# "Cheap Sex" And The Impact On Marriage



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Thoughts? Good, Bad, BS? 



> In example 101 of Feminists Are Lying To You, sociologist and author Mark Regnerus states the painfully obvious truth: being so-called "sexually liberated" comes with serious consequences for women, including a society packed with men who have zero incentive to commit to marriage.
> 
> In his new book, called Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, Regnerus explains how the abundance of "cheap sex" — sex with very little time and emotional investment — is helping deter men from committing to marriage. In other words, when men can get sex from women without any type of commitment or investment, why in the world would they rush to be married, or even commit to a relationship, for that matter?
> 
> ...


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

There's a lot of truth to those theories.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Of course the entire premise is based upon the idea that marriage is good and being unmarried is bad. Marriage is a man made construct which for the most part, its time has passed. In todays world of relative abundance and prosperity marriage is no longer the necessity for basic survival it was even 25 years ago. It is almost the same as saying the world is going to hell in a hand basket based on the evidence that there are fewer receptionists than there were 25 years ago.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> Thoughts? Good, Bad, BS?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Probably should move this to another section because it's not a real question but...my 2 cents...

Marriage is not right for everyone but in the past it was assumed everyone should marry and most did. These days young people don't feel that same pressure to get married and that's a good thing. Now only the ones that feel marriage is good for them will do it and they will do it of their own accord rather than just following a script their elders wrote for them.

Of course there will be people making judgements about why this occurred and of course will try to blame weak lazy men and promiscuous feminists. However instead of trying to find blame, the finger waggers should just realize that younger people are rejecting the messages that they need to be married and are blazing their own trail.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Marriage rates have been declining for decades. 

I may be a dinosaur, but to me it seems that getting sex is way easier and more readily available in marriage than hook ups, FWB and whatever. Plus my wife does the laundry really well.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

..."when men can get sex from women without any type of commitment or investment, why in the world would they rush to be married, or even commit to a relationship, for that matter?"

If that is what someone is marrying for, I would rather pass, thanks.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Ynot said:


> Of course the entire premise is based upon the idea that marriage is good and being unmarried is bad.


Their parents being married before having kids is unquestionably good for the kids. Their parents being unmarried when the kids are being raised is unquestionably bad for the kids.

The question is murkier for the married couple themselves. Marriage tends to be better for the couple financially and health-wise, unless it is a very unhappy marriage. But the "odds" favor marriage being relatively "good" and unmarriage being relatively "bad" for the participants.

Still and all, I told my son not to get married unless the woman was much wealthier than him and offered him a pre-nup in which she has to pay him to "buy" her freedom. We both laughed. But it isn't that funny.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Ynot said:


> Of course the entire premise is based upon the idea that marriage is good and being unmarried is bad. Marriage is a man made construct which for the most part, its time has passed. In todays world of relative abundance and prosperity marriage is no longer the necessity for basic survival it was even 25 years ago. It is almost the same as saying the world is going to hell in a hand basket based on the evidence that there are fewer receptionists than there were 25 years ago.


I had much the same thought off the bat. So what? Does everyone have to be married? Clearly, marriage is not for everyone. It may be well and good that those who are not naturally predisposed to marriage no longer have societal pressures to enter an institution for which they are not well suited. 

However, there still are, and probably always will be, people who desire a lifetime commitment, even independent of financial concerns. We know that, on average, married people live longer and healthier lives. And of course, the body of evidence is clear that children who come from stable, two parent households, have a leg up on their peers from broken or single parent homes. So it's equally off to say that marriage's time has passed for everyone, as it would be to say that marriage is inherently good and everyone should do it.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I had much the same thought off the bat. So what? Does everyone have to be married? Clearly, marriage is not for everyone. It may be well and good that those who are not naturally predisposed to marriage no longer have societal pressures to enter an institution for which they are not well suited.
> 
> However, there still are, and probably always will be, people who desire a lifetime commitment, even independent of financial concerns. We know that, on average, married people live longer and healthier lives. And of course, the body of evidence is clear that children who come from stable, two parent households, have a leg up on their peers from broken or single parent homes. So it's equally off to say that marriage's time has passed for everyone, as it would be to say that marriage is inherently good and everyone should do it.


I agree, if less people get married, so what? Really, my only preference with marriage is the benefit of raising children.

I think what the author is trying to state (right or wrong), more women still want to get married but because of their "sexual freedom" are having a harder time finding a male who is willing to commit.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> Their parents being married before having kids is unquestionably good for the kids. Their parents being unmarried when the kids are being raised is unquestionably bad for the kids.


Questionable, and I disagree. Committed parents are good for the kids - marriage has little bearing on this.



Holdingontoit said:


> The question is murkier for the married couple themselves. Marriage tends to be better for the couple financially and health-wise, unless it is a very unhappy marriage. But the "odds" favor marriage being relatively "good" and unmarriage being relatively "bad" for the participants.


Marriage may be better financially, as resources are conserved and may be freed up for investment. The health effect has been disproven, because it relied on data biased to only include couples who remained married. The data excluded those who separated or divorced. And the idea that marriage contributes to happiness has also been debunked for the same reasons. There is no difference between single and married people in terms of life and relationship happiness, when data bias is accounted for and removed.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...3/marriage-and-happiness-18-long-term-studies

https://blogs.psychcentral.com/sing...ting-married-will-make-you-happier-read-this/



> The combined results of 18 long-term studies showed that getting married did not make people any happier and that *satisfaction with the relationship actually decreased over time*. The only hint of a benefit was a brief increase in life satisfaction around the time of the wedding, which soon went away. All of these failures to find that getting married makes you happier came from a set of studies biased in favor of making marriage look better than it really is.
> 
> In a subsequent study that made the bias even stronger by definitively including in the married group only those who got married and stayed married, that group of people (who got married and stayed married) still did not report any greater life satisfaction over the long run than they had experienced when they were single.


----------



## Steve1000 (Nov 25, 2013)

"In other words, when men can get sex from women without any type of commitment or investment, why in the world would they rush to be married, or even commit to a relationship, for that matter?"

This quote was pretty silly. It assumes that men only commit to relationships so that they can have regular sex. I wanted a relationship for many more reasons.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I had much the same thought off the bat. So what? Does everyone have to be married? Clearly, marriage is not for everyone. It may be well and good that those who are not naturally predisposed to marriage no longer have societal pressures to enter an institution for which they are not well suited.
> 
> However, there still are, and probably always will be, people who desire a lifetime commitment, even independent of financial concerns. We know that, on average, married people live longer and healthier lives. And of course, the body of evidence is clear that children who come from stable, two parent households, have a leg up on their peers from broken or single parent homes. So it's equally off to say that marriage's time has passed for everyone, as it would be to say that marriage is inherently good and everyone should do it.


Obviously there are no absolutes. I didn't even think such a blanket statement would be necessary. Without a doubt the legalities that accompany a marriage provides a more stable environment for the raising of children than some ad hoc arrangement. However even that could be overcome with some prior agreement on the part of the parents. But as is pointed out above the evidence is far from clear on any of the other above things that "we know".


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

> The availability of "cheap sex" is also affecting men, acting as a disincentive for males to seek education and employment opportunities, previously motivated by the prospect of sex, suggests Regnerus.
> 
> Per the Post:
> 
> Regnerus blames cheap sex for the decreasing education and employment rates among men as greater numbers of women get college degrees and enter the labor force. Six percent more women than men in the 25-34 age group have a bachelor’s degree. ... Regnerus backs this theory up with a quote from social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, who study this phenomenon. “Nowadays young men can skip the wearying detour of getting education and career prospects to qualify for sex,” they write. “Sex has become free and easy. This is today’s version of the opiate of the (male) masses.”



So, women having more sex outside of marriage is what's keeping men from pursuing educational and employment opportunities? Fascinating... Guys are so distracted by sex that they can't focus long enough to get through college. And they apparently aren't personally ambitious or driven enough to pursue education or employment for any reason beyond sex. I'm guessing the author may think the answer to this perplexing problem would be to better control women's sexuality so that it's not a distraction, but rather a prize to be used to entice men into becoming functional adults. 

I honestly can't decide if men or women should be more offended by that line of reasoning. :slap:


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

> *I know it's hard to image, but way back when, women had actual standards for the men they slept with*, such as having a job, a car, wearing clothing that isn't a one-piece, and, dare I say, a marriage proposal.



As to the bold, interestingly, plenty of women still do. It's just that those standards might no longer include marriage. I actually have fairly high standards for the men I become sexually involved with. And, yet, I am not particularly driven to remarry.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Rowan said:


> So, women having more sex outside of marriage is what's keeping men from pursuing educational and employment opportunities? Fascinating... Guys are so distracted by sex that they can't focus long enough to get through college. And they apparently aren't personally ambitious or driven enough to pursue education or employment for any reason beyond sex. I'm guessing the author may think the answer to this perplexing problem would be to better control women's sexuality so that it's not a distraction, but rather a prize to be used to entice men into becoming functional adults.
> 
> I honestly can't decide if men or women should be more offended by that line of reasoning. :slap:


I honed in on the same thing. It's one thing to say that easy sex reduces incentive to marry. But reduces incentive to do or accomplish anything else? Ridiculous.

And on the insulting the women side--what are they just running around and spreading it for any ol' loser who comes along? So, just because they're having sex outside of marriage, does that somehow mean they've abandoned all standards whatsoever?


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Rowan said:


> So, women having more sex outside of marriage is what's keeping men from pursuing educational and employment opportunities? Fascinating... Guys are so distracted by sex that they can't focus long enough to get through college. And they apparently aren't personally ambitious or driven enough to pursue education or employment for any reason beyond sex. I'm guessing the author may think the answer to this perplexing problem would be to better control women's sexuality so that it's not a distraction, but rather a prize to be used to entice men into becoming functional adults.
> 
> I honestly can't decide if men or women should be more offended by that line of reasoning. :slap:


I have no interest in buying the author's book, would be interesting to see exactly how he comes up with the link between "easy sex" and no ambition/drive with employment/education. I can't imagine any guy saying "I settled for working at McDonald's because I was getting SO MUCH tail"... lol


----------



## Spicy (Jun 18, 2016)

Interesting. 

My DH told me when we met that he had no need to get married, and didn't need that "piece of paper". He was early fourties and had never been married. Very few women he dated seemed to require that level of commitment, and as stated, he was getting his needs fulfilled without it.

I view it as a heck of a lot more than a piece of paper. So I was very clear from the beginning that *my* purpose in dating was to get married. I'm a wife, not a girlfriend. That's my core. I want the full commitment that I feel a marriage gives me. I know it is still no guarantee, but it is nonetheless what I require. At the very least, I know that about myself beyond a shadow of a doubt. So I had to be very upfront about that when I began dating him. As in first date. I saw no point of keeping that to myself since it was a nonnegotiable, along with no smoking. 

We fell in love pretty fast, and very deep, so it wasn't long before we *both* knew we wanted to be married. Although not the perfectly ideal sexual relationship for me per se, he says it is by far his very, very best and most satisfying. Something he attributes to being married vs his previous years of essential "cheap sex". Well...and that his wife freaking loves sex. >


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Ynot said:


> Of course the entire premise is based upon the idea that marriage is good and being unmarried is bad. Marriage is a man made construct which for the most part, its time has passed. In todays world of relative abundance and prosperity marriage is no longer the necessity for basic survival it was even 25 years ago. It is almost the same as saying the world is going to hell in a hand basket based on the evidence that there are fewer receptionists than there were 25 years ago.


Experience has shown that marriage is good for society and for children. Once marriage falls apart so does society.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Don't know about the cause and effect that the article concludes but it is getting pretty sad out there.

Obviously there are still many motivated young men out there but it appears to me that there are an increasing number of young men who are pathetically unmotivated and unaccomplished.

I see many industries starved for infusions of young men because of the truly inept and unqualified young men that are available.

The usual applicant these days is some combination of stupid with attitude, not good for anything but getting their asses beat.

The halfway skillful applicants are so full of themselves as to almost appear delusional.

I don't know that we can blame cheap sex for all of it.

I don't even know that cheap sex inhibits ambition and drive to begin with.

I'm for marriage and definitely against promiscuity but am skeptical about the conclusions of the article.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

An alternative explanation for the lack of fellas getting degrees, or just being slackers in general (just musing here, thinking out loud).

1. As @Ynot previously noted, this is a time of relative abundance. In the past, men were highly motivated to get ahead, because they didn't grow up in such abundance. The drive to improve ones station in life was strong. Men saw where they came from and where they wanted to be, and knew hard work and/or higher education was a path to moving up, so they did. There is a link to women here, as women also wanted to improve their lot in life, and in the past, hitching your cart to the strongest stallion offered women the best possibility of doing so. Now, those who have survived the great depression are all gone, and their children are mostly gone, and the current generation not only had it pretty good, their parents were fairly well off. Our societal memory has lapsed. The current generation just accepts that this is the way it is supposed to be and has no idea of the hard work it took to get there ... or the hard work required to stay there (staying on top is actually harder than getting there in the first place). The parents of today's generation, myself included, are partly to blame for shielding their kids from the hard work they endured during their rise. 

So why is it just the boys who are slacking? Because women are still claiming their place as equals at the top. They are still in climb mode and have not yet reached a point of feeling like they can engage cruise control. From an economic standpoint, women are still becoming independent--they see their prize as still something to be attained, not something that was granted to them by mere virtue of their birth. 

2. In another effort to shield our children from the essential difficulties of life, we moved from just rewarding excellence to rewarding mere participation. Today's generation expects their "reward," whether it be a trophy, a grade, or a job, just for showing up. Many young men have lost, or never developed in the first place, the drive to compete. 

3. Today's world is one of instant gratification. This is affected by everything from getting a new high score on a video game (some believe video games to be as addicting as heroin) to, yes, easy sex. We get information in the blink of an eye on the net--nobody knows how to really research any more, nor do they have the gumption to because that takes time and effort. We get news spoon fed to us with the analysis of the talking heads and many have lost the capacity for critical thought. 

Bottom line: anything worth attaining takes time and effort. It takes drive and commitment. It takes intestinal fortitude. An increasing number of young American men, having grown up mostly in abundance and instant gratification don't have the stomach for what it takes to _*earn *_something of value. A quality degree is (and should be) difficult, and doesn't land in your lap quickly.

And on a related note, marriage is also hard. Maintaining a relationship is hard. Good sex takes effort, energy, commitment, and a willingness to listen to, and be sensitive and open to the needs of your partner rather than your own. The ubiquitousness and easy access to porn, where everyone gets off and nobody has to invest the time and energy to make it work may have had the same negative impact on working on a relationship as video games have had on working on anything else worthwhile.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> Experience has shown that marriage is good for society and for children. Once marriage falls apart so does society.


What experience is that? Yours? The fact is there hasn't been a modern society that I know of that been lacking some sort of marriage. Does that mean it is "good" for society or that it was necessary to this point in history? We simply do not know. As I said the institution is no longer needed for survival. It is a vestigial aspect of a past world where marriage was a need in order to survive. That is not the case in today's world of relative abundance. A man does not need a woman to produce children to help on the farm and a woman does not need a man to support her (and her children) in today's world. But the fact remains that there has never been a society that has allowed marriage to fall apart, so your experience is as limited as anyone else's. We simply do not know.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Ynot said:


> What experience is that? Yours? The fact is there hasn't been a modern society that I know of that been lacking some sort of marriage. Does that mean it is "good" for society or that it was necessary to this point in history? We simply do not know. As I said the institution is no longer needed for survival. It is a vestigial aspect of a past world where marriage was a need in order to survive. That is not the case in today's world of relative abundance. A man does not need a woman to produce children to help on the farm and a woman does not need a man to support her (and her children) in today's world. But the fact remains that there has never been a society that has allowed marriage to fall apart, so your experience is as limited as anyone else's. We simply do not know.


But you did acknowledge the benefit to our youth:


Ynot said:


> Without a doubt the legalities that accompany a marriage provides a more stable environment for the raising of children than some ad hoc arrangement.


Certainly, it is good for a society, especially in the long run, to provide the best possible foundation for its next generation. the economic dynamics have changed, but the needs of youth have not.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Another aspect that was unmentioned in the OP was birth control. Now women, for really the first time in history are free to enjoy sex with whomever they choose without concern for becoming pregnant. Birth control also limits the number of children a woman may choose to bear. These two aspects have also allowed men, to also engage in sex with any woman willing to have sex with him, also without fear of impregnation and/or supporting children. We live in a brave new world that is changing rapidly. The OP's article seemed to be an attempt to justify the continued existence of a past practice rather than an honest attempt at understanding the reality that society is rapidly coming to the conclusion that such a practice is no longer required.
It was not to long ago that women and men married in their early teens. Because it was needed for survival. Now it is not only frowned upon but is blatantly illegal. In part because it is no longer needed for the survival of our species. Is it really too much of a stretch to imagine that marriage could go the same way? I am not saying it will be made illegal, only that it is no longer deemed by society as necessary?


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Certainly, it is good for a society, especially in the long run, to provide the best possible foundation for its next generation. the economic dynamics have changed, but the needs of youth have not.


How that foundation is established continues to evolve and does not necessarily require marriage. The socialization of our youth also does not necessarily require marriage. We are seeing millions of single moms and dads raising successful children. While I agree that there are large portions of the single parent community who remiss in their duties, these are an unfortunate result of mistakes we have made along the way. Should we continue to evolve as a society or attempt to impose the status quo and stifle future development? As more children of single parents come "online" so to speak, will we learn from the successes and change laws to prevent the mistakes and failures as much as possible?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Ynot said:


> How that foundation is established continues to evolve and does not necessarily require marriage. The socialization of our youth also does not necessarily require marriage. We are seeing millions of single moms and dads raising successful children. While I agree that there are large portions of the single parent community who remiss in their duties, these are an unfortunate result of mistakes we have made along the way. Should we continue to evolve as a society or attempt to impose the status quo and stifle future development? As more children of single parents come "online" so to speak, will we learn from the successes and change laws to prevent the mistakes and failures as much as possible?


Sure, we're seeing some successful single parenting, especially because there's so much of it. Yes, over time we will also get better at single parenting, learning as we evolve and evolving as we learn. But the body of evidence still denotes a large difference between the two setups... and the reasons behind it can not all be overcome by just learning how to single parent better. So some come out of single parent backgrounds well? Sure, but a larger percentage come out of two parent households well. Moreover, many of those who end up damaged by single parenting, even good single parenting, would have done better given a stable two parent household. 

Not saying it's the end of the world, and those born exceptional will always come through strong, but for the typical, they need, and deserve, the strong foundation a two parent household provides. And we never know if junior's going to be a resilient one or one who needs more security to thrive before juniors born or even well into life. So saying "some do well" isn't much help. 

Parenting is hard work, It is taxing, physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually. One can never carry the load as well as two. (admittedly there are some ones out there who do very well, but they would even tell you they'd rather have a competent partner than do it alone. 

I'm not a religious guy, but I do use the word "sacred" when referring to the act of parenting. The decision to create new life should only be made by those who are willing to do whatever it takes to put the needs of the child before their own. IMO, that means giving the best possible odds of success, even knowing that some (but who?) will be able to thrive on less.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Ynot said:


> What experience is that? Yours? The fact is there hasn't been a modern society that I know of that been lacking some sort of marriage. Does that mean it is "good" for society or that it was necessary to this point in history? We simply do not know. As I said the institution is no longer needed for survival. It is a vestigial aspect of a past world where marriage was a need in order to survive. That is not the case in today's world of relative abundance. A man does not need a woman to produce children to help on the farm and a woman does not need a man to support her (and her children) in today's world. But the fact remains that there has never been a society that has allowed marriage to fall apart, so your experience is as limited as anyone else's. We simply do not know.


No, in history it has shown this many times.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Sure, we're seeing some successful single parenting, especially because there's so much of it. Yes, over time we will also get better at single parenting, learning as we evolve and evolving as we learn. But the body of evidence still denotes a large difference between the two setups... and the reasons behind it can not all be overcome by just learning how to single parent better. So some come out of single parent backgrounds well? Sure, but a larger percentage come out of two parent households well. Moreover, many of those who end up damaged by single parenting, even good single parenting, would have done better given a stable two parent household.
> But the "body of evidence" is largely a result of single parents trying to do it in a society that has only recently begun to support that effort. So I think (hope, given the trends) that the gap will narrow as society becomes more accommodating and supportive and single parenting continues to grow as a life style choice.
> Not saying it's the end of the world, and those born exceptional will always come through strong, but for the typical, they need, and deserve, the strong foundation a two parent household provides. And we never know if junior's going to be a resilient one or one who needs more security to thrive before juniors born or even well into life. So saying "some do well" isn't much help.
> But then neither is saying "we never know, so lets just keep things the same"
> ...


Again, I cannot argue, but the question is what will make those best possible odds of success? Will it be attempting to maintain the status quo or will it involve learning and evolving as a society. Who knows, as society evolves we may see the child of the single parent making leaps and bounds ahead of those with two parents. In some ways it can be compared to home schooling vs public education. There are some who excel from home schooling, while others are behind before they ever get started due to the ignorance and retrograde thinking of overly zealous parents who imagine they know more than they do or who hold some ideas and beliefs that have been thoroughly debunked.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> No, in history it has shown this many times.


Where in history has marriage ever been allowed to rot away? Answer - no where! This is all new ground, so stop trying to apply "because it worked in the past" to therefore it will work in the future. As I said before, marriage between barely teen age children used to be pushed by society. Today it is illegal. Because it is no longer a need of society. Society didn't fall apart as a result and it need not if marriage goes into a state of prolonged decline.


----------



## chillymorn69 (Jun 27, 2016)

Bunch of arm chair sociologists

Name a civilation in history that didn't falter.

Why would you think this one is any different?

We seem to be programed to self-destruct...maybe its natures way.

Human selfishness you can't get around it.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Ynot said:


> Again, I cannot argue, but the question is what will make those best possible odds of success? Will it be attempting to maintain the status quo or will it involve learning and evolving as a society. Who knows, as society evolves we may see the child of the single parent making leaps and bounds ahead of those with two parents. In some ways it can be compared to home schooling vs public education. There are some who excel from home schooling, while others are behind before they ever get started due to the ignorance and retrograde thinking of overly zealous parents who imagine they know more than they do or who hold some ideas and beliefs that have been thoroughly debunked.


No doubt we may be able to compensate or mitigate a bit, but there is zero reason, at least as far as I can tell, to believe we can totally even things out, let alone one parent kids leapfrog two parent kids. It's not about restructuring society to be more supportive of one parent kids, it's about the human being, and how the human develops, etc. Even if we could compensate, it would take so many resources as to be grossly inefficient relative to the traditional setup.


----------



## ThaMatrix (Sep 3, 2017)

I've always wanted a home with children and a stay at home mom to raise them properly and the thought of subjecting the three most important people I'll ever know to financial struggles to me is unbearable. As a millenial with no formal education I knew this was going to be a tall order. Thank God I was provided with the skills to do so but It required far more brushes with death and servings of humble pie than I would have liked. Amazing sex was not at the forefront of my mind during all this. It sure as hell makes life sweeter though.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Ynot said:


> What experience is that? Yours? The fact is there hasn't been a modern society that I know of that been lacking some sort of marriage. Does that mean it is "good" for society or that it was necessary to this point in history? We simply do not know. As I said the institution is no longer needed for survival. It is a vestigial aspect of a past world where marriage was a need in order to survive. That is not the case in today's world of relative abundance. A man does not need a woman to produce children to help on the farm and a woman does not need a man to support her (and her children) in today's world. But the fact remains that there has never been a society that has allowed marriage to fall apart, so your experience is as limited as anyone else's. We simply do not know.


Definitely totally see things differently than you do.

This is your perspective but not mine or others and therefore not reality for everyone.

Every society throughout history that eliminated heterosexual monogamy as the primary building block, disappeared or deteriorated to an abysmally low level.

Theories abound...


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Ynot said:


> What experience is that? Yours? The fact is there hasn't been a modern society that I know of that been lacking some sort of marriage. Does that mean it is "good" for society or that it was necessary to this point in history? We simply do not know. As I said the institution is no longer needed for survival. It is a vestigial aspect of a past world where marriage was a need in order to survive. That is not the case in today's world of relative abundance. A man does not need a woman to produce children to help on the farm and a woman does not need a man to support her (and her children) in today's world. But the fact remains that there has never been a society that has allowed marriage to fall apart, so your experience is as limited as anyone else's. We simply do not know.


If the enlightened West/Japan resists marriage, resists starting families with children, their Societies will die off. You need an average birthrate of ~1.5 children per family to maintain a Nation. Not to grow one.

If the replacement generations do not marry at all [in sufficient numbers] than that compounds the problem. The Nation collapses quicker. Industries will collapse or move to more fertile nations. Go where the labor force is more stable....the far East. Leaving the Western populace more poor.

Rich nations decay, poor savage nations fill in the void. 

Classic Entropy at the Human level.

"Boys and Girls", go ahead and EFF your brains out. You ain't hurtin' nobody, but..................four generations henceforth. You hurt them so bad they never show up.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

EllisRedding said:


> I have no interest in buying the author's book, would be interesting to see exactly how he comes up with the link between "easy sex" and no ambition/drive with employment/education. I can't imagine any guy saying "I settled for working at McDonald's because I was getting SO MUCH tail"... lol


I can.

Do you think all rock stars are "about the music" and do you think all pro athletes are in it for "the love of the game?"

No. Many are in it for the tail. 

So if some guy is happy with his life and is getting lots of tail (or at least enough for him) and he is content with his life and lifestyle while working at McDonald's, then why try harder? 

Contrast this with the guy who is not getting tail but knows his chances will increase significantly if he has the letters 'MD' behind his name or gets his first Gold Album or makes his way into upper management. 

involuntary celibacy is a great motivator. 

This was kind of discussed in a roundabout way when I was in college almost 30 years ago in a human sexuality class. The textbook compared and contrasted the high school jock and the nerd. This was talking in generalities of course but essentially stated the high school jock got all the chicks and was the Big Man On Campus in high school and college. Then he knocked up the cheerleader, took a job at the local factory, married and had a couple more kids, drank and smoked too much and ate too many cheeseburgers and donuts and lived in an old, small house on the other side of the tracks. Meanwhile the cheerleader wife grows increasingly disappointed, puts on 50 lbs and starts drinking and chainsmoking herself. 

Contrasted with the nerd who got snuggies and swirlies and snakebites from the jock in school, never had a date and was a virgin until his last year or two in college. The nerd knowing that he won't get chicks due to his looks and athletic abilities hits the books and stays up nights studying engineering and physics, graduates with an advanced degree in engineering, starts making 6 figures in his mid 20s and can afford a decent house in a decent neighborhood, drives a decent car and can afford healthy food and a healthy lifestyle and doesn't start drinking and smoking. 

By the time he's upper 20s and the women of his age group have been pumped and dumped by all the jocks and are wanting to settle and have a home and family, the jocks partying lifestyle is losing it's appeale for them and start to take notice of the sober, serious engineer driving the Lexus with the steady professional income and nice home in the affluent suburbs. 

Fast forward to their 20-30 year reunion, the jock is a fat, washed up alcoholic with a fat, stretchmarked former cheerleader wife that is a receptionist at the local insurance company getting boned by her boss on the down-low. 

And the nerd is now a senior consultant for an engineering firm and he is still fit and healthy living with a healthy and attractive wife in a manicured development in the suburb and the jock works on the assembly line making widgets at one of his manufacturing firms. 

This is a very old and enduring stereotype. There are a number of perspectives and theories as to why this plays out. 

Using the perspective of the author of the article, the jock was able to attract a mate and breed young and therefor did not need to further develop himself to pass on his genes and procreate. 

The nerd was not able to attract a mate and procreate in his youth and there for had to take a few additional steps in order to become attractive enough to a potential mate and bred a bit later in life and at a more developed stage. 

This really is not a new theory or perspective.


----------



## 2020hindsight (Nov 3, 2015)

Ynot said:


> What experience is that? Yours? The fact is there hasn't been a modern society that I know of that been lacking some sort of marriage. Does that mean it is "good" for society or that it was necessary to this point in history? We simply do not know. As I said the institution is no longer needed for survival. It is a vestigial aspect of a past world where marriage was a need in order to survive. That is not the case in today's world of relative abundance. A man does not need a woman to produce children to help on the farm and a woman does not need a man to support her (and her children) in today's world. But the fact remains that there has never been a society that has allowed marriage to fall apart, so your experience is as limited as anyone else's. We simply do not know.


Marriage still exists in Iceland, but now more than 67% of children are born to unmarried parents. Iceland is a very stable and secure society with great support for parents--it's also showing no signs of "falling apart." Women feel empowered there. Virtually all mothers work.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/the-independent-mothers-of-iceland


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

2020hindsight said:


> Marriage still exists in Iceland, but now more than 67% of children are born to unmarried parents. Iceland is a very stable and secure society with great support for parents--it's also showing no signs of "falling apart." Women feel empowered there. Virtually all mothers work.
> 
> https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/the-independent-mothers-of-iceland


Great example. While societies rise and fall, I do not think the emphasis they place on marriage was a pivotal aspect of it. It may be a reflection of the underlying changes taking place, but it is not the cause of the decline. And as I have said before we are in a brave new world. Never in human history have we has the threat of being killed been so far removed from day to day to life. Technology, which makes possible easy sex, also makes possible the easy life we all lead.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

SunCMars said:


> If the enlightened West/Japan resists marriage, resists starting families with children, their Societies will die off. You need an average birthrate of ~1.5 children per family to maintain a Nation. Not to grow one.
> 
> If the replacement generations do not marry at all [in sufficient numbers] than that compounds the problem. The Nation collapses quicker. Industries will collapse or move to more fertile nations. Go where the labor force is more stable....the far East. Leaving the Western populace more poor.
> 
> ...


But this is the history of man. And again, population control (birth control) was created and is being perfected precisely because this is what our society wishes. It is far easier to attain affluence with fewer or no children to feed. And in todays world, expanding populations are not rewarded. Instead many of the countries with the highest birth rates are amongst the poorest in the world.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> Definitely totally see things differently than you do.
> 
> This is your perspective but not mine or others and therefore not reality for everyone.
> 
> ...


And once again I ask you to give me an example of a society that "eliminated heterosexual monogamy". The fact is it has never happened, not than I am in favor of it. I am simply pointing out that society is evolving (as it should) to accommodate the new. In this case one of the new things is our unprecedented affluence and ease of life. We have moved beyond the survival stage and our entering a world where people are freer to explore new types of relationships aside from traditional marriage and family arrangements.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> No doubt we may be able to compensate or mitigate a bit, but there is zero reason, at least as far as I can tell, to believe we can totally even things out, let alone one parent kids leapfrog two parent kids. It's not about restructuring society to be more supportive of one parent kids, it's about the human being, and how the human develops, etc. Even if we could compensate, it would take so many resources as to be grossly inefficient relative to the traditional setup.


It is already happening. We are already becoming more accommodating as a society than we ever were in the past. The genie in the bottle has been released. There is no going back, only forward. Like it or not it is where we are headed. I may not like it and you may not like it, but it is our future. We can struggle against the inevitable or we can learn to use it to our advantage.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

chillymorn69 said:


> Bunch of arm chair sociologists
> 
> Name a civilation in history that didn't falter.
> 
> ...


Hey, I am not saying the changes will or will not prolong our society. All I am saying is that changes are taking place and will continue to take place. How the results play out, only time will tell. But changes have taken place. Many for the better.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

ThaMatrix said:


> I've always wanted a home with children and a stay at home mom to raise them properly and the thought of subjecting the three most important people I'll ever know to financial struggles to me is unbearable. As a millenial with no formal education I knew this was going to be a tall order. Thank God I was provided with the skills to do so but It required far more brushes with death and servings of humble pie than I would have liked. Amazing sex was not at the forefront of my mind during all this. It sure as hell makes life sweeter though.


And so did I and did. But that doesn't change the fact that society is evolving as we become more and more affluent and the possibility of being eaten by the sabre tooth tiger continues to shrink away to virtually nothing. Without a doubt there are and will continue to be many traditionalists. But their numbers will continue to shrink relative to the numbers who will embrace the new reality.

My marriage (and millions more) ended upon my children attaining adulthood. I hope your survives. But the numbers are telling as divorces between long term couples continue to rise. Many younger people are avoiding the legalities of marriage altogether. Society will change in order to remain relevant by accommodating those new views.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

EllisRedding said:


> Thoughts? Good, Bad, BS?


:rofl: A man-child mansplaining women's sexuality to justify staying a man-child and blame women for all of society's ills.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Ynot said:


> It is already happening. We are already becoming more accommodating as a society than we ever were in the past. The genie in the bottle has been released. There is no going back, only forward. Like it or not it is where we are headed. I may not like it and you may not like it, but it is our future. We can struggle against the inevitable or we can learn to use it to our advantage.


I'm not saying we should struggle against change-only that we should be aware of the why and the limitations inherent in what the change can accomplish as well as the potential harm it may do. Only then can we manage the change to our actual benefit. Broad societal forces can be good, but it is incumbent upon us as a society to identify and exploit this rather than just blindly hop on the bus no matter where it may be taking us.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Ynot said:


> How that foundation is established continues to evolve and does not necessarily require marriage. The socialization of our youth also does not necessarily require marriage. We are seeing millions of single moms and dads raising successful children. While I agree that there are large portions of the single parent community who remiss in their duties, these are an unfortunate result of mistakes we have made along the way. Should we continue to evolve as a society or attempt to impose the status quo and stifle future development? As more children of single parents come "online" so to speak, will we learn from the successes and change laws to prevent the mistakes and failures as much as possible?





Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Sure, we're seeing some successful single parenting, especially because there's so much of it. Yes, over time we will also get better at single parenting, learning as we evolve and evolving as we learn. But the body of evidence still denotes a large difference between the two setups... and the reasons behind it can not all be overcome by just learning how to single parent better. So some come out of single parent backgrounds well? Sure, but a larger percentage come out of two parent households well. Moreover, many of those who end up damaged by single parenting, even good single parenting, would have done better given a stable two parent household.


IMHO, part of the problem is that we (as a society) seem to see this as an exclusive choice, that is, if not a two-parent household, then it must be a single parent.

This itself is an indication of the alienation of people from their larger families and communities. It's this alienation and consequent loss of hope that is behind many of the problems young people are facing with respect to ambition, psychological health, and success.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I'm not saying we should struggle against change-only that we should be aware of the why and the limitations inherent in what the change can accomplish as well as the potential harm it may do. Only then can we manage the change to our actual benefit. Broad societal forces can be good, but it is incumbent upon us as a society to identify and exploit this rather than just blindly hop on the bus no matter where it may be taking us.


No one is advocating just hopping on a bus and taking it to wherever it leads. In fact that is far from what I have been stating. But as I have said any number of times here - times are changing and never before have we as a society been so far removed from simple survival. Marriage was a reaction to the need for survival. With the removal of that stimulus and its replacement by other stimuli, it stands to reason that society will change along with it. Rather than cling to hold stand bys, why shouldn't societies adapt to the new? The world we grew up in is no more, the world our children will live in is here. The divorce rates, decreasing marriage rates, and increasing numbers of single parent households are evidence of the sea change taking place. Yes, they are adversely impacting old ideas and institutions, but they are also ushering new ways of performing the age old practice of child rearing. Thinking that what worked is what is best, leads to stagnation and prevents innovation and growth from taking place.


----------



## ThaMatrix (Sep 3, 2017)

Ynot said:


> And so did I and did. But that doesn't change the fact that society is evolving as we become more and more affluent and the possibility of being eaten by the sabre tooth tiger continues to shrink away to virtually nothing. Without a doubt there are and will continue to be many traditionalists. But their numbers will continue to shrink relative to the numbers who will embrace the new reality.
> 
> My marriage (and millions more) ended upon my children attaining adulthood. I hope your survives. But the numbers are telling as divorces between long term couples continue to rise. Many younger people are avoiding the legalities of marriage altogether. Society will change in order to remain relevant by accommodating those new views.


I dont think society has evolved all that much. Technology has but the hearts of people are as they've always been. Nevertheless, I'm a practical guy so none of it matters to me I just make as much money as I possibly can and spend as much time with my family as possible. One thing thats true to a certainty is there's no better environment for a child to grow up in than in a home with a mother and father that love them and each other and that is the foundation of society. That fact will never evolve.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

I really think a lot of people would be shocked at exactly what "marriage" looked like for most people a century and more ago. Particularly among the non-landed classes. The peasants of pretty much everywhere had no land or other property to speak of, so inheritances and whom they married meant very little to anyone. If you can find your family's marriage records from before about 1900 in a registry in the old country, it's because they were well off enough to own things worth inheriting - land, a business, a home, assets. Otherwise, there really are no marriage records. Because marriage among the lower classes was essentially a voluntary mutual agreement to live together and raise children. No one recorded it, there was seldom any but the most rudimentary ceremony attached to it, it held no real legal - and very often also no real religious - element, and there was really no one to make either party stay if they wished to go. All that was really required was that the couple move in together and declare themselves "married". That was entirely good enough for pretty much everyone, hence the concept of a common-law marriage - people were married in the common way, by common agreement of themselves and the community and the realm. Marriage, as we think of it in the modern sense - a religious and/or legal contract - was exclusive to the landed classes. 

It was the growing middle classes in European cities who brought legal/religious marriage into the sphere of more common people. Even in the US, from the colonial era through the end of the frontier days, a couple might live together and be "married" for years, with several children, before a traveling clergyman or lawman made anything official. I would guess that a fair number of most of our ancestors were basically just shacking up for most of, if not all of, their "marriages". Even Benjamin Franklin, who was married to his wife for 44 years, was never legally married in any modern sense. Her first husband ran off and never returned, but his death could not be proven, so she could not remarry in either a legal or religious ceremony. She simply moved into his house and he began calling her his wife. Done. And that was such a common and accepted practice that no one even thought to question the legality, propriety, or morality of it. She was his wife, by his say so alone. 

To be honest, this "modern" thing of couples living together without a ceremony, a legal contract, or church blessing isn't actually modern at all. It's about what most of the human population has had throughout history. Only today there's actually more legal protection for women and children in such situations than there was traditionally. And, somehow, also less societal recognition of that method of pairing as a legitimate model.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Ynot said:


> No one is advocating just hopping on a bus and taking it to wherever it leads. In fact that is far from what I have been stating. But as I have said any number of times here - times are changing and never before have we as a society been so far removed from simple survival. Marriage was a reaction to the need for survival. With the removal of that stimulus and its replacement by other stimuli, it stands to reason that society will change along with it. Rather than cling to hold stand bys, why shouldn't societies adapt to the new? The world we grew up in is no more, the world our children will live in is here. The divorce rates, decreasing marriage rates, and increasing numbers of single parent households are evidence of the sea change taking place. Yes, they are adversely impacting old ideas and institutions, but they are also ushering new ways of performing the age old practice of child rearing. Thinking that what worked is what is best, leads to stagnation and prevents innovation and growth from taking place.


Not everything of the past is bad and change for change's sake isn't always good. The key is to keep the best from the past and be open to the possibilities of the future. That's how we avoid stagnation without moving backwards. All too often, we throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I went to college with a lot of nerds, and am one myself. From what I say, nerdly men mostly wanted to date nerdly women, and the reverse. This is my comment about a part of society not being Alpha or Beta, but being Omicrons, we are playing an entirely different game. We don't *want* the cheerleader - really. OK maybe for casual sex, but not for any sort of relationship. Same way that most cheerleaders don't want a relationship with some guy who talks about Riemannian geometry over dinner. 

I didn't see the nerds getting the women who were "pumped and dumped", they mostly got women who were never interested in jocks in the first place.

As I write this, I'm looking out my window at the Matterhorn. I'm hot here because *I* was successful, but because my wife and I *together* were successful. 

Now, often the Jock and cheerleader are happy and successful as well. He may now be a coach or manager for a professional team. They may also have great lives. Or sometimes the nerds have a terrible time - I know some. 

Neither is better, but they are playing different games. 




oldshirt said:


> I can.
> 
> Do you think all rock stars are "about the music" and do you think all pro athletes are in it for "the love of the game?"
> 
> ...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

The place of women in society in the west has changed dramatically over the last 100 years - mostly IMHO very much for the better. It shouldn't be surprising that relationships and marriage have changed as well. Women may still *wish* to be married but they no longer *need* to be married.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

oldshirt said:


> I can.
> 
> Do you think all rock stars are "about the music" and do you think all pro athletes are in it for "the love of the game?"
> 
> ...


Anecdotally, I know three cheerleaders who married elite jocks from high school.

All three are divorced. In all three cases, the husbands were the cause of the divorce, through some combination of infidelity/abuse/just being a pig in general.

All three women have since remarried. All three remarried relatively average joes (at least appearance-wise) and are much happier. All three say they learned valuable lessons the hard way. 

Their exes? Haven't fared so well, either economically or relationship-wise. Nor have they learned.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

SunCMars said:


> If the enlightened West/Japan resists marriage, resists starting families with children, their Societies will die off. You need an average birthrate of ~1.5 children per family to maintain a Nation. Not to grow one.
> 
> If the replacement generations do not marry at all [in sufficient numbers] than that compounds the problem. The Nation collapses quicker. Industries will collapse or move to more fertile nations. Go where the labor force is more stable....the far East. Leaving the Western populace more poor.
> 
> ...


This seems based on the assumption that married people will have children and singles will not. In my county more than 70% of all births are to unmarried parents. Increasing numbers of married couples are choosing to be child free. Available reliable birth control seems to have much more of an effect on population than marital status. 

Industry is not moving overseas due to a lack of available workers. They're moving overseas because the available workers want better pay and benefits which cuts into profits


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> This seems based on the assumption that married people will have children and singles will not. In my county more than 70% of all births are to unmarried parents. Increasing numbers of married couples are choosing to be child free. Available reliable birth control seems to have much more of an effect on population than marital status.
> 
> Industry is not moving overseas due to a lack of available workers. They're moving overseas because the available workers want better pay and benefits which cuts into profits


True on the better pay and benefits pushing jobs out.

False, in the U.S. on available and qualified workers. There is not a people shortage, there is a skills and education/training shortage. Plenty of low skilled workers are available. The other sets? Not so. 

I was getting job offers in my late sixties because of the technical skills shortages. Mostly hands on techies, not managerial positions.
Young people are still getting College Degrees that are not especially useful.

I know, IT graduates, while not plentiful, are pricing themselves out

The elephant in the room are the Government rules and regulations and tax structures that hold back our Corporations growth.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Not everything of the past is bad and change for change's sake isn't always good. The key is to keep the best from the past and be open to the possibilities of the future. That's how we avoid stagnation without moving backwards. All too often, we throw the baby out with the bathwater.


I am not arguing that the past was worse or the future will be better. What I have been arguing is that society tends to expect that which is necessary. In the past marriage was necessary and "easy sex" was frowned upon for interfering with marriage. But in today's world it is no longer necessary therefore it will become less of an expectation perhaps even frowned upon, just as in the past extremely young (often arranged) marriages were a necessity but today they are frowned upon to the point of being illegal (in the case of young marriages).

There was a time, due to limited lifespans and high infant mortality rates in which girls, as soon as they began to menstruate, where expected to marry in order to bear children. It was needed for the survival of the species. Marriage was the legal mechanism to allow this to take place, primarily to see that the off spring of these marriages would continue to be cared for, when a marriage ended (most often thru death of one of the spouses). Now it no longer is. No one could argue that these same girls today are not still be just fertile, that hasn't changed. But what has changed is that society no longer views this as a necessity. 

Today woman can and do wait until they are older to marry. And they may decide to have children out of wedlock because marriage is no longer needed for them to support their children. 

We could debate whether this is good or bad all day long. But I am not saying anything is good or bad. I am merely saying it is happening and society is changing. Accommodations are being made. For many people, the fact that they are now liberated to choose how they live their own lives is great. They are willing to embrace an uncertain future because they reject their certain past. Some people still wish for the certainty of the past against the uncertainty of the future.

One could say, we are at a crossroads. Do we embrace the freedom and liberty the future offers us due to advances in technology and rejection of superstitions and the habits, customs and mores that sprung from them? Or, do we attempt to maintain those customs, habits and mores, while trying to resist the choices we are each being offered from these same forces?


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

You think people are not marrying now, wait until the sex bots.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

ThaMatrix said:


> I dont think society has evolved all that much. Technology has but the hearts of people are as they've always been. Nevertheless, I'm a practical guy so none of it matters to me I just make as much money as I possibly can and spend as much time with my family as possible. One thing thats true to a certainty is there's no better environment for a child to grow up in than in a home with a mother and father that love them and each other and that is the foundation of society. That fact will never evolve.


If you don't think society has changed that much, I would suggest you get out more. Society has changed dramatically in just the past 50 years. 50 years ago, out of wedlock child birth was rare - today it is accepted. That is societal change. 50 years ago divorce was rare - today we have no fault divorce and the rate is somewhere between 33% to 50% (depending on how the numbers are calculated) - that is societal change. 50 years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in some states today few bat an eye - societal change. Sodomy was illegal, now it is not - societal change. Abortion was rare, now it is not - societal change. Just within the realm of sex, society has changed drastically.
But societies are the sum total of the "hearts" of the people of whom they consist. These changes didn't happen from the top down. They happened from the bottom up, often against the wishes of those at the top. Why? Because the hearts of the people have changed as well.
The article posted in the OP more or less states this fact. Do you think these women who are so easy to give it up (ie have no or low standards) haven't had a change of heart from 50 years ago? They no longer need to worry about how their kids would be fed, if they accidently get pregnant due to their "promiscuity". They have jobs and careers which make it possible. They also have access to technology that they did not have 50 years ago. I would most definitely say, the "hearts" of these women have changed.
Finally, that "foundation of society" idea, may have been true when marriage was a necessity of life. But that is no longer true. As I stated in another post, society tends to expect that which is needed for survival. As marriage is no longer needed for survival the expectation for marriage will fade as a priority. 
You can say a man and woman who loves a child is the foundation of society, but I would suggest that it not so much the marriage of the man and woman, as much as it is the balance between the two. The OP, although it did not state as much, did highlight the current imbalance. Rather than attempting to apply yesterday's answer to the current, and different, question, why not seek new means of achieving a positive answer?


----------



## ThaMatrix (Sep 3, 2017)

Ynot said:


> If you don't think society has changed that much, I would suggest you get out more. Society has changed dramatically in just the past 50 years. 50 years ago, out of wedlock child birth was rare - today it is accepted. That is societal change. 50 years ago divorce was rare - today we have no fault divorce and the rate is somewhere between 33% to 50% (depending on how the numbers are calculated) - that is societal change. 50 years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in some states today few bat an eye - societal change. Sodomy was illegal, now it is not - societal change. Abortion was rare, now it is not - societal change. Just within the realm of sex, society has changed drastically.
> But societies are the sum total of the "hearts" of the people of whom they consist. These changes didn't happen from the top down. They happened from the bottom up, often against the wishes of those at the top. Why? Because the hearts of the people have changed as well.
> The article posted in the OP more or less states this fact. Do you think these women who are so easy to give it up (ie have no or low standards) haven't had a change of heart from 50 years ago? They no longer need to worry about how their kids would be fed, if they accidently get pregnant due to their "promiscuity". They have jobs and careers which make it possible. They also have access to technology that they did not have 50 years ago. I would most definitely say, the "hearts" of these women have changed.
> Finally, that "foundation of society" idea, may have been true when marriage was a necessity of life. But that is no longer true. As I stated in another post, society tends to expect that which is needed for survival. As marriage is no longer needed for survival the expectation for marriage will fade as a priority.
> You can say a man and woman who loves a child is the foundation of society, but I would suggest that it not so much the marriage of the man and woman, as much as it is the balance between the two. The OP, although it did not state as much, did highlight the current imbalance. Rather than attempting to apply yesterday's answer to the current, and different, question, why not seek new means of achieving a positive answer?


The hearts of people are as desperate and wicked as theyve always been. The nature of society is just as its always been in the sense that people will always push the limits of what Is considered acceptable at the time. I get out plenty. Ive been all around this world.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Ynot said:


> I am not arguing that the past was worse or the future will be better. What I have been arguing is that society tends to expect that which is necessary. In the past marriage was necessary and "easy sex" was frowned upon for interfering with marriage. But in today's world it is no longer necessary therefore it will become less of an expectation perhaps even frowned upon, just as in the past extremely young (often arranged) marriages were a necessity but today they are frowned upon to the point of being illegal (in the case of young marriages).
> 
> There was a time, due to limited lifespans and high infant mortality rates in which girls, as soon as they began to menstruate, where expected to marry in order to bear children. It was needed for the survival of the species. Marriage was the legal mechanism to allow this to take place, primarily to see that the off spring of these marriages would continue to be cared for, when a marriage ended (most often thru death of one of the spouses). Now it no longer is. No one could argue that these same girls today are not still be just fertile, that hasn't changed. But what has changed is that society no longer views this as a necessity.
> 
> ...


Great...but that need not mean we say "marriage is an institution who's time has passed." As I said before, it's not for everyone, if those people are liberated by the fact that it is no longer a prerequisite to economic survival, or even a societal expectation, that's fine. 

The world is big enough for both points of view.

As with many social mores that change over time, I think this will reach some sort of equilibrium, after which it may even fluctuate slightly as time goes by. Where that point is, I'm not prepared to predict, but it seems reasonable to believe it is out there. The NEED for marriage may be disappearing, but that doesn't mean marriage will disappear.

I have three young adult children. I expect each of them will do what works for them.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Ynot said:


> And once again I ask you to give me an example of a society that "eliminated heterosexual monogamy". The fact is it has never happened, not than I am in favor of it. I am simply pointing out that society is evolving (as it should) to accommodate the new. In this case one of the new things is our unprecedented affluence and ease of life. We have moved beyond the survival stage and our entering a world where people are freer to explore new types of relationships aside from traditional marriage and family arrangements.


and yet most couples still seem to get married eventually, even if they live together for some years first. I am a complete supporter of marriage, I would never live with a man unless we were married, but I honestly don't see the point of a couple who have been living together for 15 years, have already had their children, then paying a lot of money for a white wedding. If marriage was important to them, why didn't they get married years ago?


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Great...but that need not mean we say "marriage is an institution who's time has passed." As I said before, it's not for everyone, if those people are liberated by the fact that it is no longer a prerequisite to economic survival, or even a societal expectation, that's fine.
> Actually, it is. As marriage is no longer looked at by society a necessity of survival, it is an institution whose time has passed. Even the institution of marriage has changed. It went from a mere economic decision to the more modern one of romantic love to the even more modern one of convenience. It went from being between one man and many women, to one man and one woman, to the more current one person and another person. Just as the institution has changed, so with the need for that institution change.
> The world is big enough for both points of view.
> No one ever said it wasn't.
> ...


And I have two of my own and expect nothing less. What works for them will be for them to decide, not me and certainly not society.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> and yet most couples still seem to get married eventually, even if they live together for some years first. I am a complete supporter of marriage, I would never live with a man unless we were married, but I honestly don't see the point of a couple who have been living together for 15 years, have already had their children, then paying a lot of money for a white wedding. If marriage was important to them, why didn't they get married years ago?


And what exactly does any of that have to do with any society eliminating marriage? Some choose to get married after living together for many years. Others never do. They all have their reason. Perhaps it has to do with custody, or pensions or health insurance, perhaps it is just they want to. But none of that has anything to do with history proving anything. I asked you to give me an example of a society that has rejected marriage as evidence of your assertion and all you have done is deflection.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I'm just bothered how sex is no longer "special".. people are no longer "special"... I cringe and worry if I ever lost my husband how I'd never come close to finding another man like my husband... as the vast majority growing up in this culture.. it's EXPECTED for everyone to have numerous partners , like a right of passage ....women are the same as men today....and 90% find it weird or something must be wrong with us if we don't want to sleep around...it's always assumed such people don't like sex... just not always true...heck... I even say "I LIVE FOR SEX" sometimes...nothing thrills me more so. 

Then many complain why isn't anyone faithful anymore....because this , too, is no longer valued... it's all been corrupted with the cheapening of sharing our bodies and how meaningless it has all become, it's habitual for many at a young age.. Too much casual sex fundamentally changes a person... it changes how they look at relationships, marriage.. all of it... Excitement/ variety becomes more important than Loving/ sharing with another. 

It's all in what you want... I get it... it hurts, has dampened the hopes of those with older fashioned values.. far less people to choose from... it's like we have to accept the new model of causal everything or be looked at cross eyed... I just don't care for that..... 

I feel a kinship with those who deeply value intimacy, faithfulness in relationships ...also the sanctity of marriage...


----------



## Herschel (Mar 27, 2016)

How is Elizabeth Warren a "fake Indian". Lol, this article is such garbage.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I'm just bothered how sex is no longer "special".. people are no longer "special"... I cringe and worry if I ever lost my husband how I'd never come close to finding another man like my husband... as the vast majority growing up in this culture.. it's EXPECTED for everyone to have numerous partners , like a right of passage ....women are the same as men today....and 90% find it weird or something must be wrong with us if we don't want to sleep around...it's always assumed such people don't like sex... just not always true...heck... I even say "I LIVE FOR SEX" sometimes...nothing thrills me more so.
> 
> Then many complain why isn't anyone faithful anymore....because this , too, is no longer valued... it's all been corrupted with the cheapening of sharing our bodies and how meaningless it has all become, it's habitual for many at a young age.. Too much casual sex fundamentally changes a person... it changes how they look at relationships, marriage.. all of it... Excitement/ variety becomes more important than Loving/ sharing with another.
> 
> ...


There are still some good moral men around, but in my experience they are often those with a faith. Yes there are people without a faith with those values, but sadly they are getting fewer in number. I feel so fortunate to have found my husband 13 years ago, he has the strongest moral values of any man I have ever known. Mind you he had been a Christian his whole life so that helped. He had never had sex outside marriage(he was previously divorced) and had never watched porn, and finding a man who doesn't watch porn these days and won't pressure you for sex after a few dates is incredibly hard, as a young lady in my family is finding out. She got rid of 2 boyfriends who were pressuring her for sex after a few dates when she had told them that she wanted to wait, and for her, as for me, porn is a no no. Its really sad isn't it. :frown2:

Mind you I have got to the point now of not caring what others think of me for having my views on sex and marriage. We have to be ourselves and keep our values even if we are in a small minority.


----------



## David51 (Sep 12, 2017)

EllisRedding said:


> Thoughts? Good, Bad, BS?




Marriage is hard on a relationship!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------

