded of it.. how I have everything interpreted all wrong . so I just shriek away.... I have learned my lesson here.. I have vowed to stay away from these threads and NOT use the word..it's just not worth the backlash to me and how it makes me feel ..



SA- you are definitely the hopeless romantic. I mean that in a good way. You married a man who feels the same way as you do. I believe you have a blessed life. You have no need to feel bad about the path you are on because it is working for you. Who cares what others think?

I am of I was a hopeless romantic myself. I was in love with the idea of being in love. I always was. Even my HS friends thought that about me. I wanted a good, loving, affectionate wife, the kids, the house, and the family vacations at the lake.

Even with my distinfunctional childhood, I still believed in love. That's what makes the world go around. The world needs the romantics. 

For me, however, its not like that. Although my wife was very sweet and fun to be around, My wife never wanted to be the homemaker nor did she want to be a SAHM. I dont think she wanted to be a mom. I think I forced her into that role. On top of that, even with a Bachelors Degree, she has never been independent. Not even close. She claims that she was a SAH martyr, but she never gave up her career to stay at home. 

So. My dilemma. What to teach my daughter about love, romance, marriage, education, trust, faith, and mostly independence. You have to know that we are all products of our environment. It scares me that I am failing with so many areas with my daughter. I am almost 50 and I have nothing figured out yet, except that my daughter is my world. I am independent, I work hard, I am a good provider, and even though I don't get the kind of love in return from my wife, the family unit that you describe would be my dream.

Since I have very little experience in that area, I have to teach my daughter to be financially independent. That's what I know.


A very long time ago I said something about women shouldn't rely on a man and you quoted me because you were hurt by my words. Sorry about that! Nobody here wants to attack you for your beliefs. We just haven't walked in your shoes


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Trickster said:


> *I am of I was a hopeless romantic myself. I was in love with the idea of being in love. I always was. Even my HS friends thought that about me. I wanted a good, loving, affectionate wife, the kids, the house, and the family vacations at the lake*.


Yes Trickster.. I am.."the hopeless"... in this one area anyway... you always come across as a man with a good heart to me.. very understanding ... I'm sure what resonates with me is, at your core..originally being wired like I am.. .even if lt's brought some disillusionment with it.... 



> Even with my distinfunctional childhood, I still believed in love. That's what makes the world go around. The world needs the romantics.


 The problem with being a Romantic is.. there can be so much heartbreak in it...like we set ourselves up for a fall...watching one of our sons in the midst of his 1st major breakup...he's all over the place emotionally.. I'm sure he'd love to shut it off.. at the same time.. it keeps us hanging on...



> For me, however, its not like that. Although my wife was very sweet and fun to be around, My wife never wanted to be the homemaker nor did she want to be a SAHM. I dont think she wanted to be a mom. I think I forced her into that role. On top of that, even with a Bachelors Degree, she has never been independent. Not even close. *She claims that she was a SAH martyr*, but she never gave up her career to stay at home.


 Yeah it seems many women resent the staying home... they hate it, feel caged...I've always found it more of a "privilege"....I know you've had some difficult health concerns with your daughter...this could have played a role too. 

So true...we are all products of our environment... we want / have a NEED to avoid what has the potential to bring us the greatest pain, hardship & regret...most of all...we don't want our children to suffer like we did.... 

Took a walk with friends yesterday... the daughter, she is driven by a passion for her specific field of study... she LOVES HER WORK...a Boyfriend, who has time for that [email protected]# 

I look at her & think.. "this young woman is going places.. she is highly respected among her peers.. what a courageous well adjusted go getter!"... she will FLY IN LIFE... it IS to be highly praised... we got on the subject of choices.... some of us.. (her Mom, me).. we allowed our men to take care of us.. that's what they wanted.. we took that leap of faith.. we trusted.. 

I can see that our sacrifices in this , are different though... at the end of the day...it's all in what makes a couple happy.. sailing together.. I don't think any of us would invite more stress (too busy, not enough time together can be more stress -than a couple like us.. we have the time but we don't mind pinching the pennies where we can)... we all hope our choices will bring us the happiness / contentment we envision... some of us miss it, find we need to take a detour, some of us feel like we're chasing that elusive carrot on a stick...










The daughter.. I know she so looks up to her Mom for always being there, her sacrifices, this gives her satisfaction that she got something right.. even if we as Mom's second guess ourselves ....asking could we have done MORE, provided more, or been a better example..... 

So yeah.. sometimes with all the proud independence I see among women today.. it plays on my psyche a bit...I'm almost 50....what really have I accomplished , can show on paper...basically nothing ...I'm just a Mom..it's something 95% of career women do too... 

The truth is...I've never been envious of those things...had I achieved them. I would have envied the Happy Mom within the home, baking pies, children round about her.. I have fond memories getting up in the am picking berries with my kids in the back yard, soon fresh pies are in the over.. then watching them from the window playing in the sand box.. pure contentment to me...then Dad coming down the drive.. kids saying "Daddy"... meeting him with a smile...I don't feel many women THINK like me today.. I am off in wonderland of ages ago...

Then....somehow I think speaking these things paints me as being lazy, foolish & irresponsible to others...archaic too... I am just being self aware about this fact. A women who walked in MY SHOES can NOT be representative of anything carrying > "Look, I can be just as successful as a man" mantra... 

I don't mind housework at all.. I feel it's my place to handle every aspect of the home front, so when he comes home.. he has time for US.. & the manly stuff I can't do.. he is stronger after all & better with tools , chainsaws and things. 



> A very long time ago I said something about women shouldn't rely on a man and you quoted me because you were hurt by my words. Sorry about that! Nobody here wants to attack you for your beliefs. We just haven't walked in your shoes


 If I never met my husband, or a family oriented breadwinner type .... I would have just made different choices.. I had my eye on 1 particular job in a hospital before we married...they always hired people they KNEW, family members.. I WANTED THAT JOB didn't know a soul....I kept going back there, asking to see the manager, I let him know I wanted this position & would be back.....after doing this a couple times... I got an interview... upon my 1 yr review.. I was told by a female manager that *my persistence* is why I got hired.. I had an excellent review by the way...

Had I not met a man who fits with me.. I would have pulled up my boot straps & did whatever I had to do.. to MAKE IT on my own.... I believe that.. but I still would have felt something was missing -without a man beside me, children waddling behind...all coming back to the romanticism of Marriage/family that I wanted more than anything else... for those who still dream of this ... it's just harder to find ....due to the cultural changes, with many feeling marriage is no longer important , even necessary..


----------



## tom67

Forest said:


> Ever get the feeling that some of the strongest proponents of the importance of free speech put down those trumpets when you have an opinion that differs from theirs? Its like a crazy alternate universe/politically correct take on McCarthyism. The worst part is that its working; you just said you'd avoid the topic now.
> 
> In the context of this discussion, how can you be _wrong_ about how you feel? Its about as logical as telling you what you can and can't put in your stew.


You hurt my FEELINGS = HARASSMENT.
Thank you third wave communism... I mean feminism
More on the "useful idiots" as Lenin would say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc


----------



## SimplyAmorous

sapientia said:


> The labels don't matter. Nor do the opinions of someone who makes different choices. I'm what some would call a feminist, except I don't call myself that ever and I don't identify with many of the women who openly label themselves such. *I'm a women who chose to work because I really enjoy it. I tried staying home when my son was young and it wasn't for me. I wasn't happy, so I did something different.*
> 
> SA, you made a choice how to live your life. All that matters is that YOU are happy with your choice. If you are, enjoy. If you aren't, do something different that moves you toward your goal(s).
> 
> The labels don't matter.


The career oriented young woman yesterday would agree with you.. she even said.. it's all about what makes a person HAPPY....(so long as a family can afford to live & not be a burden on others ).... life is to be enjoyed.. there is a saying.. 








...


----------



## sapientia

SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't think I am all that unreasonable... but I know I am to the the rest of you... I am often reminded of it.. how I have everything interpreted all wrong . so I just shriek away.... I have learned my lesson here.. I have vowed to stay away from these threads and NOT use the word..it's just not worth the backlash to me and how it makes me feel ..


The labels don't matter. Nor do the opinions of someone who makes different choices. I'm what some would call a feminist, except I don't call myself that ever and I don't identify with many of the women who openly label themselves such. I'm a women who chose to work because I really enjoy it. I tried staying home when my son was young and it wasn't for me. I wasn't happy, so I did something different.

SA, you made a choice how to live your life. All that matters is that YOU are happy with your choice. If you are, enjoy. If you aren't, do something different that moves you toward your goal(s).

The labels don't matter. If there is one lesson I could inject into the young people I mentor, women especially, it's to know what you want. Then take the steps to make it happen. Then enjoy. But above all - don't let life just happen to you.


----------



## fat_moe

I am an average 31 year old male.

I went to college and hold two graduate degrees: one in finance and the other in European history. I've worked for a elite private university with national name recognition and now work for a bank. I go running everyday. I have a lean, athletic body type, but am not really muscular. I currently have no debt, including student loans.

I don't plan on ever being married or having children. There is simply no incentive for me to do so. In fact, there is significant risk for a man to commit himself to anything in our current society. In the United States, fathers are seen as a complete joke with no authority. They are constantly under the sword of Damocles with the potential for their wives to initiate divorce on a whim, losing the family life they took years to build.

I grew up with the notion of giving all of yourself to your girlfriend and wife. My parents were a clear example of the type of relationship I wanted in the future. I believe in altruism and have a soft heart for people. However, I can no longer logically let myself be so open with people in this country. The population of the United States is atomized and everyone is always looking for the Bigger, Better Deal, even after commitment.

That said, I actually have no problem attracting women. I've had several long-term relationships that lasted years, but counting the times when I wasn't in a relationship, I've bedded at least a dozen women. The issue for me is that it seems most women expect traditional privileges, without the traditional responsibilities. If I could count on a woman's loyalty, I might be more of a provider to them. But, if they want to be demanding and not give anything, then I leave. I don't buy dinners or gifts anymore. I don't go to events I find boring. I don't really date. My attitude is "This is how I roll. If you want to come along, fine." Surprisingly, this attitude hasn't hampered my dating life.

The biggest issue I've had is with career women. Of course, I think that a person should be able to do whatever he or she likes. I've had some great female superiors at work and trusted their leadership. But, the modern career woman seems to want the CHOICE to either work or not. If I ever married, I earn enough that my wife would not have to work. However, I've heard women with great educations complaining that their husbands aren't earning to the level that would allow her to be a SAHM.

I just find it crazy that women I date expect me to provide them financial stability and children, as if their owed these things by men. I'm responsible for myself, first and foremost and no amount of shaming is going to rattle my self esteem.


----------



## sapientia

Particularly if you aren't planning on children, I can't see why man or woman would marry if it's not your thing.

IMO, many more couples would treat each other much better if they each recognized that all healthy relationships are based on being together by choice. The only true obligation where leaving isn't a choice is having children. Parenting is an irrevocable commitment.


----------



## tom67

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Zp-5lTgZQ


----------



## TRy

Truthseeker1 said:


> “Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
> 
> (read more here)


 Many men do not see marriage as a good deal for them. They feel that the laws are stacked against them. For instance, alimony was intended to assist wives until they got married again, and since good women did not sleep around or live with someone back them unless they were married, they often would get married again quickly if they divorced before they got old. Today the stigma against sleeping with someone outside of marriage or living with them outside of marriage is gone, so the alimony can go on for a very long time. Also, cheating use to be an important factor in the alimony calculations. Today, with most states cheating does not matter. 

I have a friend that caught his wife cheating that was ordered to pay many years of alimony. His wife married the affair partner that she left him for only after the alimony ran out; the wedding was scheduled a year before to take place less than 30 days after the alimony ran out. To make matters worse, since the wife had been a stay at home mother, in addition to the large alimony payments, she got custody of their child and child support, all while continuing in the relationship with her affair partner. Since my friend was a hard worker and great breadwinner, and the wife's affair partner was not, my friend basically was a major part of the funding of their lifestyle and relationship. Additionally, the wife's affair partner got to spend more time with my friends daughter than he did. When young men see things like this, they think twice about getting married.


----------



## sapientia

TRy said:


> Many men do not see marriage as a good deal for them. They feel that the laws are stacked against them. For instance, alimony was intended to assist wives until they got married again, and since good women did not sleep around or live with someone back them unless they were married, they often would get married again quickly if they divorced before they got old. Today the stigma against sleeping with someone outside of marriage or living with them outside of marriage is gone, so the alimony can go on for a very long time. Also, cheating use to be an important factor in the alimony calculations. Today, with most states cheating does not matter.
> 
> I have a friend that caught his wife cheating that was ordered to pay many years of alimony. His wife married the affair partner that she left him for only after the alimony ran out; the wedding was scheduled a year before to take place less than 30 days after the alimony ran out. To make matters worse, since the wife had been a stay at home mother, in addition to the large alimony payments, she got custody of their child and child support, all while continuing in the relationship with her affair partner. Since my friend was a hard worker and great breadwinner, and the wife's affair partner was not, my friend basically was a major part of the funding of their lifestyle and relationship. Additionally, the wife's affair partner got to spend more time with my friends daughter than he did. When young men see things like this, they think twice about getting married.


That's disgusting. Shame on that woman, and the courts that allowed that to happen.

I'm not unsympathetic to single mothers with young children. I believe that kids need to be looked after financially. But there should be a maximum to alimony, regardless of length of marriage. With today's online education options, I think 5 years maximum might be awarded in cases where an ex-spouse needs to retrain to become employable. That's more than enough time to get a degree, such as bookkeeping, that would provide a decent income for independence.

I didn't ask (nor was eligible) for alimony in my divorce, btw. Our incomes and education level difference was negligible. 

Even having young kids isn't a barrier to school these days, with all the online and evening courses that are available. Some people are, unfortunately, just lazy.


----------



## Jeffyboy

I know in Japan men are not marrying and women in Korea are not starting to marry either because they're making a ton of money (their incentive to marry was financial).

If all the incentives of marriage are taken away and all the costs are still there, it's no wonder why people aren't marrying + this generation saw their parents go through nasty divorces. It's going to be really interesting to see how this pans out over the next couple decades.


----------

