# Why MEN aren't marrying



## Youngster

Well, the other thread pretty much devolved with the usual suspects getting involved so lets try a new one. 

This thread is about MEN and why THEY aren't marrying. If you want to talk about why women aren't marrying then start your own thread, preferably in the Ladies Lounge.

So why do you think MEN aren't marrying? Is it a age/race/geographical demographic? Is it a problem solely in the US? Is it economic or cultural?


----------



## Youngster

I'm an engineer and I work with a lot of 20 something young men who are engineers. From MY experience in speaking with them they aren't just disengaged from marriage, they're disengaged from society. They feel that men in general, through the media have gotten a bad rap. 

As such, these young men who are our future are hunkering down and looking out for themselves. They aren't voting, they aren't volunteering and they aren't marrying. They've given up because they see marriage, like all of society, as bad deal for them.

So what do you think this means long term for us? Do you agree/disagree or have other thoughts?


----------



## NextTimeAround

I can understand why men are not marrying:

1. They can get sex without having to marry.
2. Even if they do marry, they may not get sex.
3. They can become fathers without having to marry.
4. Sometimes they become fathers without their say in the matter.
5. Whether married or unmarried, there is very little protection that they will be able to see their children.
6. Yet, the state will be on their back to pay child support in any case.

there may be some other reasons.


----------



## Youngster

NextTimeAround said:


> I can understand why men are not marrying:
> 
> *1. They can get sex without having to marry.*
> 2. Even if they do marry, they may not get sex.
> 3. They can become fathers without having to marry.
> 4. Sometimes they become fathers without their say in the matter.
> 5. Whether married or unmarried, there is very little protection that they will be able to see their children.
> 6. Yet, the state will be on their back to pay child support in any case.
> 
> there may be some other reasons.


I think there's a whole lot of truth to number 1. The young men I work with sometimes do the on-line dating thing during lunch. They said it's pretty easy to line up a date almost every weekend. Also the hook-up culture of today makes getting sex easy.

One thing these guys do say is that today's hook-up culture is tiresome. That they go on a few dates, typically paying for them, have sex, eventually the relationship fizzles out because both parties are looking for a better thing. The majority of these guys are like "yeah we're paying for a couple of dinners/dates to have sex. it's not like the relationship is going to go anywhere.".


----------



## toonaive

Yep. All of the above posts nail it. I have strongly encouraged my oldest son, just out of college, to not even think of such a thing until he is at least 35. By then, he will know who he is, have some money in the bank, and his own identity. Even at that age, he will have no trouble finding women. He has seen how difficult my marriage and divorce was to me. He sees no point in making any marriage decision any time soon. If a woman brings it up before he is ready? Run! There are few, if any, benefits for men to marry anymore, but lots of pitfalls.


----------



## Lostinthought61

I once had a boss who got married late in life, that weekend he was going to get married...so that week we found ourselves in the men's room, standing at the urinal (because that is where most profound discussions occur) anyway, i told today, this very minute you own 100% of everything that is you, freedom, your outlook, money, home everything...the minute you get married it starts to shrink....and depending where you live, it even gets smaller.....think hard if you are willing to do so....he chuckled.
2 years later i ran into him, divorced and his wife took him to the cleaners....he told me.....i was 100% correct and he was 50% poorer, he even lost his dog in the divorce.


----------



## Forest

Obviously, its mostly due to our culture shifting from something that held rigid codes of moral conduct, to one that is accepting, and non-judgmental.

It used to be that having kids out of wedlock was viewed as simply unacceptable; a sign of poor morals. Remember "shotgun weddings"? Contrary to some of the remarks in the other thread, there was a time when being a "man" was a huge goal for boys. It was during the time that men raised families and led them. They held a place of honor for boys, and the only way to gain their acceptance and approval was to follow their code. In generations past, when a child was born, either the family unit provided, or dire things happened. Slowly, The Govt removed that element. The type of generosity that also erodes. The breadwinner father (or mother) was no longer an absolute necessity. 

Now, we've been told for many years that you can't judge anyone for anything they do. Kids are expected to screw around, live together, have babies without marriage. No one should criticize them. How can you criticize someone for having a child they can't feed when The Govt will feed it for them? I don't see how anyone can even wonder why marriage is on the decline. Most kids I see today don't even think of marriage until a kid is born.

You'll never see widespread adherence to norms, institutions without a good dose of judgement and oversight from elders. Of course, elders are uncool, stupid, fussbudgets that do ridiculous things like learn from experience.


----------



## Constable Odo

Kids in their 20's and 30's are the real first generation of kids who have been the product of the "easy divorce". They see first hand how divorce destroys families and as men, especially financially. 

I also believe the 20's/early 30's generation are more self-absorbed, more "instant gratification", etc. (look at how they cannot pull themselves away from their social media sites, even when working.). As such I do not think most kids in their 20's believe in the concept of marriage, which involves mutual sacrifice from both parties, for the benefit of the family unit. Rather, they view it as "what's in it for ME" rather than "what's in it for US".


----------



## Youngster

I don't know about the financial stuff, certainly in the past men have always had more to lose(and they did). I mean, lets say everyone in the US was required by law to sign a comprehensive pre-nup before marriage, would that change the marriage rate? I'm not sure it would.


----------



## Married but Happy

While I'm very happily married (this time), I am also very cynical about marriage. You can have a great family, relationship, and commitment without marriage, too. I see marriage as _state sponsored terrorism_, attempting to enforce unfair standards through financial coercion if it fails.

You can recreate almost all the benefits of marriage with legal documents, and avoid some of the worst pitfalls the same way.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Youngster said:


> One thing these guys do say is that today's hook-up culture is tiresome. That they go on a few dates, typically paying for them, have sex, eventually the relationship fizzles out because both parties are looking for a better thing. The majority of these guys are like "yeah we're paying for a couple of dinners/dates to have sex. it's not like the relationship is going to go anywhere."


I couldn't of said it better myself. This IS online dating....

Marriage has become a huge financial liability for men. Bottom line.

You can do EVERYTHING unmarried that you can married and when the relationship fails (50% chance based on stats) you're not going to have to surrender 50% of your stuff including 401k, pension, giving her the house, pay her health insurance plus alimony. Child support you're stuck for even if you get tricked into having a kid you didn't want but at least it ends eventually.

So what's the point? Love? LOL, you can love someone without signing your life away. I never say never but I doubt I'll ever get married again just because I don't want to get taken to the cleaners. Even if I did, we would have to be dating a LONG time before I even considered it. Too many selfish women who will lie through their teeth then rob you blind. Even if it starts with the best intentions beware a woman scorned.


----------



## Forest

Ah, this is all going to well....


----------



## Truthseeker1

Youngster said:


> I'm an engineer and I work with a lot of 20 something young men who are engineers. From MY experience in speaking with them they aren't just disengaged from marriage, they're disengaged from society. They feel that men in general, through the media have gotten a bad rap.
> 
> As such, these young men who are our future are hunkering down and looking out for themselves. They aren't voting, they aren't volunteering and they aren't marrying. They've given up because they see marriage, like all of society, as bad deal for them.
> 
> So what do you think this means long term for us? Do you agree/disagree or have other thoughts?


Do they seem angry or just hopeless? What do they want out of the future?


----------



## Married but Happy

BetrayedDad said:


> ... when the relationship fails (50% chance based on stats) you're not going to have to surrender 50% of your stuff including 401k, pension, giving her the house, pay her health insurance plus alimony. Child support you're stuck for even if you get tricked into having a kid you didn't want but at least it ends eventually.


This isn't a real concern if you marry someone who has a career and income comparable to your own, and she is never a SAHM. Of course, you may not find someone like that you can also love - in which case just don't marry.


----------



## Youngster

Hypothetically, let's say we completely remove the financial piece/risk for men. Will men want to marry? I don't think so. I think young men see marriage as a bad deal and it's deeper then financial.


----------



## Jung_admirer

I don't think it needs to be this way necessarily. Marry a partner of roughly equal financial power. I would most definitely create a pre-nup that spells out the terms of any permanent separation: child custody, financial terms etc. To not do so is naive, given that 50% of marriages end in divorce. I suspect the negotiation of any pre-nup will be quite telling with respect to the entitlement mentality of both partners. A worthy exercise before you sign on the dotted line.


----------



## Youngster

Truthseeker1 said:


> Do they seem angry or just hopeless? What do they want out of the future?


It's more indifference....like they're looking out for themselves and no one else. They don't believe in politics or "the system".

When I was young and out of school I did a lot of volunteer stuff to stay active. Walks for cancer, big brother, stuff like that....kind of felt like giving back to society. These guys aren't doing any of that stuff.

They remind me a lot of some of the H1B's I've seen, no commitment to anything, just there for the money.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Married but Happy said:


> This isn't a real concern if you marry someone who has a career and income comparable to your own, and she is never a SAHM. Of course, you may not find someone like that you can also love - in which case just don't marry.


Fair enough, if you find someone who makes very close to what you do which of course can happen but not usually. Most of the time, there is some disparity even if she works.

Also, depending on how bitter it becomes the lawyer fees start racking up fast. Amicable divorces are the exception rather than the norm. My divorce was very amicable but I know I was VERY lucky too.

I just don't see much upside and I do like the idea of marriage. It just has become more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## Cre8ify

As our society becomes ever more secular and church attendance dwindles, there is less inclination to do things in the right order, i.e. marry, sex, children. The right order means the commitment comes before all the complications and entanglements that can undo and challenge a relationship. No commitment+no expectations+no judgement=nothing special (or particularly worth having).


----------



## Forest

Hey, Youngster-

Are you posting this stuff on your smart phone while you're at work?:laugh:


----------



## Truthseeker1

Youngster said:


> It's more indifference....like they're looking out for themselves and no one else. They don't believe in politics or "the system".
> 
> When I was young and out of school I did a lot of volunteer stuff to stay active. Walks for cancer, big brother, stuff like that....kind of felt like giving back to society. These guys aren't doing any of that stuff.
> 
> They remind me a lot of some of the H1B's I've seen, no commitment to anything, just there for the money.


I'm a bit older than you and I don't believe in the "system" anymore and it has nothing to do with marriage. i think the whole thing is rigged for a select group of people - we have one ruling class with two brands.


----------



## Shoto1984

I'm well beyond the age of men we're talking about but I see a completely different world from say....30 yrs ago. The whole construct has changed in every way. I'm not sure I could encourage a young guy to get married today. As stated, he can have all of the elements without most of the liability. While I love the ideal of marriage, today's reality makes it less than attractive. Plus, in the past there was an assumed dynamic where the "Man" led the household, was the breadwinner etc. That construct almost doesn't exist anymore. Women don't "need" a "Man" in that traditional sense. In a world where everyone is "equal" and can do all the same things it only comes down to biological functions and you don't need a marriage for that.


----------



## Youngster

Forest said:


> Hey, Youngster-
> 
> Are you posting this stuff on your smart phone while you're at work?:laugh:


No, I'm off and home with the kids this week! I'm normally not a big poster here....more of a lurker.

I have been trading some emails with the "young guns" at work though.
:smile2:


----------



## Truthseeker1

Shoto1984 said:


> I'm well beyond the age of men we're talking about but I see a completely different world from say....30 yrs ago. The whole construct has changed in every way. I'm not sure I could encourage a young guy to get married today. As stated, he can have all of the elements without most of the liability. While I love the ideal of marriage, today's reality makes it less than attractive. Plus, in the past there was an assumed dynamic where the "Man" led the household, was the breadwinner etc. That construct almost doesn't exist anymore. Women don't "need" a "Man" in that traditional sense. *In a world where everyone is "equal" and can do all the same things it only comes down to biological functions and you don't need a marriage for that.*


I wonder how further advances in medical science like artificial wombs, designer babies, longer life spans will change marriage or maybe eliminate it all together.


----------



## Youngster

Shoto1984 said:


> I'm well beyond the age of men we're talking about but I see a completely different world from say....30 yrs ago. The whole construct has changed in every way. I'm not sure I could encourage a young guy to get married today. As stated, he can have all of the elements without most of the liability. While I love the ideal of marriage, today's reality makes it less than attractive. *Plus, in the past there was an assumed dynamic where the "Man" led the household, was the breadwinner etc. That construct almost doesn't exist anymore. Women don't "need" a "Man" in that traditional sense. In a world where everyone is "equal" and can do all the same things it only comes down to biological functions and you don't need a marriage for that.*


Hmmm, I really like this thought. Perhaps due to the new dynamic between men and women, men aren't establishing emotional bonds with women. 

There's lots of hookups and lots of dating, you would think that eventually, just by numbers, that 2 compatible partners would meet and decide to get married. Just by numbers you might think that more people might get married since you are able to vet so many partners so quickly.

Maybe since men aren't being men, and women aren't being women, then the chance for a real intimate connection doesn't exist.


----------



## Truthseeker1

Youngster said:


> Shoto1984 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well beyond the age of men we're talking about but I see a completely different world from say....30 yrs ago. The whole construct has changed in every way. I'm not sure I could encourage a young guy to get married today. As stated, he can have all of the elements without most of the liability. While I love the ideal of marriage, today's reality makes it less than attractive. *Plus, in the past there was an assumed dynamic where the "Man" led the household, was the breadwinner etc. That construct almost doesn't exist anymore. Women don't "need" a "Man" in that traditional sense. In a world where everyone is "equal" and can do all the same things it only comes down to biological functions and you don't need a marriage for that.[/B[/]QUOTE]
> 
> Hmmm, I really like this thought. Perhaps due to the new dynamic between men and women, men aren't establishing emotional bonds with women.
> 
> There's lots of hookups and lots of dating, you would think that eventually, just by numbers, that 2 compatible partners would meet and decide to get married. Just by numbers you might think that more people might get married since you are able to vet so many partners so quickly.
> 
> Maybe since men aren't being men, and women aren't being women, then the chance for a real intimate connection doesn't exist.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> We live in a society that puts the individual above the collective. This has many good aspects to it but it can also lead to a denigration of bonds between communities, families and yes even men and women if taken to an extreme.*
Click to expand...


----------



## Runs like Dog

Two reasons

Economics. It's not a viable proposition to start families now, financially. Try getting a mortgage when you don't have outstanding debt or credit. And without those anchors then couples who either marry or don't marry have more time and money for leisure and other activities.

Generally, and this goes for women and men alike but men show it more because society does not provide the same kinds of support mechanisms, but young people exist in a kind of permanent late childhood well into their late 20's now. 28 is the new 18. 

Of course the other elephant in the room is children. More children are born to unmarried than married couples now. There's no longer a drive or a need really to get married to start families for the people who choose to or who accidentally fall pregnant. Again, if there's less pressure to get married 'for the kids' then there's less pressure to get married period.


----------



## chris007

Experiences of their fathers and grandfathers
Misandry as part of our mainstream culture
Family courts stacked against men
Internet media allowing them to learn from mistakes of others
Marriage strike has been going on for many years
Continued destruction caused by feminist hate cult

Unless these things balance themselves out, so that there is an actual benefit to a man entering marriage, more and more men will walk away. It is happening all over the world not just the US or western civilization. Men, in general are logical creatures who do well at balancing risk vs reward in any action they take. Unless the end reward is worth taking the initial risk, we do nothing.


----------



## Cre8ify

And let's not overlook the fact that a man's primary role is to financially support the family. Millennials just have not had the same type of economic opportunities available to them as we baby boomers. I would not want to take on the responsibility of paying for home and hearth if underemployed or in a dead end job. I feel truly sorry for these kids, selling cell phones or working in a lumber yard with bachelors degrees. I hate what gaming has done to a generation of men as mindless hours are burned achieving nothing...but, in their defense, perhaps they would be digging hard if we gave them something worthy to pursue.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS

Marriage is still a great deal IF you do your homework and are willing to be a discriminating consumer prior to tying the knot. I think a lot of marriages that fail do so because of a lack of preparation by one or both people. They think love is all it takes. It doesn't, and anyone who is in a long term marriage that is solid learns this. You can have the deepest love a man and woman can have for each other, but if the rest of the equation does not balance (value systems, long term goals, religious affiliation, etc), the probability of divorce will still be high. Also, since this seems to be centered a lot on sex, a happy marriage with someone who is sexually compatible will get you laid more than the best pickup artists will. The only thing a pickup artist will have over the happily married guy is variety.


----------



## Hardtohandle

Youngster said:


> I think there's a whole lot of truth to number 1. The young men I work with sometimes do the on-line dating thing during lunch. They said it's pretty easy to line up a date almost every weekend. Also the hook-up culture of today makes getting sex easy.
> 
> One thing these guys do say is that today's hook-up culture is tiresome. That they go on a few dates, typically paying for them, have sex, eventually the relationship fizzles out because both parties are looking for a better thing. The majority of these guys are like "yeah we're paying for a couple of dinners/dates to have sex. it's not like the relationship is going to go anywhere.".


I see the same thing here regards to OLD and the ilk.. One guy in my office who is 28 and looks 12 has numerous women of all assorted ages looking to be with him.. 

One day he left his facebook page open and we changed his status to engaged.. His phone BLEW UP with messages from women who were upset..

I'm just looking for one woman and this guy has dozen's all over that are just looking to fvck..

I think OLD has pushed people to always look for something better because it's that easy as well.. Again I have another friend who seems to do okay and he always describes each woman by a body part.. This one has a nice a$$, but then this one has a really nice pair of tits.. He is divorced as well and took a beating.. But he just seems to be looking for the next best thing.. 

Another thing is women... Women have become much more sexually savvy.. Just like guys.. They are doing the same Sh!t.. They date the guy with the hot body and know its nothing serious.. But they know if they want an arm piece and someone to fvck, they know they can date this guy.. Then they have the money guy.. ETC.. Even they start to realize why settle down when they know they can have a few men on the side willing to fvck when its okay for them.. 

Honestly women hold all the fvcking cards here.. No one really fvcks you unless they want you to fvck them.. 

But I'm not gonna lie.. When I start to hear about a woman's past ( why they need to tell you ) I start to judge them.. Like its always said.. Double the number you hear.. I've had one women tell me, look you should be happy I got this out of my system when I'm young. Now I'm ready for a serious relationship.. That is sh!t a guy used to tell a woman.. I basically was told I got a lot of D!ck when I was younger but now I'm okay not having a lot of d!ck. You can sugar coat this any way you want but that was the barebones of the conversation and yes the conversation was about sex not dating..

So yea.. You get scared.. Because this is a woman in her 40s right now talking about 20 years ago.. Today from my line of work I get to see a lot of stuff from people's personal lives.. I also deal a lot with social media stuff related to people's personal lives.. 

So my simple point is women today in their 20s and 30s and as I come discover in their 40s do a lot of fvcking with a lot of partners.. And I see it.. 

I see my friend getting half nude and private shots from women he *USED to date*.. 

Trust me that is the first thing on my mind when I meet a woman sometimes.. The ExGF used to ask me to send pics.. I told her no I have 2 boys and I have seen first hand what people who get mad do with those pictures eventually.. I will never do anything to embarrass myself or my boys.. 

I finally confronted her about it, she played innocent, but I realized she did it a lot in the past with her past relationships.. 

Its a whole morality thing... 

The simple truth is if you know how to play the game or are willing to learn.. There are enough women that just okay with just dating and fvcking and there are just enough women who are okay with just fvcking that you really don't need to be married and the internet has made that really easy.. 

Now add in seeing a family member going through a bad divorce and such.. It really puts people out on this whole marriage thing..

Mind you I tell my boys marriage isn't a bad thing but I do realize now that you do need to protect yourself..

I mean really would you know about that good looking girl on the other side of town if it wasn't for POF ? Heck you can do the geo locate and find people who are around your area based on GPS that just might be working in that area.. I mean really how easy can it get.. 

If they are online.. Its as simple as hey I see you might work around here, I think you're cute and I like your profile. Can we meet for drinks.. If you're half decent looking guy more then likely you get a yes.. And you don't even have clue where this person lives.. 

I also think younger generation has infected the older generation. Because I see myself falling into line with this 28 year old kid in my office.. Because it is obvious he know WTF he is doing and I don't..


----------



## NextTimeAround

one way that men have shoot themselves in the foot....

when I was a teenager in the '70s, it was made clear to me that a single mom will never find a decent man to marry her. 

of course, after a while, I started to notice that the same guys that I wanted to date were perfectly happy to date --long term-- and sometimes marry that never married single mom.

yes, it's Victorian to banish singe moms to invisibility in society, but when having kids out of wedlock doesn't seem to disadvantage women in a real and consistent way, then well, a few fair will do it.


----------



## Healer

Because there's no upside.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS

Cre8ify said:


> And let's not overlook the fact that a man's primary role is to financially support the family. Millennials just have not had the same type of economic opportunities available to them as we baby boomers. I would not want to take on the responsibility of paying for home and hearth if underemployed or in a dead end job. I feel truly sorry for these kids, *selling cell phones or working in a lumber yard with bachelors degrees. I hate what gaming has done to a generation of men as mindless hours are burned achieving nothing...*but, in their defense, perhaps they would be digging hard if we gave them something worthy to pursue.


Overall, it's a failure in parenting. How do the kids get these gaming consoles? I still think a fair number of kids aren't going nuts over gaming, but I think it's a sizeable enough of a problem. Our kids do activities - like a lot of other kids do - plus they have smartphones and electronics. However, no gaming consoles. They are not allowed to veg out in front of TV or electronics for hours at a time. My oldest daughter is playing an instrument and it's taking a lot of her time for practice and to play in the bands she performs with. 

Regarding education, parents are the primary here too. Do parents talk to their kids about what the world is like and where the jobs are? Or is it "follow your dreams" and that's that? College attendance exploded, but so did the garbage degrees too. Nothing is more irresponsible than to go to a small, liberal arts private college that's no better than a public university to spend $40K plus a year so that the kid can study Elementary Ed or to get a "Studies" major. Meanwhile, good paying jobs that would need skilled technicians go unfilled because we have too many "soft" degrees that focus on psychobabble like a "Studies" major does...

Not sure about the engineering friends in the OP- maybe they are social outcasts because of gaming - but they are NOT affected by a poor choice in college education at least.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I think society has become less rigid so a wider variety of lifestyles are socially acceptable. 

I see this as a good thing. People don't feel like that *have* to marry, they can do so if it suits them, but do no need to if it doesn't. Some people are naturally geared to life-long committed relationships, some are not. 

Also of course there are many life-long relationships where the couple has for their own reasons not decided to become leaglly married but behave as if they are.


----------



## arbitrator

* Even in my perceived dotage, I really feel in my heart that I still truly want to find the one woman who will love me without reservation, and I them. But with all that I've thusfar experienced in the unfortunate confines of the marital arena, I would really have to question why I would ever want to subject myself to a possible third failure by walking the aisle for yet a third time, knowing all too well that the divorce statistics for a third marriage or above nearly eclipses 80%.

My last marriage to my RSXW damn near financially ruined me through all of the well-planned, but vague wording of her legal prenup which by and large forbade me from going after any of her assets, but left the door wide open for her to try to go after mine! If not for a big hearted lady district judge who adjudicated the case, I would have literally lost my shirt, not thaty RSXW didn't make off with both tattered sleeves and the inherent right to procure a life insurance policy on my sorry a$$!

I hope that I find the love I'm seeking, and if not, then it wasn't meant to be! But if perchance I do, I think that there is a real possibility that I may choose to live with them outside of matrimonial channels because I do not want to roll the bones on going through yet another tumultuous divorce in which my financial solvency might depend on it!

Using the old Redd Foxx joke, I think that the next marriage that I ever come to entertain will be a "Samsonite Wedding." What is a Samsonite Wedding, you say? "Shack" ~ if you want divorce, all that you have to do is "Pack!"*


----------



## Cre8ify

Amen Plan!



> "follow your dreams"


They call it work for a reason. Yes everyone wants to be a physical therapist for an NFL team. And we all like the endorphins from exercising...we get that, but you still need to get a job that's not "playing". I have heard the other side of this, not wanting to "dash his dreams" but shielding him from natural consequences helps no one.

We have encouraged our kids to get an education with job skills that are in demand and given how few parents do it this way they are making it look easy. Plenty of high paying jobs out there if you have the right knowledge.

No gaming devices in our house, ever. Between band, vocal and athletic practice, no time for that.


----------



## Constable Odo

Jung_admirer said:


> I would most definitely create a pre-nup that spells out the terms of any permanent separation


I'm going through the pre-nup process now. My attorney has made it abundantly clear to me that, in my state at least, the pre-nup can say whatever we want it to, but in the end, the judge has the ultimate discretion to completely disregard everything we put in it and decide to rule in a way which goes completely against what we decided on in advance. 

So, for example, even though I may put in the pre-nup that the house I purchased prior to the marriage remains mine, the judge can turn around and give it to her.

The more men hear about these types of inequities in the justice system -- and no doubt the ability to read and hear about these types of things via the internet on various web sites -- the less men will be willing to expose themselves financially. Instead, they can remain unmarried and have all the benefits of marriage without the financial danger should the relationship fail.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Constable Odo said:


> I'm going through the pre-nup process now. My attorney has made it abundantly clear to me that, in my state at least, the pre-nup can say whatever we want it to, but in the end, the judge has the ultimate discretion to completely disregard everything we put in it and decide to rule in a way which goes completely against what we decided on in advance.
> 
> So, for example, even though I may put in the pre-nup that the house I purchased prior to the marriage remains mine, the judge can turn around and give it to her.
> 
> The more men hear about these types of inequities in the justice system -- and no doubt the ability to read and hear about these types of things via the internet on various web sites -- the less men will be willing to expose themselves financially. Instead, they can remain unmarried and have all the benefits of marriage without the financial danger should the relationship fail.



What state do you livein?

My brother owned the "marital" house before he got married. He never got around to putting his wife's name on the deed. And when they split up, the value of the house was never part of the community property.

that was in the 90s.


----------



## Cletus

All of the "good ol' days" whining aside, perhaps everyone is looking at this question from the wrong position.

Instead of asking why men don't marry today, ask why men married in the past. Then decide if those reasons still persist in today's society combined with a little dose of recognition that monogamy is actually not a very stable natural state for the species and you might have your answer.

Men don't marry today because the reasons that compelled them to do so in the past no longer exist with as much force. Their forebears probably wouldn't have married today either if you were to transplant them to this time and place. With increasing gender equality comes decreasing reliance on gender stereotyped behavior. Perhaps marriage - i.e. contractually obligating yourself to one other person ostensibly for all time - is only a stable social construct when there are no reasonable alternatives for companionship, sex, and security.

You might just as well ask why we no longer live in a cave and beat our dinner to death with a club.


----------



## sisters359

Interesting that men keep asserting they are worse off after divorce--financially--when research shows that relative to women, men fare much better financially. 

Given that the assertion perverts facts, it does not seem like a reasonable answer for "why don't men marry?" 

I have to say that in most of the young couples I know, the *women* are the ones who drag their heels about getting married. Anecdotal, yes, but that pattern has held true throughout most of my life. 

My community of friends/acquaintances tends toward middle-class or above and highly educated, which probably skews my observations.


----------



## soccermom2three

sisters359 said:


> Interesting that men keep asserting they are worse off after divorce--financially--when research shows that relative to women, men fare much better financially.
> 
> Given that the assertion perverts facts, it does not seem like a reasonable answer for "why don't men marry?"
> 
> I have to say that in most of the young couples I know, the *women* are the ones who drag their heels about getting married. Anecdotal, yes, but that pattern has held true throughout most of my life.
> 
> My community of friends/acquaintances tends toward middle-class or above and highly educated, which probably skews my observations.


Very much the same here. I work with two women now that live with their SO'S and have two children each. The women are the ones not wanting to get married while their SO's do want to get married.


----------



## Cletus

sisters359 said:


> Interesting that men keep asserting they are worse off after divorce--financially--when research shows that relative to women, men fare much better financially.


There's nothing at all contradictory in those statements. I can be financially worse off after the divorce than I was before and still be in a much better place than my ex-spouse. 

Over my working career, my salary has often been 3.5x that of my wife. Were we to divorce, she is entitled to half of all of our assets, even though I'm responsible for generating something like 80% of our net worth. 

Post divorce, she could never earn anything close to what I can, so sans a hefty alimony check, of course I'll be better off. That's the tradeoff that would come from the 15 years she got to be a SAHM on the fruits of my labor.


----------



## Ripper

Well gents, we made it a little over three hours before the feminist imperative started to T/J. Honestly expected it to be sooner.

Everyone has pretty much hit the nail on the head as to why men don't want to marry. Its not even a good deal once you get into your mid-30's as Xenote's boss found out, plus you have to navigate through all the CC rider's that Hardtohandle mentioned.

Not worth it.


----------



## Youngster

Cletus said:


> There's nothing at all contradictory in those statements. I can be financially worse off after the divorce than I was before and still be in a much better place than my ex-spouse.
> 
> Over my working career, my salary has often been 3.5x that of my wife. Were we to divorce, she is entitled to half of all of our assets, even though I'm responsible for generating something like 80% of our net worth.
> 
> Post divorce, she could never earn anything close to what I can, so sans a hefty alimony check, of course I'll be better off. That's the tradeoff that would come from the 15 years she got to be a SAHM on the fruits of my labor.


If assets are split 50/50 the higher wage earner will always be worse off after divorce.....it's pretty simple math!


----------



## Icey181

sisters359 said:


> Interesting that men keep asserting they are worse off after divorce--financially--when research shows that relative to women, men fare much better financially.


And relative to what he made before and during the marriage, the man is usually considerably worse off.



sisters359 said:


> Given that the assertion perverts facts, it does not seem like a reasonable answer for "why don't men marry?"
> 
> I have to say that in most of the young couples I know, the *women* are the ones who drag their heels about getting married. Anecdotal, yes, but that pattern has held true throughout most of my life.
> 
> My community of friends/acquaintances tends toward middle-class or above and highly educated, which probably skews my observations.


Well, one of the things that is routinely coming up these days are the 20-29 year old women who want to "have fun."

I am friends with a couple wherein the women spent her 20s "having fun." This in general meant she slept with so many men that she disgusted her sister. During that period she was too busy building a career and having fun to care about marriage.

Now that she is closing in on her 30s she suddenly wants to get married.

The funny thing is that I can see the feet dragging _on his part_ now and a lot of it has to do with her sexual history…

The whole "Where Have all the Good Men" complaining seems to be coming from 30-40 year old professional women who had this viewpoint their younger lives…but suddenly changed their mind as they rapidly approached menopause.

I think it is more rare these days to find a 20 or even early 30 year old who wants to marry, period.

Also, agreed with pretty much everything else said thus far in the thread.

Why would young men get married when marriage itself confers quite literally no benefit whatsoever to their lives?


----------



## Youngster

IMO of course, there are members of TAM who don't like to see discussions like this because they run contrary to their belief system. They'll do anything to disrupt a thread to the point where it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation.

Lets not allow that to happen.

This thread has really brought up a lot of valid points, things I certainly had never thought of. Lets try to keep this threading moving forward to see what all of us can learn.


----------



## Married but Happy

Seriously, what ARE good reasons for marriage in today's social/legal environment? What does marriage provide to a man that can't be created via legal agreements short of marriage? I'm talking about practical, measurable, real benefits, not abstractions or generalities about society or morals (which are often false arguments anyway, IMO)?


----------



## Truthseeker1

Icey181 said:


> And relative to what he made before and during the marriage, the man is usually considerably worse off.
> 
> 
> Well, one of the things that is routinely coming up these days are the 20-29 year old women who want to "have fun."
> 
> I am friends with a couple wherein the women spent her 20s "having fun." This in general meant she slept with so many men that she disgusted her sister. During that period she was too busy building a career and having fun to care about marriage.
> 
> Now that she is closing in on her 30s she suddenly wants to get married.
> 
> *The funny thing is that I can see the feet dragging on his part now and a lot of it has to do with her sexual history…*
> 
> The whole "Where Have all the Good Men" complaining seems to be coming from 30-40 year old professional women who had this viewpoint their younger lives…but suddenly changed their mind as they rapidly approached menopause.
> 
> I think it is more rare these days to find a 20 or even early 30 year old who wants to marry, period.
> 
> Also, agreed with pretty much everything else said thus far in the thread.
> 
> Why would young men get married when marriage itself confers quite literally no benefit whatsoever to their lives?


The highlighted statement does not surprise me at all...lots of young men feel this way - some are hypocrites and for many it is genuinely a turn off...I know this is a sore subject for many women but this I do know form speaking to men both young and old - it is a turn off for many - not all by any means but many...


----------



## tech-novelist

Youngster said:


> Hypothetically, let's say we completely remove the financial piece/risk for men. Will men want to marry? I don't think so. I think young men see marriage as a bad deal and it's deeper then financial.


I think it would help a lot if men didn't have to worry about being taken to the cleaners in a frivorce, even if they "do everything right". After all, there have never been significant financial benefits to being married, and men did it voluntarily anyway.

Another thing that would help a lot would be having women to marry who weren't screaming feminist harpies. :smile2:


----------



## tech-novelist

Jung_admirer said:


> I don't think it needs to be this way necessarily. Marry a partner of roughly equal financial power. I would most definitely create a pre-nup that spells out the terms of any permanent separation: child custody, financial terms etc. To not do so is naive, given that 50% of marriages end in divorce. I suspect the negotiation of any pre-nup will be quite telling with respect to the entitlement mentality of both partners. A worthy exercise before you sign on the dotted line.


You can't determine child custody, child support, or the like via a pre-nup. If you try, it will be disregarded by the judge, "for the children", and will probably be used as an excuse to void the entire pre-nup.

The only way to be sure you won't get taken to the cleaners in a divorce is not to get married. At least not in the US, or any other misandrist country.


----------



## Buddy400

This looks like a nice opportunity to make some gender generalizations with the understanding that they are *generalizations * (meaning that just because YOU haven't experienced this, it may still apply in a lot of cases). For ease of discussion, I'm going to use some inflammatory language. Partly for fun but mostly for simplicity. Of course I realize that not all men only care about looks and sex and that not all (or even many) women are gold digging slvts. 

My theory is that some men (20%?) have little incentive to marry and the others (80%?) are willing but can't attract the interest of women.

I don't think the fact that the financial risk of marriage is a very important problem for young men. These days woman are making as much (or more than) men, assuming that they work as many hours and don't have children. The risk only comes into play when dealing with a SAHM, which is increasingly an upper class luxury. 

Also, It does seem that alimony is less prevalent and that custody is being awarded on more of a 50/50 basis. 

I'll agree that the current generation of men in their 50's with SAHM's were screwed, but I think those problems are largely correcting themselves.

The reason men used to marry was in order to get access to regular sex and to conform to the social norms. Obviously there is a lot more to marriage for a man than sex, but the prospect of sex was an important factor in men's desire to marry. There is no longer the social norm to conform to. As far as sex, some men are getting plenty of sex so they have no incentive to marry. Other men are getting no interest from women, even though they would be willing to marry in order to get sex. Women used to trade sex for commitment, but are no longer in a position to make that trade. 

Why are some men getting plenty of sex and others none? The main problem is with men's attractiveness to women. Women generally are only attracted to men that are more successful (or at least AS successful) as themselves. Not because they are gold digging wh***s but because the attraction to good providers still exists even if the need for them isn't as important as it used to be when women were financially dependent on men. 

Men fvck down and women fvck up. So a man who is a 10 will have sex with women down to a 7 (and 9/6, 8/5). Women who are 6's are only attracted to men who are 9's. So women who are 6's, 7's and 8's think that they're in the same league as guys who are 9's and 10's. But, those guys are never going to marry them. If the 8, 9 & 10 guys are going to marry, they're going to marry the 8, 9 & 10 women. This leaves the some of the hottest women (8,9,10) without mates as some of these guys don't marry at all. It leaves the 6 & 7 women without mates because the guys they're interested in won't marry them. Everyone is being taught these days that they deserve whatever they want, so no one wants to compromise. As women get into their 30's, those that want to marry will either compromise or not marry (except for those lucky enough to marry a comparable guy that's finally decided to settle down). Under the old plan of "If you want regular sex you need to get married", the 10's married the 10's, the 9's the 9's, etc. Now, you'd think that when a 6 woman decides to settle for a 6 guy, things would work out. But, the woman is likely to look down on her new mate and the guy is likely not going to be happy about the number of guys she's tried out before settling for him.

Then, add onto that the idea that society's been pushing that the way to attract a woman is to be respectful, nice and not dominant (the "men have been lied to" meme). The men who attract women don't have to cater to their needs (which, perversely enough, just adds to their attractiveness to women). The guys who don't attract women value them so much that they cater excessively to their needs (which, of course, reduces their attractiveness even further). I'm not blaming society for this though; it's the man's responsibility to figure out how things work.

About the only ideas I have for making things better are: 

Men, read “No More Mr. Nice Guy” (I actually don’t like the book, but it seems to get the idea across effectively).

Women, stop engaging in casual sex you really don’t want. My reading says that this isn’t really what makes most women happy and that societal norms encourage women to behave this way (My daughter, who has only been with her fiancé, has to fight the idea that there’s something wrong with her).

Women, if you’re going to make as much money as men and not be financially dependent on them (which I encourage), acknowledge your former biological imperative and find other qualities in men that you can appreciate.


----------



## Ripper

Married but Happy said:


> Seriously, what ARE good reasons for marriage in today's social/legal environment?


Good question.

I would post a thread in the "Ladies Lounge" asking for *any* reason why a man should get married, but apparently they are all too busy not wanting to get married themselves.:rofl:


----------



## tech-novelist

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Marriage is still a great deal IF you do your homework and are willing to be a discriminating consumer prior to tying the knot. I think a lot of marriages that fail do so because of a lack of preparation by one or both people. They think love is all it takes. It doesn't, and anyone who is in a long term marriage that is solid learns this. You can have the deepest love a man and woman can have for each other, but if the rest of the equation does not balance (value systems, long term goals, religious affiliation, etc), the probability of divorce will still be high. Also, since this seems to be centered a lot on sex, a happy marriage with someone who is sexually compatible will get you laid more than the best pickup artists will. The only thing a pickup artist will have over the happily married guy is variety.


As long as you stay sexually compatible this is true.
Unfortunately if one of the partners becomes uninterested in sex (or was lying about their interest in sex to trap the other partner), the other partner is out of luck. Thus, it is very hazardous to rely on remaining compatible.

Note that this is not gender-specific.


----------



## Icey181

Truthseeker1 said:


> The highlighted statement does not surprise me at all...lots of young men feel this way - some are hypocrites and for many it is genuinely a turn off...I know this is a sore subject for many women but this I do know form speaking to men both young and old - it is a turn off for many - not all by any means but many...


It is a major issue.

If the modern woman wants to sleep around throughout her 20s, fine. 

But I am sick and tired of men being told they are not allowed to find that kind of behavior distasteful.

I am not surprised that many young men today look at young women as little more than a hook-up, because that is what they are.

You cannot immerse yourself in casual sex for a decade and then expect no one to care and to treat you like a prince/princess afterwards.


----------



## Cletus

Married but Happy said:


> Seriously, what ARE good reasons for marriage in today's social/legal environment? What does marriage provide to a man that can't be created via legal agreements short of marriage? I'm talking about practical, measurable, real benefits, not abstractions or generalities about society or morals (which are often false arguments anyway, IMO)?


Been married a long time now, and I have no intention of changing that situation any time soon.

But I can't really answer your question with anything positive. There is nothing from my perspective that having a marriage license confers on me that I couldn't just as easily do without. Nearly every benefit of survivorship and transfer of wealth and property that happens automatically in a marriage benefits my wife far more than it does me. Perhaps if I fall ill and have someone there who is automatically empowered to make important decisions I'll think differently.

My wife required that signed document before she would get into bed with me, so in my case, marriage was the price of entry - a price I was willing, even glad to pay. Now I know for certain that I would never allow that scenario to play out again because of the law of unintended consequences, and I'm not sure I would do it again.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Ripper said:


> Good question.
> 
> I would post a thread in the "Ladies Lounge" asking for *any* reason why a man should get married, but apparently they are all too busy not wanting to get married themselves.:rofl:


I asked my husband why he married me. And why he was never concerned about what a bad deal marriage was. I said he married me because he loved me and wanted to build a life with me. About money he said, meh its just money. I knew the kind of person you were then, and it is not different than the person you are now.

I think that so many people PREVIOUSLY got married for dumb reasons. Those dumb reasons don't really apply anymore. But people don't think to much about good reasons. 

Many people think of their wedding day as the day the work ends. They acquired the cow or bull. Now they can just chill. Nothing is further from the truth. The wedding day is the day that the work of genuine understanding, trust, love and commitment START. But the rewards are amazing. The knowledge that this person really cares enough about ME. The knowledge that I have learned and grown enough to make my DH feel loved.


I think marrying later or not at all is a Good Thing. Too many people marry wrong just to marry. 

My opinion.


----------



## Buddy400

Cletus said:


> There's nothing at all contradictory in those statements. I can be financially worse off after the divorce than I was before and still be in a much better place than my ex-spouse.
> 
> Over my working career, my salary has often been 3.5x that of my wife. Were we to divorce, she is entitled to half of all of our assets, even though I'm responsible for generating something like 80% of our net worth.
> 
> Post divorce, she could never earn anything close to what I can, so sans a hefty alimony check, of course I'll be better off. That's the tradeoff that would come from the 15 years she got to be a SAHM on the fruits of my labor.


I’m actually in favor of alimony in the case of a SAHM, as long as the decision for her to be a SAHM was mutual. You just better be pretty damn sure of the state of your marriage before you make that decision.

My wife was making as much money as I was when we got married. We made the decision to be a SAHM mom for a couple of years and then to work part-time until the kids were in high school. If we’d divorced during that time it would have been very unfair for me to walk away from the marriage with my salary and her with hers.

No longer a problem as she’s so damn talented that she’s been back in the fulltime workforce for 6 years and is already back to making as much as I am :smile2:


----------



## Truthseeker1

Icey181 said:


> It is a major issue.
> 
> If the modern woman wants to sleep around throughout her 20s, fine.
> 
> But I am sick and tired of men being told they are not allowed to find that kind of behavior distasteful.
> 
> I am not surprised that many young men today look at young women as little more than a hook-up, because that is what they are.
> 
> You cannot immerse yourself in casual sex for a decade and then expect no one to care and to treat you like a prince/princess afterwards.


I got good advice from my grandmother - you don't only need to get to know the person but also their families and friends before committing to a serious relationship. I counsel young people to be friends in a group first to get to know the person before you try dating. Get to know their values, see how they behave, etc before taking the next step. 

Unfortunately many people lie about their sexual histories so the best you can do is get to know them as best you can BEFORE dating. Sex and intimacy cloud ones judgement when choosing a partner.

Are some young men hypocrites? Absolutely, but many want a woman who has reserved sex for serious relationships like they have. Instead of "**** shaming" we now engage in what I call "virtue shaming" - we ostracize these young men for desiring a spouse with a more limited sexual history. There is NOTHING, not a thing, wrong with that!!!


----------



## EnigmaGirl

I'm female but I advise every young man I know to marry an educated woman with career aspirations and never tolerate a woman who won't work.

The second that a woman won't work...divorce her quickly before she makes an entitlement case for spousal support.

If you're not going to do these things...then don't whine when you're spouse decides to leave you for whatever reason (including her meeting a new guy) and takes half your money and future salary.

There are many lovely, smart, hard-working women out there but if you don't seek that, there's a 50% chance you're going to get screwed.

My husband wouldn't have married me if I wasn't financially self-sufficient and vice versa. Men have to be smart about their choices or willingly accept the risk of supporting a financial dependent indefinitely.

Also stay away from the complicated type. The ones who have a new problem every day and are emotionally erratic. You'll be doing yourself a favor.


----------



## Truthseeker1

EnigmaGirl said:


> I'm female but I advise every young man I know to marry an educated woman with career aspirations and never tolerate a woman who won't work.
> 
> The second that a woman won't work...divorce her quickly before she makes an entitlement case for spousal support.
> 
> If you're not going to do these things...then don't whine when you're spouse decides to leave you for whatever reason (including her meeting a new guy) and takes half your money and future salary.
> 
> *There are many lovely, smart, hard-working women out there but if you don't seek that, there's a 50% chance you're going to get screwed.*
> 
> My husband wouldn't have married me if I wasn't financially self-sufficient and vice versa. Men have to be smart about their choices or willingly accept the risk of supporting a financial dependent indefinitely.
> 
> Also stay away from the complicated type. The ones who have a new problem every day and are emotionally erratic. You'll be doing yourself a favor.


Agree 100%. I also think people need to go slower in getting to know their partner. Don't look for a soul mate look for a good person who you find attractive - but it is whats on the inside that counts most.


----------



## BetrayedDad

EnigmaGirl said:


> Also stay away from the complicated type. The ones who have a new problem every day and are emotionally erratic. You'll be doing yourself a favor.


Truth. Love this little caveat... 

Guys, "complicated type" is girl code for CRAZY chick.


----------



## Buddy400

Married but Happy said:


> Seriously, what ARE good reasons for marriage in today's social/legal environment?


I’d say that life with a committed partner is far superior to a life essentially lived alone.

The trick is that many times (as in the case of many arranged marriages) the very fact that you were married and that was perceived as difficult to undo (financial, peer pressure, social norms) led people to put more effort into a relationship than they would otherwise, therefore leading to a better and fuller life.

But, it seems like putting effort into anything these days is frowned upon. You’re supposed to just wait until the perfect situation arises which doesn’t require any effort on one’s part to maintain.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Seriously, what ARE good reasons for marriage in today's social/legal environment? What does marriage provide to a man that can't be created via legal agreements short of marriage?


My new husband and I talked about this extensively before we finally decided to get married. Truthfully, I kind of balked when we got close to the marriage date and he doubled-down which was surprising because usually once I make up my mind, I don't second guess things.

However, overall...we got married for pure convenience reasons. We could have both been happily unmarried together for the rest of our lives but to nail down Power of Attorney/Will stuff and to ensure pension rights and health benefit rights (my husband works for the government), we did it.

In addition, we both got sick of calling each other boyfriend and girlfriend (dumb, I know, but its true).

Honestly, the reason that I finally got over my hesitation in doing it is because I choose to be with my husband everyday. I don't need him for anything but emotional reasons...he's my best friend and the best human being I know and I value spending every moment I can in his company. And even though I'm pretty certain our marriage will last until I die, if it doesn't, whatever time I can spend in his company enriches my life. I figured that was a pretty good reason to do it.


----------



## Constable Odo

Truthseeker1 said:


> I wonder how further advances in medical science like artificial wombs, designer babies, longer life spans will change marriage or maybe eliminate it all together.


Well, given trends in cloning, I don't see why a woman wouldn't be able to take an egg, have the genetic material modified to suit what she wants in a child, and then have it implanted in her. Of course, if she wanted a boy, she'd need a Y chromosome, but, maybe not.



Ripper said:


> Well gents, we made it a little over three hours before the feminist imperative started to T/J. Honestly expected it to be sooner.


Ya think?



Icey181 said:


> Now that she is closing in on her 30s she suddenly wants to get married.


Yes, she realizes she is going to hit "the wall" pretty soon.




Youngster said:


> They'll do anything to disrupt a thread to the point where it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation.


I fully expect the Feminist Agenda will be in full swing when they discover this thread. Simply refuse to take the bait and just do not respond to their messages. Ignore them, and they will go away.


----------



## Married but Happy

Buddy400 said:


> I’d say that life with a committed partner is far superior to a life essentially lived alone.
> 
> The trick is that many times (as in the case of many arranged marriages) the very fact that you were married and that was perceived as difficult to undo (financial, peer pressure, social norms) led people to put more effort into a relationship than they would otherwise, therefore leading to a better and fuller life.
> 
> But, it seems like putting effort into anything these days is frowned upon. You’re supposed to just wait until the perfect situation arises which doesn’t require any effort on one’s part to maintain.


I agree, life with a committed partner is often better - but commitment does not have to mean marriage. I was as committed without marriage as I am with it.

And you're saying that the fear of harsh penalties motivates someone to work on a relationship? That may be true, but why should it be coercive? If a relationship is worth saving, most people will make the effort even if not coerced.

I disagree that making an effort is frowned upon. I do think that making an effort when there is very low probability of a good outcome is wasted effort.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Married but Happy said:


> I agree, life with a committed partner is often better - but commitment does not have to mean marriage. I was as committed without marriage as I am with it.


I would go one step further than marriage is not the extent of commitment. Being committed to just staying married is not much of a commitment. Or at least not one I would choose.



> And you're saying that the fear of harsh penalties motivates someone to work on a relationship? That may be true, but why should it be coercive? If a relationship is worth saving, most people will make the effort even if not coerced.


I don't think it can be true. I cannot see how penalties can be a motivator to understanding, empathy and love. 



> I disagree that making an effort is frowned upon. I do think that making an effort when there is very low probability of a good outcome is wasted effort.


I think that there is a True Love myth that makes people think that things will just work out with The One.


----------



## Wolf1974

Cletus said:


> There's nothing at all contradictory in those statements. I can be financially worse off after the divorce than I was before and still be in a much better place than my ex-spouse.
> 
> Over my working career, my salary has often been 3.5x that of my wife. Were we to divorce, she is entitled to half of all of our assets, even though I'm responsible for generating something like 80% of our net worth.
> 
> Post divorce, she could never earn anything close to what I can, so sans a hefty alimony check, of course I'll be better off. That's the tradeoff that would come from the 15 years she got to be a SAHM on the fruits of my labor.


And this is the problem with the statistics. Doesn't take all the factors into account


----------



## moco82

Youngster said:


> I think there's a whole lot of truth to number 1. The young men I work with sometimes do the on-line dating thing during lunch. They said it's pretty easy to line up a date almost every weekend. Also the hook-up culture of today makes getting sex easy.
> 
> One thing these guys do say is that today's hook-up culture is tiresome. That they go on a few dates, typically paying for them, have sex, eventually the relationship fizzles out because both parties are looking for a better thing. The majority of these guys are like "yeah we're paying for a couple of dinners/dates to have sex. it's not like the relationship is going to go anywhere.".


Sounds too good to be true. I was born a decade too early.

Sure it's not just bravado?


----------



## Wolf1974

Only thing I didn't see touched on here is just what we are learning from our parents. When you come from a divorced home with parents bashing one another and divorce is "no big deal" how do you expect kids to become adults and not see relationships as interchangeable. I know my parents are still together after 45 years. They have never been with anyone else. That is what I grew up with so cheating and divorce, especially when you have kids, was unthinkable to me. My x wife's mother chested on every husband she ever had, 3 of them, and openly didn't like men. Her household made my x wife's option on divorce "no big deal". I lived through it so my kids will get through it. And they have gotten through it and also see divorce now as no big deal. And on the cycle goes.

The other part is people, and not just men, are getting screwed in court after divorce. Equitable and fair doesn't enter into it as described to me by the judge who was going to award my x with so much CS I would loose my house. His exact words...I don't care. So you have a romantic relationship and sign a piece of paper that involves the state in your relationship. No wonder it's all screwed up. 

Like others who previously posted here I often get asked will I ever marry again. My answer is always I don't know of a reason I would. I can't really see any upside to it. I will have no more kids so family dynamic is out. I wouldn't share my accounts likely with anyone. I am open to and currently living with a woman, have sex, we travel and enjoy each other. How would a marriage make that any better?


----------



## Buddy400

moco82 said:


> Sounds too good to be true. I was born a decade too early.
> 
> Sure it's not just bravado?


I believe it's true for the top x%

For the rest, sex is harder to get


----------



## moco82

Constable Odo said:


> As such I do not think most kids in their 20's believe in the concept of marriage, which involves mutual sacrifice from both parties, for the benefit of the family unit. Rather, they view it as "what's in it for ME" rather than "what's in it for US".


This has been said by every generation about every subsequent generation.

I see a greater interest in philanthropy (by those who have the means), community service, and socially-conscious enterprise by today's 20-somethings. I don't observe a resistance to sacrifice as such, but the questioning of sacrifice for just one other person, given the likelihood of it ending up futile.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Wolf1974 said:


> Only thing I didn't see touched on here is just what we are learning from our parents. When you come from a divorced home with parents bashing one another and divorce is "no big deal" how do you expect kids to become adults and not see relationships as interchangeable. I know my parents are still together after 45 years. They have never been with anyone else. That is what I grew up with so cheating and divorce, especially when you have kids, was unthinkable to me. My x wife's mother chested on every husband she ever had, 3 of them, and openly didn't like men. Her household made my x wife's option on divorce "no big deal". I lived through it so my kids will get through it. And they have gotten through it and also see divorce now as no big deal. And on the cycle goes.


This is no small deal. But one thing that is maybe different about my situation and that of my husband, our parents are not still together. Both of our sets of parents were clearly madly in love and best friends for all of those years. We were able to see what working through differences looked like.

I was always deeply suspicious of unrepentant cheaters. Not so much because people can't or don't change. Just cuz it might be their normal.


----------



## Cletus

Buddy400 said:


> But, it seems like putting effort into anything these days is frowned upon. You’re supposed to just wait until the perfect situation arises which doesn’t require any effort on one’s part to maintain.


It's also entirely possible that they put a huge amount of effort into an unsatisfactory life. Don't confuse longevity with happiness.


----------



## moco82

Buddy400 said:


> I believe it's true for the top x%
> 
> For the rest, sex is harder to get


Shouldn't technology have democratized sex? Today's youngsters need to worry less about in what kind of car/boat they pull in, since they pull in in a phone app. I'd like to believe my son would have an easier time, not working and working and putting gratification off by decades, only to realize that youth had slipped away.


----------



## chris007

Truthseeker1 said:


> The highlighted statement does not surprise me at all...lots of young men feel this way - some are hypocrites and for many it is genuinely a turn off...I know this is a sore subject for many women but this I do know form speaking to men both young and old - it is a turn off for many - not all by any means but many...


It would only be hypocritical, if mans level of promiscuity was the same as womans. Which it is not, should not and will never be. Its not hypocrisy, its that men aren't women and women aren't men. I will leave at that, to keep this thread on point.


----------



## Truthseeker1

chris007 said:


> It would only be hypocritical, if mans level of promiscuity was the same as womans. Which it is not, should not and will never be. Its not hypocrisy, its that men aren't women and women aren't men. I will leave at that, to keep this thread on point.


I was specifically referring to promiscuous men. And every survey seems to show that men tend to be a bit more promiscuous than women.


----------



## Runs like Dog

There are tax and legal benefits to being legally married hence the crush forward in the gay communities to be allowed to.


----------



## Buddy400

moco82 said:


> Shouldn't technology have democratized sex? Today's youngsters need to worry less about in what kind of car/boat they pull in, since they pull in in a phone app. I'd like to believe my son would have an easier time, not working and working and putting gratification off by decades, only to realize that youth had slipped away.


If you were a 4 and could have sex with 5's, 6's, 7's & up; why would you have sex with another 4?

If it's true that men fvck down and women fvck up (and that could be disputed), the men at the lower end of the range are going to be out of luck.

AT age 35 and looking to marry, a male would be in demand (moving him up a few notches on the rating scale). Then the only question is "is he OK with a woman that's had 25 partners while he's had 0 or 1"? And will he be able to maintain her attraction to him? Particularly after having kids?


----------



## chris007

Truthseeker1 said:


> I was specifically referring to promiscuous men. And every survey seems to show that men tend to be a bit more promiscuous than women.


And that is probably correct as well. However, men cannot get pregnant - so they have a lot less at stake, nor does *their level of promiscuity correlate to ability to stay faithful in future relationships.* Unlike women. This is something every man ever born, gets on an instinctual level. It comes down to the fact that men have always had the need to know that children born to their wives were actually theirs. If they happened to marry a virgin, there was little to no doubt, that the offspring was theirs. Having ability to DNA test today, does not change our evolutionary predisposition to be assured of paternity. 

From a cultural standpoint, women have always been judged harshly for being promiscuous, in pretty much every civilization in history of this world. Not much is different today. Also, promiscuous men are attractive to most women, despite what they may claim. A guy that is sleeping with a different woman, every night of the week is a catch and a challenge. A man who is a virgin and never getting close to getting late, might as well be a leper. Do you think there is a reason, that when asked about number of sexual partners, women tend to round down and men tend to round up?


----------



## Youngster

moco82 said:


> Sounds too good to be true. I was born a decade too early.
> 
> Sure it's not just bravado?


I don't know. They say they could get an old bald guy like me laid no problem....not sure I believe that! 

Glad I'm married, I don't want to have to find out!


----------



## tech-novelist

EnigmaGirl said:


> I'm female but I advise every young man I know to marry an educated woman with career aspirations and never tolerate a woman who won't work.
> 
> The second that a woman won't work...divorce her quickly before she makes an entitlement case for spousal support.
> 
> If you're not going to do these things...then don't whine when you're spouse decides to leave you for whatever reason (including her meeting a new guy) and takes half your money and future salary.
> 
> There are many lovely, smart, hard-working women out there but if you don't seek that, there's a 50% chance you're going to get screwed.
> 
> My husband wouldn't have married me if I wasn't financially self-sufficient and vice versa. Men have to be smart about their choices or willingly accept the risk of supporting a financial dependent indefinitely.
> 
> Also stay away from the complicated type. The ones who have a new problem every day and are emotionally erratic. You'll be doing yourself a favor.


I have never seen statistics indicating that career women divorce less frequently than non-working women, all other factors (education, etc.) being held constant. Do you have a source for that?

I agree with your comments about the complicated types.


----------



## Truthseeker1

chris007 said:


> And that is probably correct as well. However, men cannot get pregnant - so they have a lot less at stake, nor does *their level of promiscuity correlate to ability to stay faithful in future relationships.* Unlike women. This is something every man ever born, gets on an instinctual level. It comes down to the fact that men have always had the need to know that children born to their wives were actually theirs. If they happened to marry a virgin, there was little to no doubt, that the offspring was theirs. Having ability to DNA test today, does not change our evolutionary predisposition to be assured of paternity.
> 
> From a cultural standpoint, women have always been judged harshly for being promiscuous, in pretty much every civilization in history of this world. Not much is different today. Also, promiscuous men are attractive to most women, despite what they may claim. A guy that is sleeping with a different woman, every night of the week is a catch and a challenge. A man who is a virgin and never getting close to getting late, might as well be a leper. *Do you think there is a reason, that when asked about number of sexual partners, women tend to round down and men tend to round up?*


Both seem to round up or down to get the approval of men I would think. I think women care less about a mans number unless it is VERY high - men on the other hand, most any way, really do care. Unfortunately for men women can and do lie everyday about their number.


----------



## tech-novelist

Truthseeker1 said:


> I was specifically referring to promiscuous men. And every survey seems to show that men tend to be a bit more promiscuous than women.


This is an example of the "apex fallacy". *Some* men, the top 10-20%, have the ability to be promiscuous, because women want to have sex with them. The others are lucky if they find any woman who is willing to have sex with them. Or maybe unlucky, depending on whether the woman takes them to the cleaners in a divorce.


----------



## tech-novelist

chris007 said:


> And that is probably correct as well. However, men cannot get pregnant - so they have a lot less at stake, nor does *their level of promiscuity correlate to ability to stay faithful in future relationships.* Unlike women. This is something every man ever born, gets on an instinctual level. It comes down to the fact that men have always had the need to know that children born to their wives were actually theirs. If they happened to marry a virgin, there was little to no doubt, that the offspring was theirs. Having ability to DNA test today, does not change our evolutionary predisposition to be assured of paternity.
> 
> From a cultural standpoint, women have always been judged harshly for being promiscuous, in pretty much every civilization in history of this world. Not much is different today. Also, promiscuous men are attractive to most women, despite what they may claim. A guy that is sleeping with a different woman, every night of the week is a catch and a challenge. A man who is a virgin and never getting close to getting late, might as well be a leper. Do you think there is a reason, that when asked about number of sexual partners, women tend to round down and men tend to round up?


Yes, if by "round up", you mean double, and if by "round down", you mean divide by three. :grin2:


----------



## Truthseeker1

technovelist said:


> This is an example of the "apex fallacy". *Some* men, the top 10-20%, have the ability to be promiscuous, because women want to have sex with them. The others are lucky if they find any woman who is willing to have sex with them. Or maybe unlucky, depending on whether the woman takes them to the cleaners in a divorce.


I do think the hook up culture is a disaster.


----------



## chris007

Truthseeker1 said:


> Both seem to round up or down to get the approval of men I would think. I think women care less about a mans number unless it is VERY high - men on the other hand, most any way, really do care. Unfortunately for men women can and do lie everyday about their number.


Women round down their n number and men round it up. Its because we naturally know that it makes us more attractive to opposite sex. There are tons of surveys and studies that lead to this conclusion, not to mention life experience which proves it over and over.

Women's Sexual Behaviors May Be Closer To Men's Than Previously Thought


----------



## tech-novelist

Truthseeker1 said:


> I do think the hook up culture is a disaster.


Agreed.


----------



## Truthseeker1

technovelist said:


> Agreed.


It leaves a lot of people with regrets.


----------



## Youngster

chris007 said:


> And that is probably correct as well. However, men cannot get pregnant - so they have a lot less at stake, nor does their level of promiscuity correlate to ability to stay faithful in future relationships. Unlike women. *This is something every man ever born, gets on an instinctual level. It comes down to the fact that men have always had the need to know that children born to their wives were actually theirs. If they happened to marry a virgin, there was little to no doubt, that the offspring was theirs. Having ability to DNA test today, does not change our evolutionary predisposition to be assured of paternity.
> *
> From a cultural standpoint, women have always been judged harshly for being promiscuous, in pretty much every civilization in history of this world. Not much is different today. Also, promiscuous men are attractive to most women, despite what they may claim. A guy that is sleeping with a different woman, every night of the week is a catch and a challenge. A man who is a virgin and never getting close to getting late, might as well be a leper. Do you think there is a reason, that when asked about number of sexual partners, women tend to round down and men tend to round up?


I'll go off on a little bit of tangent along this line of thought.....

I think that could be a contributing factor to men not marrying....the promiscuity of women. Let me say this isn't anyone's fault(not judging women or anyone). Most men have an internal switch where promiscuity(by women) is such a viral/almost vicious trigger. There is something inside men that they need to know that it is their DNA that is being propagated. 

I believe that is also why men who are cheated on and cuckolded get such strong reactions from men. Lets be honest, you would expect men who are ok with these behaviors to have been bred out of the gene pool. Along those lines you would also expect that men who are strongly not ok with these behaviors, their genes would continue to be propagated.

So maybe today's loose hookup culture isn't allowing men to bond with women because of this internal trigger to promiscuity.


----------



## tech-novelist

Youngster said:


> I'll go off on a little bit of tangent along this line of thought.....
> 
> I think that could be a contributing factor to men not marrying....the promiscuity of women. Let me say this isn't anyone's fault(not judging women or anyone). Most men have an internal switch where promiscuity(by women) is such a viral/almost vicious trigger. There is something inside men that they need to know that it is their DNA that is being propagated.
> 
> I believe that is also why men who are cheated on and cuckolded get such strong reactions from men. Lets be honest, you would expect men who are ok with these behaviors to have been bred out of the gene pool. Along those lines you would also expect that men who are strongly not ok with these behaviors, their genes would continue to be propagated.
> 
> So maybe today's loose hookup culture isn't allowing men to bond with women because of this internal trigger to promiscuity.


Stop making sense! Facts are misogynistic!


----------



## Truthseeker1

Youngster said:


> I'll go off on a little bit of tangent along this line of thought.....
> 
> I think that could be a contributing factor to men not marrying....the promiscuity of women. Let me say this isn't anyone's fault(not judging women or anyone). Most men have an internal switch where promiscuity(by women) is such a viral/almost vicious trigger. There is something inside men that they need to know that it is their DNA that is being propagated.
> 
> I believe that is also why men who are cheated on and cuckolded get such strong reactions from men. Lets be honest, you would expect men who are ok with these behaviors to have been bred out of the gene pool. Along those lines you would also expect that men who are strongly not ok with these behaviors, their genes would continue to be propagated.
> 
> So maybe today's loose hookup culture isn't allowing men to bond with women because of this internal trigger to promiscuity.


A woman's sexual history is important to many men - there is no way to get the truth unfortunately. It would not surprise me if this is why a lot of men hesitate to commit but I'm not sure.


----------



## chris007

Youngster said:


> I'll go off on a little bit of tangent along this line of thought.....
> 
> I think that could be a contributing factor to men not marrying....the promiscuity of women. Let me say this isn't anyone's fault(not judging women or anyone). Most men have an internal switch where promiscuity(by women) is such a viral/almost vicious trigger. There is something inside men that they need to know that it is their DNA that is being propagated.
> 
> I believe that is also why men who are cheated on and cuckolded get such strong reactions from men. Lets be honest, you would expect men who are ok with these behaviors to have been bred out of the gene pool. Along those lines you would also expect that men who are strongly not ok with these behaviors, their genes would continue to be propagated.
> 
> So maybe today's loose hookup culture isn't allowing men to bond with women because of this internal trigger to promiscuity.


I agree. I believe it is one of the factors as well. Ability to tell if our children are biologically ours is a huge deal for men. I came across an interesting study on this some time ago, I cannot locate it this minute, but this article states something similar. The study showed that after giving birth, the mother - as well as her family present in the delivery room, would agree and voice infants physical resemblance to the father, at a much higher rate when the father was present then if he was not. 

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(99)00029-X/abstract?cc=y=

"A separate study in 2000 asked new mothers and fathers which parent their baby most resembled, and the answer was resoundingly the father . ... but only when the father was present during the questioning. Researchers asked 60 couples together and then 100 mothers alone whom the baby looked like, and when the mother didn't have to worry about the father overhearing, the paternal resemblance magically dropped 27 percent."

Another study said that 87% of the mothers said the baby resembled the father, while only 51% of the fathers said the same. Science proves, that there is no discernible pattern that can be proven, that an infant is more likely to look like either of the parents. Yet 87% of mothers said it was the case. Ive read quite a few studies and they all prove this over and over. It tells me, that we all really know how important it is to the father that the child is his, and how beneficial it is to the mother (and her family) that he is assured of this. Yet, so many claim ignorance when faced with these questions - their behavior however, tells a different story.


----------



## Youngster

Truthseeker1 said:


> A woman's sexual history is important to many men - there is no way to get the truth unfortunately. It would not surprise me if this is why a lot of men hesitate to commit but I'm not sure.


Yeah, they'll never know the real number, but even the low number most men are told is probably too much for them.

Just thinking out loud, this internal instinct in men is probably why a physical affair is so devastating to men. I can see where the loose hookup culture(depending how long you've been dating someone) could feel like a form of infidelity for a man(as far as the instinctual trigger is concerned).


----------



## Youngster

chris007 said:


> I agree. I believe it is one of the factors as well. Ability to tell if our children are biologically ours is a huge deal for men. I came across an interesting study on this some time ago, I cannot locate it this minute, but this article states something similar. The study showed that after giving birth, the mother - as well as her family present in the delivery room, would agree and voice infants physical resemblance to the father, at a much higher rate when the father was present then if he was not.
> 
> Another study said that 87% of the mothers said the baby resembled the father, while only 51% of the fathers said the same. Science proves, that there is no discernible pattern that can be proven, that an infant is more likely to look like either of the parents. Yet 87% of mothers said it was the case. Ive read quite a few studies and they all prove this over and over. It tells me, that we all really know how important it is to the father that the child is his, and how beneficial it is to the mother (and her family) that he is assured of this. Yet, so many claim ignorance when faced with these questions - their behavior however, tells a different story.


It's too bad there isn't a similar trigger in women so they could relate. It would be beneficial for all of us if they were able to understand where men are coming from.


----------



## Truthseeker1

Youngster said:


> Yeah, they'll never know the real number, but even the low number most men are told is probably too much for them.
> 
> Just thinking out loud, this internal instinct in men is probably why a physical affair is so devastating to men. I can see where the loose hookup culture(depending how long you've been dating someone) could feel like a form of infidelity for a man(as far as the instinctual trigger is concerned).


Speaking for myself personally i would not consider a serious relationship with a woman who said her history is none of my business. If we are at the stage of engagement or marriage then yeah I think we need to know as much about each other as possible.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Buddy400 said:


> I believe it's true for the top x%
> 
> For the rest, sex is harder to get


I online dated for a while...

If you're average height, not overweight, groom yourself, have a job, not a criminal, and don't live with your parents, you're well within the top x%.


----------



## tech-novelist

Youngster said:


> It's too bad there isn't a similar trigger in women so they could relate. It would be beneficial for all of us if they were able to understand where men are coming from.


Women generally cannot feel empathy for men.

This is a result of eons of evolution, where apparent weakness in men was a reason for a woman to look for a better protector, not worry about the man who couldn't protect her.

It's not very pro-survival now but it is very hard to overcome biology.


----------



## tech-novelist

Truthseeker1 said:


> Speaking for myself personally i would not consider a serious relationship with a woman who said her history is none of my business. If we are at the stage of engagement or marriage then yeah I think we need to know as much about each other as possible.


Yes, but assuming she was willing to provide that history, how would you know if she was telling you the truth?


----------



## techmom

Marriage is an institution which was primarily for gathering resources and raising children. 2 families would get together and decide to create a partnership (marriage ) to consolidate the resources, which would be land, livestock or other goods. Only recently in Western society did marriage carry this emotional and psychological baggage, men were expected to marry if they wanted children. Women were expected to marry because they had no other way of supporting themselves.

In this modern day, we have birth control and women have careers. This removes most of the reasons for marriage other than reasons the government imposes in regards to inheritance and tax benefits. Women don't need to marry, because through birth control they don't carry the burden of pregnancy like they did in the past. This is why the hook up culture is catching, because women don't feel as restricted sexually. I'm sure young men today are thankful.

The only pressures to marry come from society and the bridal industry. Selling girls on the idea of being the "blushing bride" is becoming more old fashioned by the day. Governments make money off of marriage, they don't make as much from single people. Once the older generations die off, marriage will become a thing of the past. Countries like Japan are experiencing a negative population growth because women do not opt to marry:

33% of Japanese think marriage is pointless: survey ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion

And this is happening in more and more countries. Personally I think this is a good trend, population growth is becoming a problem and humans are draining the world's resources. Hopefully if this continues we won't have to worry about living in a real life Mad Max.


----------



## Youngster

technovelist said:


> Yes, but assuming she was willing to provide that history, how would you know if she was telling you the truth?


When she says "5" you say "well your not very experienced, I'm not sure that's good for our relationship". Then when she comes back and says "I meant 55" you turn around and run!

:smile2:


----------



## chris007

technovelist said:


> Women generally cannot feel empathy for men.
> 
> This is a result of eons of evolution, where apparent weakness in men was a reason for a woman to look for a better protector, not worry about the man who couldn't protect her.
> 
> It's not very pro-survival now but it is very hard to overcome biology.


I agree with that as well. I suppose it is hard not to. A similar trigger does exist however, its when a hospital has a mixup of babies. Of course, the end result is everyone flips out, even though it happens very very rarely anymore. Hospital is then sued for huge lumps of money. This is why most hospitals now have foolproof systems in place to ensure this doesn't happen. However, when women talk about DNA paternity testing, most dismiss this as an issue for the fathers. "its all about the children" or "it doesn't matter who the sperm donor is" and all that. Seen it a thousand times. Mandatory DNA testing would take care of a lot of that, but there are too many opponents of the idea at this point in time. Mostly women and feminist organizations who benefit from cuckolded dudes raising another mans offspring. Would love to see it instituted in my lifetime though.


----------



## techmom

This article goes into reasons women choose not to marry:


Single women: Why they're on the rise (Opinion) - CNN.com


----------



## chris007

techmom said:


> Marriage is an institution which was primarily for gathering resources and raising children. 2 families would get together and decide to create a partnership (marriage ) to consolidate the resources, which would be land, livestock or other goods. Only recently in Western society did marriage carry this emotional and psychological baggage, men were expected to marry if they wanted children. Women were expected to marry because they had no other way of supporting themselves.
> 
> In this modern day, we have birth control and women have careers. This removes most of the reasons for marriage other than reasons the government imposes in regards to inheritance and tax benefits. Women don't need to marry, because through birth control they don't carry the burden of pregnancy like they did in the past. This is why the hook up culture is catching, because women don't feel as restricted sexually. I'm sure young men today are thankful.
> 
> The only pressures to marry come from society and the bridal industry. Selling girls on the idea of being the "blushing bride" is becoming more old fashioned by the day. Governments make money off of marriage, they don't make as much from single people. Once the older generations die off, marriage will become a thing of the past. Countries like Japan are experiencing a negative population growth because women do not opt to marry:
> 
> 33% of Japanese think marriage is pointless: survey ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion
> 
> And this is happening in more and more countries. Personally I think this is a good trend, population growth is becoming a problem and humans are draining the world's resources. Hopefully if this continues we won't have to worry about living in a real life Mad Max.


Here we go again. Do you think this has anything to do with Harbivore men in Japan?

A Real Study of Japanese ?Herbivore Men?

or are we supposed to buy this nonsense that women opt out of marriage?


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Marriage is an institution which was primarily for gathering resources and raising children. 2 families would get together and decide to create a partnership (marriage ) to consolidate the resources, which would be land, livestock or other goods. Only recently in Western society did marriage carry this emotional and psychological baggage, men were expected to marry if they wanted children. Women were expected to marry because they had no other way of supporting themselves.
> 
> In this modern day, we have birth control and women have careers. This removes most of the reasons for marriage other than reasons the government imposes in regards to inheritance and tax benefits. Women don't need to marry, because through birth control they don't carry the burden of pregnancy like they did in the past. This is why the hook up culture is catching, because women don't feel as restricted sexually. *I'm sure young men today are thankful.*


Another apex fallacy! Is there a sale on them or something?

Yes, the 10-20% of men who women want to have sex with, are happy about this.

The other men are VERY unhappy, because the "old technology" in which women and men generally mated for life at least gave them a reasonable chance to mate with a relatively young woman and live with her for a long time.

The current system favors only the top men and leaves the others out in the cold, at least until the women hit the wall and decide to lock up a boring provider to pay for raising her children (which may or may not be his children as well), then divorce him because he is boring.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Married but Happy

I'm not particularly concerned about promiscuity, as I am a very good judge of character, and while past promiscuity is certainly a cause for caution, it is not predictive for any individual. That said, the greater number of partners a woman has had, the greater the _statistical _chances are that she will cheat on you.

Female Infidelity Based on Number of Premarital Sex Partners 
Number of Pre-Marital Partners : Percent Who Cheated Once Married 
2...............................................10.4% 
3...............................................14.9% 
4...............................................17.7% 
5...............................................21.6% 
6-10..........................................26.0% 
11-20 .......................................36.7% 
21+...........................................46.8% 

Female Infidelity Statistics | Statistic Brain


----------



## Forest

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Overall, it's a failure in parenting. How do the kids get these gaming consoles? I still think a fair number of kids aren't going nuts over gaming, but I think it's a sizeable enough of a problem. Our kids do activities - like a lot of other kids do - plus they have smartphones and electronics. However, no gaming consoles. They are not allowed to veg out in front of TV or electronics for hours at a time.


I'm very lucky that my daughter is a chip off the old block. I'm sure if any of her friends has asked why we didn't have all that gaming stuff, she'd have laughed. I idea of me, or her, forking over hundreds of dollars for game consoles, etc is pretty out-there.

Unfortunately "NO" is kinda going the way of expressing your opinion. You know -- how we hear so much about the glory of "free speech" until you dare to disagree with whoever holds a microphone. Don't like something that people are parading for? You're a bigot, racist, oppressor, Nazi....Unless the current ruling cadre of the PC/Thought controlling culture approves, you have lost that right tell your kids to be quiet, stop acting stupid, pick up that shovel, etc.


----------



## tech-novelist

Married but Happy said:


> I'm not particularly concerned about promiscuity, as I am a very good judge of character, and while past promiscuity is certainly a cause for caution, it is not predictive for any individual. That said, the greater number of partners a woman has had, the greater the _statistical _chances are that she will cheat on you.
> 
> Female Infidelity Based on Number of Premarital Sex Partners
> Number of Pre-Marital Partners : Percent Who Cheated Once Married
> 2...............................................10.4%
> 3...............................................14.9%
> 4...............................................17.7%
> 5...............................................21.6%
> 6-10..........................................26.0%
> 11-20 .......................................36.7%
> 21+...........................................46.8%
> 
> Female Infidelity Statistics | Statistic Brain


I wonder why they don't have statistics for 0 or 1 premarital partners. Are they so rare as to be statistically unimportant, or what?


----------



## Youngster

Married but Happy said:


> I'm not particularly concerned about promiscuity, as I am a very good judge of character, and while past promiscuity is certainly a cause for caution, it is not predictive for any individual. That said, the greater number of partners a woman has had, the greater the _statistical _chances are that she will cheat on you.
> 
> Female Infidelity Based on Number of Premarital Sex Partners
> Number of Pre-Marital Partners : Percent Who Cheated Once Married
> 2...............................................10.4%
> 3...............................................14.9%
> 4...............................................17.7%
> 5...............................................21.6%
> 6-10..........................................26.0%
> 11-20 .......................................36.7%
> 21+...........................................46.8%
> 
> Female Infidelity Statistics | Statistic Brain


I'm not sure it the just the numbers necessarily that are causing the problem but I think that the numbers are exacerbating the problem. 

Just surmising.....I think men are meeting women and through a few dates they start to develop a relationship. With today's hookup culture maybe they're both dating other people. For women, this isn't an issue....for them it's actually an attraction(it shows he's a high value male). But men have an internal/instinctual trigger concerning promiscuity. She mentions casually that she's seeing other people....the man gets a twinge. Suddenly something is bothering him but he can't put his finger on it. Eventually he quits calling her, the relationship is done and neither one of them really know why.

So maybe many couples aren't getting to marriage because of this trigger in men?


----------



## Icey181

technovelist said:


> I wonder why they don't have statistics for 0 or 1 premarital partners. Are they so rare as to be statistically unimportant, or what?


I think I have seen those that do and the infidelity numbers were equal to or slightly lower than the first tier…I think…


----------



## chris007

There is always a 100 and 101+. That would be more closer to the truth. Honestly, I love seeing reactions of young dudes when they find out the real n count of relatively young girls. Of course, there are other women ready to jump in and defend them. Let me just say this, what most men think is a high count, is like 6 months in a life of an average carousel rider. To be fair, women do have a much easier time getting laid, so if one wants to be promiscuous, all she has to do is have two hands and two legs, go to a bar and smile.


----------



## techmom

chris007 said:


> Here we go again. Do you think this has anything to do with Harbivore men in Japan?
> 
> A Real Study of Japanese ?Herbivore Men?
> 
> or are we supposed to buy this nonsense that women opt out of marriage?


Yep, here we go...

In Japan, a "herbivore" is a derogatory term used by the older generation of men to describe the young men who didn't live the same life path as they did. Since the economic troubles of the late 2000's, the traditional career paths have gone down, and the "company employment for life" model no longer exists. These young men have to forge new ways of seeking employment in an increasingly competitive job market. Their fathers see this as a failure, Japanese culture adheres to tradition and strictly resists change.

Here is an article which covers east Asia in general...

The flight from marriage | The Economist


----------



## tech-novelist

chris007 said:


> There is always a 100 and 101+. That would be more closer to the truth. Honestly, I love seeing reactions of young dudes when they find out the real n count of relatively young girls. Of course, there are other women ready to jump in and defend them. Let me just say this, what most men think is a high count, is like 6 months in a life of an average carousel rider. To be fair, women do have a much easier time getting laid, so if one wants to be promiscuous, all she has to do is have two hands and two legs, go to a bar and smile.


She doesn't even have to have two hands and two legs.
One of my college roommates got married to a woman who was missing part of one of her legs, to avoid the draft.
However, she was gorgeous, so it was easy to overlook that slight flaw. :smile2:


----------



## Forest

Shoto1984 said:


> ...in the past there was an assumed dynamic where the "Man" led the household, was the breadwinner etc. That construct almost doesn't exist anymore. Women don't "need" a "Man" in that traditional sense. In a world where everyone is "equal" and can do all the same things it only comes down to biological functions and you don't need a marriage for that.


In my life I've lived rural as a child, followed by 30 years of city living, and now (thank God) am rural again. The biggest difference out here is that this equality thought is much more limited, because men and women are in no way equal doing farm/ranch work. 
As a kid, I knew girls that were tougher than me, and worked hard on the farm. I know a couple of women that can work very hard indeed. By and large though, it is totally separate. Men are outdoors, or working on machinery. Women are indoors or around the house. 

And, surprise, couples seem to get along better. Fewer divorces, more marriages, and less bickering, as I see it. Is hanging laundry any more degrading than cleaning a chicken pen? Is cooking or gardening any more intolerable than greasing a baler?


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Another apex fallacy! Is there a sale on them or something?
> 
> Yes, the 10-20% of men who women want to have sex with, are happy about this.
> 
> The other men are VERY unhappy, because the "old technology" in which women and men generally mated for life at least gave them a reasonable chance to mate with a relatively young woman and live with her for a long time.
> 
> The current system favors only the top men and leaves the others out in the cold, at least until the women hit the wall and decide to lock up a boring provider to pay for raising her children (which may or may not be his children as well), then divorce him because he is boring.
> 
> Hope that helps.


Where do you get the data from that women only want to date 10% to 20% of available men? I know women who date all kinds of men. I think this is a defeatist attitude, I only hope you don't teach your sons this.


----------



## chris007

techmom said:


> Yep, here we go...
> 
> In Japan, a "herbivore" is a derogatory term used by the older generation of men to describe the young men who didn't live the same life path as they did. Since the economic troubles of the late 2000's, the traditional career paths have gone down, and the "company employment for life" model no longer exists. These young men have to forge new ways of seeking employment in an increasingly competitive job market. Their fathers see this as a failure, Japanese culture adheres to tradition and strictly resists change.
> 
> Here is an article which covers east Asia in general...
> 
> The flight from marriage | The Economist


Im sorry but per OPs request, I will no longer be a part of derailing this thread. We can have this conversation elsewhere, perhaps youd like to start a thread about why women don't want to marry anymore...is there"fantasy forum" on TAM? :grin2:


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Where do you get the data from that women only want to date 10% to 20% of available men? I know women who date all kinds of men. I think this is a defeatist attitude, I only hope you don't teach your sons this.


"As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway."


Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends


----------



## techmom

chris007 said:


> Im sorry but per OPs request, I will no longer be a part of derailing this thread. We can have this conversation elsewhere, perhaps youd like to start a thread about why women don't want to marry anymore...is there"fantasy forum" on TAM? :grin2:


Evidentially you can't handle the facts, this thread was trying to state that only men were forgoing marriage, so I was stating an opposing point as it is done in threads discussing women's issues.

Very well then:grin2:


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> "As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway."
> 
> 
> Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends


So, according to this post, do you think that the reason young men are not marrying is because many young women do not find them attractive? Which means that they do want to marry but can't ?


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> So, according to this post, do you think that the reason young men are not marrying is because many young women do not find them attractive? Which means that they do want to marry but can't ?


The ones who would have no trouble getting married (the alphas) don't want to, because they get all the sex they want without getting married.

The betas can't find anyone to have sex with them, because the women are chasing the alpha males for sex. So the betas give up on women.

This is a recipe for societal collapse, and it is well underway.


----------



## Truthseeker1

technovelist said:


> Yes, but assuming she was willing to provide that history, how would you know if she was telling you the truth?


You ar right you can't know for sure - which is why it pays t go slowly. But a woman who flat out says it's none of your business....run.


----------



## tech-novelist

Truthseeker1 said:


> You ar right you can't know for sure - which is why it pays t go slowly. But a woman who flat out says it's none of your business....run.


Sure, but many women are not above lying about their partner count, if they don't think the lie can be detected. So it's still a crap shoot.


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> The ones who would have no trouble getting married (the alphas) don't want to, because they get all the sex they want without getting married.
> 
> The betas can't find anyone to have sex with them, because the women are chasing the alpha males for sex. So the betas give up on women.
> 
> This is a recipe for societal collapse, and it is well underway.


Why would this mean a societal collapse? Aren't most men striving to become alphas? So with more alphas society can continue, correct?


----------



## Truthseeker1

technovelist said:


> Sure, but many women are not above lying about their partner count, if they don't think the lie can be detected. So it's still a crap shoot.


Yeah it is. You will get no argument from me. It is that ype of lying and decit that makes many cynical about marriage.


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> The ones who would have no trouble getting married (the alphas) don't want to, because they get all the sex they want without getting married.
> 
> The betas can't find anyone to have sex with them, because the women are chasing the alpha males for sex. *So the betas give up on women.*
> 
> This is a recipe for societal collapse, and it is well underway.


And the betas continue to bemoan their bitter fate on message boards and debate.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I think parents of opposite gender kids have some of the most balanced perspective. I am a woman but I have two sons, and of course I think about what they will face. I don't want them getting screwed by the court system.

The bias in the courts is something inadvertently created by men. Not modern men, but your fathers and grandfathers. In their quest to control women and keep them in the home they relegated them to dependent status. This only works if they can't divorce you. Once they can you're screwed. And we are still not equal in the sense that it's still seen as the guys job to provide. 

Even now we buy into this by holding mens careers more important and by buying into the idea that it's a man's job to support the family. When men travel for work he's supporting his family, but when women travel for work they're selfish and their jobs are more important than family, especially if hubby isn't getting enough sex with her gone. 

But it isn't the man's job to provide, it's a couples job to support the family however they do it. And I think we should do away with alimony, nobody is entitled to be supported by another adult. If you want to have an arrangement of one at home draw up an agreement. 

I encourage my sons not to support a stay at home mom. That will surely upset many but I just don't think the risk of assuming the support of another adult is worth it. Plenty of kids, mine included, go to day care and do just fine. I also encourage them to find a career minded woman and to be very careful in their choice of partner and fellow parent. I also encourage them to be good partners so they can get a good partner. 

And guys, I get that you want a hot wife, but other things matter. If you consider nothing besides how hot she is and how much you want to fvck her you deserve whatever you get. Make good choices and you up your chances of getting a good partner. 

For all the hoopla about how marriage is such a bad deal for men, married men have much better health as they get older. Why is that if it's such a bad deal?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## chris007

NINETEEN out of 20 women admit lying to their partners or husbands, a survey on attitudes to truth and relationships has found.

Eighty-three per cent owned up to telling "big, life-changing lies", with 13 per cent saying they did so frequently. 
*
50% said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the baby’s real father. *

Forty-two per cent would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, no matter the wishes of their partner. 

And an alarming 31 per cent said they would not tell a future partner if they had a sexual disease: this rises to 65 per cent among single women.

96% of women are liars, honest - The Scotsman

Still want to get married? Nest time you have a couple days off, go spend em in divorce court, that should do the trick.


----------



## Cletus

technovelist said:


> Sure, but many women are not above lying about their partner count, if they don't think the lie can be detected. So it's still a crap shoot.


Precisely. Which is why it's a pointless question to ask, and a pointless matter over which to concern yourself. That which in general can neither be known nor verified is useless.


----------



## Cletus

techmom said:


> Why would this mean a societal collapse? Aren't most men striving to become alphas? So with more alphas society can continue, correct?


Well, yes, this is part of the male situation. We are always trying to outdo each other, sometimes by any means possible. It's part and parcel of the testosterone poisoning problem.


----------



## chris007

lifeistooshort said:


> I think parents of opposite gender kids have some of the most balanced perspective. I am a woman but I have two sons, and of course I think about what they will face. I don't want them getting screwed by the court system.
> 
> The bias in the courts is something inadvertently created by men. Not modern men, but your fathers and grandfathers. In their quest to control women and keep them in the home they relegated them to dependent status. This only works if they can't divorce you. Once they can you're screwed. And we are still not equal in the sense that it's still seen as the guys job to provide.
> 
> Even now we buy into this by holding mens careers more important and by buying into the idea that it's a man's job to support the family. When men travel for work he's supporting his family, but when women travel for work they're selfish and their jobs are more important than family, especially if hubby isn't getting enough sex with her gone.
> 
> But it isn't the man's job to provide, it's a couples job to support the family however they do it. And I think we should do away with alimony, nobody is entitled to be supported by another adult. If you want to have an arrangement of one at home draw up an agreement.
> 
> I encourage my sons not to support a stay at home mom. That will surely upset many but I just don't think the risk of assuming the support of another adult is worth it. Plenty of kids, mine included, go to day care and do just fine. I also encourage them to find a career minded woman and to be very careful in their choice of partner and fellow parent. I also encourage them to be good partners so they can get a good partner.
> 
> And guys, I get that you want a hot wife, but other things matter. If you consider nothing besides how hot she is and how much you want to fvck her you deserve whatever you get. Make good choices and you up your chances of getting a good partner.
> 
> For all the hoopla about how marriage is such a bad deal for men, married men have much better health as they get older. Why is that if it's such a bad deal?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yeah we get it. Its all mans fault. And our biological differences are a reason there is no gender equality. Got it.


----------



## Truthseeker1

Cletus said:


> Precisely. Which is why it's a pointless question to ask, and a pointless matter over which to concern yourself. That which in general can neither be known nor verified is useless.


It matters to a lot of men. It maybe difficult to verify but it does matter. Not many men want a omwan with a high number.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Why would this mean a societal collapse? Aren't most men striving to become alphas? So with more alphas society can continue, correct?


Alpha is a zero-sum game, because it is relative: the top 10%-20% are alphas, and the rest are betas (or lower, but let's not make this more complicated than it already is).

So it's not possible for all men, or even more men, to become alphas.

But the real problem is that "alpha" is defined as "men who women want to have sex with", not "socially superior man". So if women want to have sex with criminals, they are alphas. If women want to have sex with druggies, they are alphas. If women want to have sex with rock musicians, they are alphas.

Of course there are other stimuli that work. For example, height is a tremendous exciter of the female hind-brain, so a 6' 5" banker is going to have very little trouble getting women interested in having sex with him, even if he is not "edgy" or dangerous. The same goes for extreme good looks in men, of course.

Another approach is to be rich or famous, both of which are also highly stimulative to the female hind-brain. 

So we have the rich, the famous, the very tall and/or very handsome, and the dangerous types all getting a lot of attention from women.

However, what about all the other men? Women's hind-brains do not respond favorably to accountants, computer programmers, or other "boring", productive members of society. Thus, these men are left out of the mating game.

This is why beta men aren't marrying. Alpha men aren't marrying because they don't have to; they can get sex whenever they want it.

Remember, although most men will do almost anything to get sex, it has to be something they can actually do. For a boring productive man, there isn't anything he can do. So why bother? Porn and video games are a lot less trouble, and porn is getting better every year.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> And the betas continue to bemoan their bitter fate on message boards and debate.


Yes, it's hilarious.
Until the power grid stops working.


----------



## Cletus

lifeistooshort said:


> I encourage my sons not to support a stay at home mom. That will surely upset many but I just don't think the risk of assuming the support of another adult is worth it.


Without getting upset, this was a risk I was willing to take for my offspring. Day care is surely not evil, but no one will have your child's best interests at heart like a biological parent. Of course this means that I'm also signing up to be sole provider, but I also got hot home cooked meals on the table when I came home from work, and I have no fear of getting raked over the coals in divorce court, now that my children are grown and out of the house. 

One simply cannot live in fear of everything bad that might happen.


----------



## tech-novelist

Truthseeker1 said:


> It matters to a lot of men. It maybe difficult to verify but it does matter. Not many men want a omwan with a high number.


It's impossible to verify unless the woman submits to a polygraph, and probably not even then.


----------



## moco82

Hardtohandle said:


> I see the same thing here regards to OLD and the ilk.. One guy in my office who is 28 and looks 12 has numerous women of all assorted ages looking to be with him..
> 
> One day he left his facebook page open and we changed his status to engaged.. His phone BLEW UP with messages from women who were upset..
> 
> I'm just looking for one woman and this guy has dozen's all over that are just looking to fvck..


Easy, tiger. Another testimony like this and the rest of us will move out and re-enter the dating world tomorrow.


----------



## Truthseeker1

technovelist said:


> It's impossible to verify unless the woman submits to a polygraph, and probably not even then.


Agreed, but it does not change the fact that many men do not want a wife who had been promiscuous.


----------



## lifeistooshort

chris007 said:


> NINETEEN out of 20 women admit lying to their partners or husbands, a survey on attitudes to truth and relationships has found.
> 
> Eighty-three per cent owned up to telling "big, life-changing lies", with 13 per cent saying they did so frequently.
> *
> 50% said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the baby’s real father. *
> 
> Forty-two per cent would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, no matter the wishes of their partner.
> 
> And an alarming 31 per cent said they would not tell a future partner if they had a sexual disease: this rises to 65 per cent among single women.
> 
> 96% of women are liars, honest - The Scotsman
> 
> Still want to get married? Nest time you have a couple days off, go spend em in divorce court, that should do the trick.



Because not getting married clearly protects one from a partner lying about contraception or std's. Alrighty then.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> Because not getting married clearly protects one from a partner lying about contraception or std's. Alrighty then.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No, it doesn't.
However, since lying about contraception can be extremely expensive to a man, a reliable method of male birth control will change the game.
Of course that won't prevent std's either, but at least one serious risk could be prevented.


----------



## Cletus

Truthseeker1 said:


> It matters to a lot of men. It maybe difficult to verify but it does matter. Not many men want a omwan with a high number.


Understood. I see the threads here of the sad saps who learn their wife, who is screwing his brains out 4x a week, but who is devastated by the knowledge that his wife wasn't as pristine as the driven snow when he despoiled her _before_ they got married.

I find it sort of nauseating.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Cletus said:


> Without getting upset, this was a risk I was willing to take for my offspring. Day care is surely not evil, but no one will have your child's best interests at heart like a biological parent. Of course this means that I'm also signing up to be sole provider, but I also got hot home cooked meals on the table when I came home from work, and I have no fear of getting raked over the coals in divorce court, now that my children are grown and out of the house.
> 
> One simply cannot live in fear of everything bad that might happen.


Well that was certainly your decision and if my sons decide that's what they want that will be their decision. But one must have their eyes open and I don't feel like a lot of people really do when they make this decision. I provide my opinion, but they will make their own decision. I listened to my father but then made my own decision.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Truthseeker1

Cletus said:


> Understood. I see the threads here of the sad saps who learn their wife, who is screwing his brains out 4x a week, but who is devastated by the knowledge that his wife wasn't as pristine as the driven snow when he despoiled her _before_ they got married.
> 
> I find it sort of nauseating.


Hypocrisy is nauseating. But many decent men who only have sex within a committed relationship want a woman who has a similar history, they don't want an ex-party girl. My problem is men who express this desire are somehow deemed judgmental or mean.


----------



## moco82

Constable Odo said:


> My attorney has made it abundantly clear to me that, in my state at least, the pre-nup can say whatever we want it to, but in the end, the judge has the ultimate discretion to completely disregard everything we put in it and decide to rule in a way which goes completely against what we decided on in advance.


I think we found our expert witness to testify on the blessed day we lobby legislatures to privatize marriage.


----------



## Lon

Simple, gender roles are no longer applicable. With a few obvious exceptions, all things a woman can do in life so can a man and vice versa. Men and women still complement each other, but the only real need left that requires mutual fulfillment is sex, the rest of our relationship needs can be met without cohabitation or nuptials.

Of course, people may still WANT to have a marriage and all that goes along with it, but since in modern day society it isn't really needed (unless it is a core value or a necessary part of your religious beliefs or part of your idea of starting a family) as soon as there are any unpleasantries many people do not feel obligated to stay, and would rather walk away without any insurmountable repercussions (except in some states that tend to favor women in regards to custody and support payments).

In this disposable society, when it comes down to it many people tend to hold marriage as a temporary arrangement (and any vows they made were simply symbolic or a romantic gesture of the moment).


----------



## tech-novelist

Cletus said:


> Understood. I see the threads here of the sad saps who learn their wife, who is screwing his brains out 4x a week, but who is devastated by the knowledge that his wife wasn't as pristine as the driven snow when he despoiled her _before_ they got married.
> 
> I find it sort of nauseating.


That is a bit hard to understand. It's a lot easier for me to understand how angry men can get when they realize that their wives *love* sex, just not with *them*.


----------



## lifeistooshort

technovelist said:


> No, it doesn't.
> However, since lying about contraception can be extremely expensive to a man, a reliable method of male birth control will change the game.
> Of course that won't prevent std's either, but at least one serious risk could be prevented.


Of course. I think lying about contraception is beyond sh!tty, I was just pointing out that this argument has nothing to do with marriage.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> Of course. I think lying about contraception is beyond sh!tty, I was just pointing out that this argument has nothing to do with marriage.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Actually, it does have to do with marriage, assuming that one thinks that one owes more forthrightness to one's marital partner than to other people one has sex with without being married to them.


----------



## Truthseeker1

Lon said:


> Simple, gender roles are no longer applicable. With a few obvious exceptions, all things a woman can do in life so can a man and vice versa. Men and women still complement each other, but the only real need left that requires mutual fulfillment is sex, the rest of our relationship needs can be met without cohabitation or nuptials.
> 
> Of course, people may still WANT to have a marriage and all that goes along with it, but since in modern day society it isn't really needed (unless it is a core value or a necessary part of your religious beliefs or part of your idea of starting a family) as soon as there are any unpleasantries many people do not feel obligated to stay, and would rather walk away without any insurmountable repercussions (except in some states that tend to favor women in regards to custody and support payments).
> 
> *In this disposable society, when it comes down to it many people tend to hold marriage as a temporary arrangement (and any vows they made were simply symbolic or a romantic gesture of the moment).*


Bingo!!! We live in a throw away culture. Such an ethos can not sustain civilization forever.


----------



## lifeistooshort

technovelist said:


> Actually, it does have to do with marriage, assuming that one thinks that one owes more forthrightness to one's marital partner than to other people one has sex with without being married to them.


I don't think that's true. I don't think lying about contraception or std's is any sh!tier when married. These are things that if you lie to anyone about you're a dirtbag. Would an std bother you less if the woman who lied about it was only a hookup? You'd still have an std.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Alpha is a zero-sum game, because it is relative: the top 10%-20% are alphas, and the rest are betas (or lower, but let's not make this more complicated than it already is).
> 
> So it's not possible for all men, or even more men, to become alphas.
> 
> But the real problem is that "alpha" is defined as "men who women want to have sex with", not "socially superior man". So if women want to have sex with criminals, they are alphas. If women want to have sex with druggies, they are alphas. If women want to have sex with rock musicians, they are alphas.
> 
> Of course there are other stimuli that work. For example, height is a tremendous exciter of the female hind-brain, so a 6' 5" banker is going to have very little trouble getting women interested in having sex with him, even if he is not "edgy" or dangerous. The same goes for extreme good looks in men, of course.
> 
> Another approach is to be rich or famous, both of which are also highly stimulative to the female hind-brain.
> 
> So we have the rich, the famous, the very tall and/or very handsome, and the dangerous types all getting a lot of attention from women.
> 
> However, what about all the other men? Women's hind-brains do not respond favorably to accountants, computer programmers, or other "boring", productive members of society. Thus, these men are left out of the mating game.
> 
> This is why beta men aren't marrying. Alpha men aren't marrying because they don't have to; they can get sex whenever they want it.
> 
> Remember, although most men will do almost anything to get sex, it has to be something they can actually do. For a boring productive man, there isn't anything he can do. So why bother? Porn and video games are a lot less trouble, and porn is getting better every year.


Plenty of rich and famous men are getting married, multiple times even, so the argument that "alpha" men are too busy having sex to get married does not hold much weight. That would sound like the musings of a "Beta" male fantasy, but it is not real life.

Methinks that many men who experienced being hurt by women who they desired fantasize about the lives of the "alpha" men and all of the women and sex they have access to. They also desire this access, but with this defeatist thinking this fantasy will never be theirs. So they hit the message boards and communicate with men like them who are bitter. Which is why they never change their fate.


----------



## Hardtohandle

I am clearly in the small minority here as for those that have followed my thread related to my Ex wife infidelity and subsequent divorce, divorce outcome and dating after divorce.. 

They can attest, as will I, that I won the divorce olympics.. I have physical custody of my boys and my Ex wife is paying me child support.. I am currently going to court to get more child support out of her because she is pretty much not looking for more work and only works 10 hours a week at most..

That being said I retained my pension, my home.. Everything except for 55k from a 457 fund.. Which I couldn't touch anyways while I still worked.. 

Currently I am on track to retire and go into a new job.. My monthly income will be around 10k a month take home on rough estimates. That does not include child support, another 10 a year from my former job and whatever this bonus is from this new job.. 

With all that said.. I would have rather been fixed what was wrong and still been married.. 

I can tell you I could use to lose maybe 10 to 20 LBS.. 20 would be ideal.. But I know I'm not fat.. Plus I have other things that oddly ended helping me out.. 

But I am scared sh!tless about dating.. My current ExGF sadly fell into everything I was talking about in my previous post.. Why she found the need to pretty much tell me about her past I have zero clue.. But it skewed me.. It made me look at her different and I realized why she had so many guy friends.. Even if she was utterly faithful to me she painted a picture that she couldn't be.. She told me questionable stories about her marriage and things that went on.. Again why ? I have no fvcking clue.. 

But I have realized that a decent looking woman can get all the d!ck she wants.. End of conversation and when women start to realize that they cannot make that relationship happen.. They just seem to go along with the game.. 

But as I said they learn this game and now if they are semi good looking, which I will completely say my ExGF was. So now this woman is playing the game that men used to play.. 

She told me herself at one point.. I am thinking why should get involved in a relationship when I can just fvck someone when I want and then not when I don't.. We were having problems and she was trying to justify why she should or should not be in a relationship with me.. Of course I had to tell her if that is what you want.. She in turn said its not what she wants.. But it is starting to look easier to do than deal with this relationship.. 

Mind you I seen the men she dated in the past and I will admit physically I had NOTHING on them.. Bodybuilders, personal trainers.. Men in great shape.. 

To me I think eventually I started to realize, with me she pretty much had a virgin.. Someone who WASN'T tainted by OLD... She asked me how many partners I had knowing I was married for 20 years.. I was honest.. I could count them on 2 hands but only because I needed 1 extra finger.. 

She pretty much told me she doesn't know.. But she will admit she was young and stupid.. But she is an educated woman and makes good money now.. 

But even being separated 2 years, I asked her what are you doing now trying to make up for lost time ? 

My point is I don't know if she is rare among the online dating community or common.. She would tell me if you think I'm bad go date a few women.. Go date a few women who have NEVER been married and see how it is .. 

At one time she pretty much gave me a free pass.. She said go date other women for a month and see what is out there and then you will come running back to me.. 

Was that a scare tactic or the truth ? 

I don't have the slightest.. But I am fvcking scared and I am not fvcking kidding.. 

I've been a cop for 25 years and THIS is what scares me.. Not being shot at.. But wondering what choices I have when it comes to dating..


----------



## Cletus

techmom said:


> Plenty of rich and famous men are getting married, multiple times even, so the argument that "alpha" men are too busy having sex to get married does not hold much weight. That would sound like the musings of a "Beta" male fantasy, but it is not real life.


George Clooney recently got married. Q.E.D.


----------



## chris007

you can play your own game: some call it smash and dash, others - pump and dump. In either case, you will not get hurt,


----------



## Truthseeker1

Hardtohandle said:


> I am clearly in the small minority here as for those that have followed my thread related to my Ex wife infidelity and subsequent divorce, divorce outcome and dating after divorce..
> 
> They can attest, as will I, that I won the divorce olympics.. I have physical custody of my boys and my Ex wife is paying me child support.. I am currently going to court to get more child support out of her because she is pretty much not looking for more work and only works 10 hours a week at most..
> 
> That being said I retained my pension, my home.. Everything except for 55k from a 457 fund.. Which I couldn't touch anyways while I still worked..
> 
> Currently I am on track to retire and go into a new job.. My monthly income will be around 10k a month take home on rough estimates. That does not include child support, another 10 a year from my former job and whatever this bonus is from this new job..
> 
> With all that said.. I would have rather been fixed what was wrong and still been married..
> 
> I can tell you I could use to lose maybe 10 to 20 LBS.. 20 would be ideal.. But I know I'm not fat.. Plus I have other things that oddly ended helping me out..
> 
> But I am scared sh!tless about dating.. My current ExGF sadly fell into everything I was talking about in my previous post.. Why she found the need to pretty much tell me about her past I have zero clue.. But it skewed me.. It made me look at her different and I realized why she had so many guy friends.. Even if she was utterly faithful to me she painted a picture that she couldn't be.. She told me questionable stories about her marriage and things that went on.. Again why ? I have no fvcking clue..
> 
> But I have realized that a decent looking woman can get all the d!ck she wants.. End of conversation and when women start to realize that they cannot make that relationship happen.. They just seem to go along with the game..
> 
> But as I said they learn this game and now if they are semi good looking, which I will completely say my ExGF was. So now this woman is playing the game that men used to play..
> 
> She told me herself at one point.. I am thinking why should get involved in a relationship when I can just fvck someone when I want and then not when I don't.. We were having problems and she was trying to justify why she should or should not be in a relationship with me.. Of course I had to tell her if that is what you want.. She in turn said its not what she wants.. But it is starting to look easier to do than deal with this relationship..
> 
> Mind you I seen the men she dated in the past and I will admit physically I had NOTHING on them.. Bodybuilders, personal trainers.. Men in great shape..
> 
> To me I think eventually I started to realize, with me she pretty much had a virgin.. Someone who WASN'T tainted by OLD... She asked me how many partners I had knowing I was married for 20 years.. I was honest.. I could count them on 2 hands but only because I needed 1 extra finger..
> 
> She pretty much told me she doesn't know.. But she will admit she was young and stupid.. But she is an educated woman and makes good money now..
> 
> But even being separated 2 years, I asked her what are you doing now trying to make up for lost time ?
> 
> My point is I don't know if she is rare among the online dating community or common.. She would tell me if you think I'm bad go date a few women.. Go date a few women who have NEVER been married and see how it is ..
> 
> At one time she pretty much gave me a free pass.. She said go date other women for a month and see what is out there and then you will come running back to me..
> 
> Was that a scare tactic or the truth ?
> 
> I don't have the slightest.. But I am fvcking scared and I am not fvcking kidding..
> 
> I've been a cop for 25 years and THIS is what scares me.. Not being shot at.. But wondering what choices I have when it comes to dating..


In all honesty she just sounds like a bad experience. There are divorced women like yourself who are good and decent types but you were dealing with a party girl. Have your fun then move on if that sis what you want but she obviously was not marriage material.


----------



## unbelievable

Youngster said:


> Well, the other thread pretty much devolved with the usual suspects getting involved so lets try a new one.
> 
> This thread is about MEN and why THEY aren't marrying. If you want to talk about why women aren't marrying then start your own thread, preferably in the Ladies Lounge.
> 
> So why do you think MEN aren't marrying? Is it a age/race/geographical demographic? Is it a problem solely in the US? Is it economic or cultural?


I've been wondering why such a huge percentage of adult males aren't men. Maybe there's some common denominator.


----------



## Faithful Wife

techmom said:


> Methinks that many men who experienced being hurt by women who they desired fantasize about the lives of the "alpha" men and all of the women and sex they have access to. They also desire this access, but with this defeatist thinking this fantasy will never be theirs. So they hit the message boards and communicate with men like them who are bitter. Which is why they never change their fate.


"I wanted to have sex with certain hot women who rejected me, so I will forever more be bitter and find a bunch other jilted men to band together and whine endlessly about it together, while we vilify women AND the men they chose over us."

So unattractive.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Plenty of rich and famous men are getting married, multiple times even, so the argument that "alpha" men are too busy having sex to get married does not hold much weight. That would sound like the musings of a "Beta" male fantasy, but it is not real life.
> 
> Methinks that many men who experienced being hurt by women who they desired fantasize about the lives of the "alpha" men and all of the women and sex they have access to. They also desire this access, but with this defeatist thinking this fantasy will never be theirs. So they hit the message boards and communicate with men like them who are bitter. Which is why they never change their fate.


So you are saying that most men can be in the top 20%, if they just have the right attitude?


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> I don't think that's true. I don't think lying about contraception or std's is any sh!tier when married. These are things that if you lie to anyone about you're a dirtbag. Would an std bother you less if the woman who lied about it was only a hookup? You'd still have an std.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree it's ****ty either way. I think it is ****tier if it's someone you supposedly have a committed relationship with.

But maybe that's just me.


----------



## techmom

Cletus said:


> George Clooney recently got married. Q.E.D.


She doesn't sound like the traditional SAHM, I heard that he shouldn't be attracted to that type being an alpha and all...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amal_Clooney


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> So you are saying that most men can be in the top 20%, if they just have the right attitude?


How would the bitter, defeatist attitude serve you?


----------



## Cletus

The top 20%, like an Ivy League education, merely opens up doors. It does not determine outcomes. 

I am not the physical specimen that turns women's heads, and I never was. My brother is, so I have rather enjoyed watching the differences in how women treat us. It is realistic to admit that trying to attract a supermodel would have been an impossible task for me. It's unrealistic, especially since people pair up with others of more-or-less like attractiveness.

But since I'm not Quasimodo, I still had plenty of options and enough interest from the opposite sex to understand that I wouldn't have to take the first woman with a pulse who fell over my doorstep. So what if one in five guys has an easier time starting up a conversation with a hottie in a bar? Life's not fair - and at the end of the day, some of them wind up wishing they had my brains in the long run. All this crying over the women you can't have is to completely discount the vast army of women for whom your average good looks and sparkling personality (TM) are sufficient. She settles no less on you than you do on her, in the end.


----------



## Cletus

techmom said:


> She doesn't sound like the traditional SAHM, I heard that he shouldn't be attracted to that type being an alpha and all...
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amal_Clooney


But you'll note that her area of legal expertise is _not_ divorce law.


----------



## Truthseeker1

Cletus said:


> The top 20%, like an Ivy League education, merely opens up doors. It does not determine outcomes.
> 
> I am not the physical specimen that turns women's heads, and I never was. My brother is, so I have rather enjoyed watching the differences in how women treat us. It is realistic to admit that trying to attract a supermodel would have been an impossible task for me. It's unrealistic, especially since people pair up with others of more-or-less like attractiveness.
> 
> But since I'm not Quasimodo, I still had plenty of options and enough interest from the opposite sex to understand that I wouldn't have to take the first woman with a pulse who fell over my doorstep. *So what if one in five guys has an easier time starting up a conversation with a hottie in a bar? Life's not fair - and at the end of the day, some of them wind up wishing they had my brains in the long run.* All this crying over the women you can't have is to completely discount the vast army of women for whom your average good looks and sparkling personality (TM) are sufficient. She settles no less on you than you do on her, in the end.


:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree: There is always someone richer, smarter, bitter looking or just luckier. I say find your league and play in it. Tom Brady gets Giselle (no deflate gate jokes please lol) - well thats how life works out. The best any of us can do - man or woman is max out our potential.


----------



## Buddy400

techmom said:


> Where do you get the data from that women only want to date 10% to 20% of available men? I know women who date all kinds of men. I think this is a defeatist attitude, I only hope you don't teach your sons this.


You know women who date 9's and 3's interchangeably?


----------



## lifeistooshort

Cletus said:


> George Clooney recently got married. Q.E.D.


Yep, and when he did he chose educated, accomplished, ambitious, and somewhat close to his own age. Far less likely to get screwed in a divorce then if he'd married a fake t!t bimbo half his age.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Truthseeker1

lifeistooshort said:


> Yep, and when he did he chose educated, accomplished, ambitious, and somewhat close to his own age. Far less likely to get screwed in a divorce then if he'd married a fake t!t bimbo half his age.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Brains on a woman is so damned sexy.


----------



## techmom

Cletus said:


> The top 20%, like an Ivy League education, merely opens up doors. It does not determine outcomes.
> 
> I am not the physical specimen that turns women's heads, and I never was. My brother is, so I have rather enjoyed watching the differences in how women treat us. It is realistic to admit that trying to attract a supermodel would have been an impossible task for me. It's unrealistic, especially since people pair up with others of more-or-less like attractiveness.
> 
> But since I'm not Quasimodo, I still had plenty of options and enough interest from the opposite sex to understand that I wouldn't have to take the first woman with a pulse who fell over my doorstep. So what if one in five guys has an easier time starting up a conversation with a hottie in a bar? Life's not fair - and at the end of the day, some of them wind up wishing they had my brains in the long run. All this crying over the women you can't have is to completely discount the vast army of women for whom your average good looks and sparkling personality (TM) are sufficient. She settles no less on you than you do on her, in the end.


I'm left wondering if the reason why some men are bitter is that not only did they not have sex with the hotties, but they had to settle for "good enough". And, to add insult to injury, she becomes bored with him and they end up in a sexless marriage.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I have never seen statistics indicating that career women divorce less frequently than non-working women, all other factors (education, etc.) being held constant. Do you have a source for that?


I wasn't suggesting that educated career women divorce less often...just that if you do divorce them, they're less likely to be eligible for huge sums of alimony and CS like SAHMs who never bother to work would be.

I'm a feminist, not a hypocrite...its ridiculous that any person has to financially support a grown, able-bodied adult after divorce.

Alimony needs to be abolished but until then, men need to stop tolerating women that won't work unless they're ok with supporting them indefinitely in the event of a marital breakdown.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> I'm left wondering if the reason why some men are bitter is that not only did they not have sex with the hotties, but they had to settle for "good enough". And, to add insult to injury, she becomes bored with him and they end up in a sexless marriage.


Yes, they are bitter losers who can't get laid. And probably have small ****s too!

By the way, has anyone noticed how women insult men by saying they can't get laid, whereas men don't insult women in the same way? I wonder why that is?


----------



## Truthseeker1

techmom said:


> I'm left wondering if the reason why some men are bitter is that not only did they not have sex with the hotties, but they had to settle for "good enough". And, to add insult to injury, she becomes bored with him and they end up in a sexless marriage.


Getting rejected is all part of dating. I think men feel it more acutely because they have to approach the woman in most cases and be told no. Plus lets be honest shall we - MOST, not all, but MOST people end up with someone roughly as attractive as they are. Such is life. We shold be competing with ourselves and trying to be the best we can be. Natural Gifts are not distributed evenly.

When you settle for "good enough" and not "a good person who I love" then you are asking for trouble.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Cletus said:


> The top 20%, like an Ivy League education, merely opens up doors. It does not determine outcomes.
> 
> I am not the physical specimen that turns women's heads, and I never was. My brother is, so I have rather enjoyed watching the differences in how women treat us. It is realistic to admit that trying to attract a supermodel would have been an impossible task for me. It's unrealistic, especially since people pair up with others of more-or-less like attractiveness.
> 
> But since I'm not Quasimodo, I still had plenty of options and enough interest from the opposite sex to understand that I wouldn't have to take the first woman with a pulse who fell over my doorstep. So what if one in five guys has an easier time starting up a conversation with a hottie in a bar? Life's not fair - and at the end of the day, some of them wind up wishing they had my brains in the long run. All this crying over the women you can't have is to completely discount the vast army of women for whom your average good looks and sparkling personality (TM) are sufficient. She settles no less on you than you do on her, in the end.






You sound very healthy, I'm not surprised you found a good partner. Even if you could attract a supermodel that doesn't equal good partner. Quite often very attractive people are also very entitled people, having had so many pursue them. And they're always being pursued, even after you're in the picture , so there are ample opportunities to decide if she can upgrade.

And eventually you'll either get tired of fvcking her, she'll get tired of fvcking you, or she'll get old. If all you worried about was supermodel what else is there?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

Amal Clooney is definitely a product of feminism, and I'm sure that is why George chose her over all of the bimbos who just wanted him for his money and fame. She looks like she was doing pretty well for herself before she met him.

News flash, alpha men like women who are their equals in career, intelligence and confidence. Confidence makes the person, it is not just looks. "Beta" men seem to want someone they feel superior to, in this way they can appear alpha.


----------



## Truthseeker1

lifeistooshort said:


> You sound very healthy, I'm not surprised you found a good partner. Even if you could attract a supermodel that doesn't equal good partner. Quite often very attractive people are also very entitled people, having had so many pursue them. And they're always being pursued, even after you're in the picture , so there are ample opportunities to decide if she can upgrade.
> 
> And eventually you'll either get tired of fvcking her, she'll get tired of fvcking you, or she'll get old. If all you worried about was supermodel what else is there?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My motto is find a good person - first - roughly as attractive as you are and be happy!!! Someone in life will always have what you perceive as more - whe you focus on that you will be miserable.


----------



## Truthseeker1

techmom said:


> Amal Clooney is definitely a product of feminism, and I'm sure that is why George chose her over all of the bimbos who just wanted him for his money and fame. She looks like she was doing pretty well for herself before she met him.
> 
> News flash, alpha men like women who are their equals in career, intelligence and confidence. Confidence makes the person, it is not just looks. "Beta" men seem to want someone they feel superior to, in this way they can appear alpha.


Nah an alpha can be just as big an a-hole as a beta...I think in Clooneys case he pecked her because he has political aspirations and she'd the perfect wife for that.


----------



## lifeistooshort

technovelist said:


> Yes, they are bitter losers who can't get laid. And probably have small ****s too!
> 
> By the way, has anyone noticed how women insult men by saying they can't get laid, whereas men don't insult women in the same way? I wonder why that is?


Because it would be stupid. Most women can get laid, and getting laid isn't the primary reason we do things. Even though many of us like getting laid since it's so easy we can look at other qualities too and know that getting laid will likely be part of the deal. 

Men insult us plenty, just in other ways. Women who have conflicting opinions are lonely, bitter feminists..... just to offer one example. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Methinks that many men who experienced being hurt by women who they desired fantasize about the lives of the "alpha" men and all of the women and sex they have access to. They also desire this access, but with this defeatist thinking this fantasy will never be theirs. So they hit the message boards and communicate with men like them who are bitter. Which is why they never change their fate.


I think the whole "alpha" nonsense is a myth created by men for other men. 

I know a lot of women and they're definitely not looking for some self-absorbed, full-of-himself, dbag. They want a man who's very attentive, who's kind and who is focused on the same things they are. In essence, the last thing they're looking for is a guy who spends all day looking in the mirror or at other women. They want a nice, decent guy...period. 

There are definitely women who just want sex and seek other men that just want sex....so don't care about a guy being shallow. But that's not the average woman who's looking for a relationship.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Truthseeker1 said:


> Brains on a woman is so damned sexy.


Flattery will get you everywhere 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

EnigmaGirl said:


> I think the whole "alpha" nonsense is a myth created by men for other men.
> 
> I know a lot of women and they're definitely not looking for some self-absorbed, full-of-himself, dbag. They want a man who's very attentive, who's kind and who is focused on the same things they are. In essence, the last thing they're looking for is a guy who spends all day looking in the mirror or at other women. They want a nice, decent guy...period.
> 
> There are definitely women who just want sex and seek other men that just want sex....so don't care about a guy being shallow. But that's not the average woman who's looking for a relationship.


Ok, then why are so many men dropping out of the marriage market?

Because they *are* dropping out, so there must be some reason...


----------



## Truthseeker1

lifeistooshort said:


> Flattery will get you everywhere
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


>> do tell....


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Yes, they are bitter losers who can't get laid. And probably have small ****s too!
> 
> By the way, has anyone noticed how women insult men by saying they can't get laid, whereas men don't insult women in the same way? I wonder why that is?


Most self-help books written for men are about getting laid more. Women's self- help books are mostly about building self confidence, less about sex. Men place so much emphasis on sex, especially if they aren't getting any.

I notice how you interpreted my post as insulting men who don't get laid, maybe you are projecting your views?


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> Because it would be stupid. Most women can get laid, and getting laid isn't the primary reason we do things. Even though many of us like getting laid since it's so easy we can look at other qualities too and know that getting laid will likely be part of the deal.
> 
> Men insult us plenty, just in other ways. Women who have conflicting opinions are lonely, bitter feminists..... just to offer one example.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Exactly. So my point that most men have a lot of trouble getting laid, whereas most women don't, is valid.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Men insult us plenty, just in other ways. Women who have conflicting opinions are lonely, bitter feminists.


lol...Being called a feminist is never an insult to me. I'm a proud feminist.

And most feminists I know aren't lonely. There's nothing sexier and more desirable than a woman who can take care of herself, is educated and driven, and isn't after a guy for security that she can't be arsed to go get for herself.

Feminists are generally not aren't afraid of being single since they can take care of themselves. So they're simply less likely to settle for a guy that isn't a good pick for them.


----------



## Cletus

technovelist said:


> Ok, then why are so many men dropping out of the marriage market?
> 
> Because they *are* dropping out, so there must be some reason...


There need be no more reason than "society happens". 

When the conditions compelling marriage in a society recede, then marriage will fade as well. Perhaps the course of social equality has progressed to the point that marriage is no longer the default. 

But I'm no sociologist, so maybe there's more to it, but I just see it as the realization of a lot of people now not doing that which a lot of people didn't necessarily want to do in the past, but had no alternative.


----------



## Lon

Truthseeker1 said:


> Bingo!!! We live in a throw away culture. Such an ethos can not sustain civilization forever.


Why can't it sustain civilization? I think society is pretty much continuously self-correcting problem and civilization will continue to go on, it will just look a heck of a lot different than it did in our parent's generation, not better or worse but values that you and I hold important may not be held important by our great grandchildren.


----------



## Cletus

EnigmaGirl said:


> And most feminists I know aren't lonely. There's nothing sexier and more desirable than a woman who can take care of herself, is educated and driven, and isn't after a guy for security that she can't be arsed to go get for herself.


Yes, with the caveat that she not also spend a big chunk of her life with a chip on her shoulder ensuring that she continue to prove her ability over and over again to every man within earshot. 

The kind of feminist that turns me off is the one with an axe to grind.


----------



## Truthseeker1

Lon said:


> Why can't it sustain civilization? I think society is pretty much continuously self-correcting problem and civilization will continue to go on, it will just look a heck of a lot different than it did in our parent's generation, not better or worse but values that you and I hold important may not be held important by our great grandchildren.


Governments, countries, civilizations come and go - but humans go on and form different communities - that is what I meant.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Ok, then why are so many men dropping out of the marriage market?
> 
> Because they are dropping out, so there must be some reason...



Younger people in general are dropping out of marriage. Its not just men. And other institutions like religion because they are becoming less applicable to modern day lifestyles.

It wasn't that long ago that women got married right out of high school. Now a kid graduates from college in their middle 20s and still might take another 5 years to get past entry-level in their career. In addition, a lot of them are saddled with student loans. Who wants to add the responsibility of marriage into that? 

My oldest daughter looks on the idea of marriage as a complicated hassle and at her age (she's 26), I agree with her. Why bother?

In addition, if I was male, I'd take a look at the divorce laws and be worried. Today, if a woman unilaterally makes the decision not to work and the guy doesn't immediately divorce her, within a year's time, she can make a case for entitlement to alimony. No way I'd take that risk.

Times have simply changed and marriage is an outdated concept that is suffering from a lack of relevance for today's youth. They need to change the lifetime obligation of marriage and get rid of alimony. Also custody should be default 50/50 unless there are some severe extenuating circumstances. This whole concept that mothers are more important to the raising of a child and are entitled to unequal parental time is nonsense. All the data shows that it simply isn't true.

As I said...I'm a feminist...not a hypocrite.


----------



## techmom

Cletus said:


> Yes, with the caveat that she not also spend a big chunk of her life with a chip on her shoulder ensuring that she continue to prove her ability over and over again to every man within earshot.
> 
> The kind of feminist that turns me off is the one with an axe to grind.


This type of feminist harms other women and herself. Anyone with a chip on their shoulder suffers. The women who I associate with irl are busying just living their lives.


----------



## Truthseeker1

techmom said:


> This type of feminist harms other women and herself. Anyone with a chip on their shoulder suffers. The women who I associate with irl are busying just living their lives.


The ones I do know with a chip....are really deep down just unhappy people. I always thought they lashed out due to the pain caused by their unhappiness with life.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Yes, with the caveat that she not also spend a big chunk of her life with a chip on her shoulder ensuring that she continue to prove her ability over and over again to every man within earshot.


LOL....I would equate this to the guy that appeals to women by talking about how much money he has.

Those types of guys always made me laugh when I was dating. 

Unless you're writing me a check during the date turning all your assets over to me, why would I be interested in that? The only message it sends is that you appeal to women that are up for sale and think of women as a commodity who can be bought.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Truthseeker1 said:


> >> do tell....


I have a lot of brains. So I'm told anyway. ....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Truthseeker1

lifeistooshort said:


> I have a lot of brains. So I'm told anyway. ....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:grin2: A great mind makes for a great companion


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I have a lot of brains. So I'm told anyway. ....


lol!


----------



## techmom

EnigmaGirl said:


> LOL....I would equate this to the guy that appeals to women by talking about how much money he has.
> 
> Those types of guys always made me laugh when I was dating.
> 
> Unless you're writing me a check during the date turning all your assets over to me, why would I be interested in that? The only message it sends is that you appeal to women that are up for sale and think of women as a commodity who can be bought.


Exactly. This is the same type of guy who would attract the same type of woman: dependent, selfish, and lazy. Who would later become the SAHM, when they divorce she would take him to the cleaners because she never had a job and didn't want one. All she wanted was an easy life with kids and a husband who was the atm.

If you think of women as commodities you will usually attract them.


----------



## lifeistooshort

EnigmaGirl said:


> lol...Being called a feminist is never an insult to me. I'm a proud feminist.
> 
> And most feminists I know aren't lonely. There's nothing sexier and more desirable than a woman who can take care of herself, is educated and driven, and isn't after a guy for security that she can't be arsed to go get for herself.
> 
> Feminists are generally not aren't afraid of being single since they can take care of themselves. So they're simply less likely to settle for a guy that isn't a good pick for tem.


Oh I agree, just pointing out that it is supposed to be insulting. I'm also feminist, and it takes a bad rap because of a few nutjobs. I can support myself, don't want or need a guy to do it, am willing to be a full partner, and only ask for a full partner in return. I can't see how that's a bad deal for anyone worthwhile. 

Many men seem to have this idea that feminists hate men and think they should be screwed at every turn. Not true, most of us love men.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Exactly. This is the same type of guy who would attract the same type of woman: dependent, selfish, and lazy. Who would later become the SAHM, when they divorce she would take him to the cleaners because she never had a job and didn't want one. All she wanted was an easy life with kids and a husband who was the atm.
> 
> If you think of women as commodities you will usually attract them.


Soooooo true!

Then the men that marry those types have the nerve to endlessly whine about how all women are shallow and lazy like the slags they picked.

(wish I could like your post more than once)


----------



## Ikaika

http://youtu.be/u6gG-Q5gv9I


----------



## Truthseeker1

lifeistooshort said:


> Oh I agree, just pointing out that it is supposed to be insulting. I'm also feminist, and it takes a bad rap because of a few nutjobs. I can support myself, don't want or need a guy to do it, am willing to be a full partner, and only ask for a full partner in return. I can't see how that's a bad deal for anyone worthwhile.
> 
> Many men seem to have this idea that feminists hate men and think they should be screwed at every turn. Not true, most of us love men.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You sound like a great partner. I do have disagreements with certain aspects of feminism (which I wont discuss here) but I'm also a son, brother, uncle and I am glad the ladies in my life can make their own way in the world. Men v. Women is a destructive, stupid battle no one wins - no one...we want and need eachother....


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Many men seem to have this idea that feminists hate men and think they should be screwed at every turn. Not true, most of us love men.


I actually think that women that identify themselves as feminists actually understand the male perspective better than their non-identifying counterparts.

Generally feminists are more balanced and fair and less likely to have "golden uterus" syndrome where they think that childbirth entitles them special treatment.

I crack up every time I read a post on here where a women gives birth and think it not only entitles her not to work but the male is also expected to do have the housework when she's at home all day.

No feminist I know plays that crap. We own that we have to do our share...and most do MORE than their share....because we're fly like that. 

As a feminist, I know that my vagina isn't some magic pass than entitles me to be a financial dependent either in marriage or after divorce.

I also don't believe that since I gave birth that I'm a more important parent than my kid's dad is. When we got divorced, I immediately tried to have fair shared parenting access to our children.

I think a lot of men blame decline on marriage on feminism but its silly...feminists often make excellent partners because they're more likely to be fair and pull their weight in relationships.


----------



## Constable Odo

Buddy400 said:


> If you were a 4 and could have sex with 5's, 6's, 7's & up; why would you have sex with another 4?


Scarcity. The higher you go, the less population you have to draw from. It may be nice to have a 7, but there aren't many of them, so you have to settle for a 4. Until you find another 7.




technovelist said:


> This is an example of the "apex fallacy". *Some* men, the top 10-20%, have the ability to be promiscuous, because women want to have sex with them.


All men have the ability to be promiscuous, they simply may have to pay for it. 




chris007 said:


> Still want to get married? Nest time you have a couple days off, go spend em in divorce court, that should do the trick.


I wholeheartedly recommend spending a day in divorce court. Then you will see exactly how lopsided the justice system is in divorce cases against men.




Truthseeker1 said:


> Hypocrisy is nauseating. But many decent men who only have sex within a committed relationship want a woman who has a similar history, they don't want an ex-party girl. My problem is men who express this desire are somehow deemed judgmental or mean.


The problem with a party-girl is you don't know where she has been or what she may have.




Hardtohandle said:


> She told me herself at one point.. I am thinking why should get involved in a relationship when I can just fvck someone when I want and then not when I don't..


I find this attitude in many 40+ year old divorced women. More and more simply want a FWB rather than a "relationship", so they can walk away easier whenever they want to. Since they are not having children again, they see no reason to get married.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Truthseeker1 said:


> You sound like a great partner. I do have disagreements with certain aspects of feminism (which I wont discuss here) but I'm also a son, brother, uncle and I am glad the ladies in my life can make their own way in the world. Men v. Women is a destructive, stupid battle no one wins - no one...we want and need eachother....


Thank you 

My hb lost his job 9 months ago and just found another one making 2/3 of what he was making, which is ok because his feminist wife, who believes in equality, is making good money. So he never had to worry about making the mortgage payment and did a bang up job running the house. To be honest I have mixed feelings about him going back to work but I know he isn't ready to retire and he feels better having an income. Our money will still be pooled together to benefit the household. Which, by the way, I'd never do if I didn't have the legal protection of marriage.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400

techmom said:


> So, according to this post, do you think that the reason young men are not marrying is because many young women do not find them attractive? Which means that they do want to marry but can't ?


My guess is that the top 20% have no incentive to marry (all the sex they want without it) and the bottom 80% can't attract a women's interest.

EDIT: So women *win*, if you want to call it that.


----------



## Buddy400

techmom said:


> And the betas continue to bemoan their bitter fate on message boards and debate.


True


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> Even now we buy into this by holding mens careers more important and by buying into the idea that it's a man's job to support the family. When men travel for work he's supporting his family, but when women travel for work they're selfish and their jobs are more important than family, especially if hubby isn't getting enough sex with her gone.


But who is *we*? I believe than both men and women, probably in even numbers, buy into this.

I believe that you can't raise kids properly with two career job (50+ hrs /wk, on-call, etc) parents. I believe someone has to prioritize the kids for 10 years or so. I'm fine with that parent being a man but I'm not sure most women would be fine with it.


----------



## Icey181

EnigmaGirl said:


> I think a lot of men blame decline on marriage on feminism but its silly...feminists often make excellent partners because they're more likely to be fair and pull their weight in relationships.


While I applaud a moderate feminist when I see one, the point is worth stating that modern 3rd Wave Feminists, whether a nominal minority or not, control the rhetoric and the public discourse and have used that power over the last decade or two to demonize men across the board.

There is a difference between a "Feminist" and an actual 3rd Wave "Feminist."

The example I most like…
For two semesters I had the pleasure of walking to my office and passing multiple posters on the walls which effectively stated that all men are potential rapists and need to watch themselves.

At the end of that Fall Semester there was an interesting exchange in one of my classes…while we were studying 2nd Wave Feminism.

One of my Top 5% guys was in a discussion with one of my top 5% girls and explaining why he no longer considers himself a feminist: And I quote, "After reading what they say about men, I get the feeling they don't want me and kind of hate men."

Pretending that modern 3rd Wavers have not helped to undermine the role of men in society, denigrated them all as potential sexual predators, and argued that any man who has an issue with a girl's sexual history is a misogynist is not helpful.

The one place where 3rd Wave radicals are the _majority_ and control both the discourse and the policies with impunity?

College Campuses.

Is it any surprise that college-aged men who are in these places are having issues with "Feminism" in general?

How many times do you need to tell a 22-year old man that he is the source of oppression and sexual violence against women before he starts to just reject the whole thing and drop out?


----------



## Buddy400

Cletus said:


> Well, yes, this is part of the male situation. We are always trying to outdo each other, sometimes by any means possible. It's part and parcel of the testosterone poisoning problem.


But, what if women are attracted to testosterone?


----------



## Constable Odo

Icey181 said:


> While I applaud a moderate feminist when I see one, the point is worth stating that modern 3rd Wave Feminists, whether a nominal minority or not, control the rhetoric and the public discourse and have used that power over the last decade or two to demonize men across the board.


This is true in most political areas today.

The Republican party is controlled by religious whack-jobs who think Jesus Christ personally speaks to them through their cable tv remote control.

The Democrat party is controlled by the progressive moon-bats who I seriously believe suffer from some form of mental disorder, how they go through mental gymnastics to justify positions devoid of common sense.

(I personally identify as a Jeffersonian democrat, or perhaps what a few decades ago was considered a blue-dog democrat -- e.g. women should have the right to an abortion, but I shouldn't be expected to pay for it.)

Modern-day feminism is equally controlled by the fanatical segment of that agenda. You see much of it on this forum, where they work in tandem to squelch dissenting opinion which does not conform to the pre-approved narrative.


----------



## T&T

Icey181 said:


> How many times do you need to tell a 22-year old man that he is the source of oppression and sexual violence against women *before he starts to just reject the whole thing and drop out?*


Bingo! Today's young man has caved, given up, has been beaten down. The question is, what are they going to do about it? So far, I see nothing...

What happened to young warriors?! 

Sorry, but it kind of makes me chuckle and sad at the same time... What did women do when they weren't aloud to vote? They fought it! 

Maybe, this will work itself over time. (lolz) What I'm seeing now is a bunch of "men" giving up and calling it "unfair" 

When you think about it, it hilarious considering what women have been through!


----------



## Buddy400

Youngster said:


> I think that could be a contributing factor to men not marrying....the promiscuity of women. *Let me say this isn't anyone's fault(not judging women or anyone*). Most men have an internal switch where promiscuity(by women) is such a viral/almost vicious trigger. There is something inside men that they need to know that it is their DNA that is being propagated.





Cletus said:


> Understood. I see the threads here of the sad saps who learn their wife, who is screwing his brains out 4x a week, but who is devastated by the knowledge that his wife wasn't as pristine as the driven snow when he despoiled her _before_ they got married.
> 
> I find it sort of nauseating.


Youngster wasn't saying that this trigger was worthwhile in current society or an actual good or bad thing.

It's just still there for a lot of men like wanting a good provider is still there for a lot of women. Because it's in our DNA and we haven't had enough time to evolve away from it. 

It's there whether we like it or not and we can't just wish it away.


----------



## Buddy400

techmom said:


> Methinks that many men who experienced being hurt by women who they desired fantasize about the lives of the "alpha" men and all of the women and sex they have access to. They also desire this access, but with this defeatist thinking this fantasy will never be theirs. So they hit the message boards and communicate with men like them who are bitter. Which is why they never change their fate.


I sort of agree with you. Obviously, if things are as we say, then the only men complaining about it are the betas (insert disclaimer here that this does not apply to *me*,* I've *had* lots *of women).

However, I think there's more merit to the argument than it might appear and it doesn't work out for most women just as it doesn't work out for most men. 

So I think us alpha males (who have managed to shake women off our d!cks for a couple of minutes of internet posting) and women should give it some thought and not dismiss it out of hand as whining by losers.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Is it any surprise that college-aged men who are in these places are having issues with "Feminism" in general?
> 
> How many times do you need to tell a 22-year old man that he is the source of oppression and sexual violence against women before he starts to just reject the whole thing and drop out?


I'm in my middle 40s. I certainly don't pretend to speak for young women on college campuses so its difficult for me to comment on that. I get your point and agree that its ridiculous. 

Beyond that, all I can say is that the women in my social circle share my mindset and that there are a lot of decent women out there who want equality...not special treatment and model that behavior for their own daughters.

I also know that as a working woman, I've seen a lot of nonsense the other way in regard to the workplace. I deal with it every single day because I'm in a male dominated industry.

So the fight for equality goes on. 

In regard to this thread, I honestly don't care if men stop getting married...I think marriage is ridiculously outdated anyway.  In my opinion, it would benefit women...the ones that still go around being dependent on men would have to actually quit doing it...which would be beneficial to our gender as a whole.



> Modern-day feminism is equally controlled by the fanatical segment of that agenda. You see much of it on this forum, where they work in tandem to squelch dissenting opinion which does not conform to the pre-approved narrative.


lol...that happens to me all the time on here.

But I don't consider those women feminists. Real feminists don't spout hypocritical nonsense that benefits only their gender. 

Simply put, you can't suck and blow at the same time.


----------



## Cletus

Buddy400 said:


> But, what if women are attracted to testosterone?


Some of them clearly are. I'm OK with that. 

You have hit on my one biggest problem with social changes that have happened in my life. There is now a default premise that the female way is better, particularly for conflict resolution. Little boys are assiduously taught that using their words is better than using their fists. That talk is better than action. That anger and frustration are so imbued with negativity that they are to be avoided as much as possible. The unspoken tenet seems to be that a sufficiently advanced civilization has no need for certain male solutions to its problems.

There seems to be a lot less room for "boys will be boys". 

I still remember the kid in seventh grade who picked on me for a week until it finally came to a real fight. There was no reasoning with this person. There was no calm discussion about his behavior that was going to make it go away. He was not going to be satisfied until I stood up for myself and spilt his blood and mine on the playground. To this day I believe the nuns in their wisdom allowed the fight to happen. There were no repercussions, no notes sent home, no suspension for defending myself. After I had gained his "respect", we had no further issues. 

Sometimes being a man means not fixing something in a way most women find acceptable.


----------



## Youngster

T&T said:


> Bingo! Today's young man has caved, given up, has been beaten down. The question is, what are they going to do about it? So far, I see nothing...
> 
> What happened to young warriors?!
> 
> Sorry, but it kind of makes me chuckle and sad at the same time... What did women do when they weren't aloud to vote? They fought it!
> 
> Maybe, this will work itself over time. (lolz) What I'm seeing now is a bunch of "men" giving up and calling it "unfair"
> 
> When you think about it, it hilarious considering what women have been through!


I agree the young men need to show more backbone. Having said that, with all that women went through, how often were they called "potential rapists"? 

This country better find a way to get this demographic re-engaged because if they don't we are ALL going to be in trouble. This demographic is going to drive our economy for at least the next 30 years. They're going to go to war and they're going to pay taxes........WE HOPE!

Loads of our citizens are choosing to retire overseas due to a lower cost of living. It isn't a huge economic impact to us so no one cares. 

With todays globalization, finding a job overseas isn't difficult for an American male with a college degree...especially a technical degree. 

I wonder how much we'll care when some of these young men as entrepreneurs start the next Amazon in Japan, or the next Facebook in India or the next Apple in China. An American entrepreneur building a billion dollar company overseas. We'll care then but it will be too late.


----------



## Cletus

EnigmaGirl said:


> But I don't consider those women feminists. Real feminists don't spout hypocritical nonsense that benefits only their gender.


The fallacy of the No True Scottsman. You might not consider them feminists, but I bet that they do. So you can't just wave a magic wand and say that they're irrelevant simply because you define them out of existence.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> "I wanted to have sex with certain hot women who rejected me, so I will forever more be bitter and find a bunch other jilted men to band together and whine endlessly about it together, while we vilify women AND the men they chose over us."
> 
> So unattractive.


But we were already unattractive, so it doesn't make anything worse to be more unattractive.

But we only admit all this in anonymous internet postings.

In real life, we'll use Game and you'll never figure out what spineless wimps we are.

So, there!


----------



## Lon

lifeistooshort said:


> ...Our money will still be pooled together to benefit the household. Which, by the way, I'd never do if I didn't have the legal protection of marriage.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


In Canada the mere act of cohabitating with a relationship partner whom you have sexual relations with affords the same legal protection for community property (the length of time before "common law" status kicks in varies from 3 months to 18 months depending on which province you reside).


----------



## LBHmidwest

Married but Happy said:


> This isn't a real concern if you marry someone who has a career and income comparable to your own, and she is never a SAHM. Of course, you may not find someone like that you can also love - in which case just don't marry.


Uhhhh depends on the judge. Just saying. Been there.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Cletus said:


> The fallacy of the No True Scottsman. You might not consider them feminists, but I bet that they do. So you can't just wave a magic wand and say that they're irrelevant simply because you define them out of existence.


They can call themselves whatever they want, doesn't mean anyone cares. We wouldn't label all men's right activists nutjobs because there are a few that hate women. Or should we?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tom67

not a big reddit guy but...
Wife cheats on husband, gets knocked up, and has lied for 8+ years that the child is his : TheRedPill


----------



## Buddy400

Cletus said:


> The top 20%, like an Ivy League education, merely opens up doors. It does not determine outcomes.
> 
> I am not the physical specimen that turns women's heads, and I never was. My brother is, so I have rather enjoyed watching the differences in how women treat us. It is realistic to admit that trying to attract a supermodel would have been an impossible task for me. It's unrealistic, especially since people pair up with others of more-or-less like attractiveness.
> 
> But since I'm not Quasimodo, I still had plenty of options and enough interest from the opposite sex to understand that I wouldn't have to take the first woman with a pulse who fell over my doorstep. So what if one in five guys has an easier time starting up a conversation with a hottie in a bar? Life's not fair - and at the end of the day, some of them wind up wishing they had my brains in the long run. All this crying over the women you can't have is to completely discount the vast army of women for whom your average good looks and sparkling personality (TM) are sufficient. She settles no less on you than you do on her, in the end.


Quite right. Truth be told, my not being an 8, 9 or 10 has had a lot of upside. I don't think supermodels make very good wives. I think character is hard to find in someone who has gotten attention from the opposite sex their whole lives with no effort. 

There was a movie where an older woman said that the best thing that ever happened to her was not being a beauty. I forced her to develop character.

That being said, I might consider giving up a few character points for a couple of nights with Sophia Vergara.


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> Because it would be stupid. Most women can get laid, and getting laid isn't the primary reason we do things


Don't let Faithful Wife hear you talking like that!


----------



## T&T

Youngster said:


> I agree the young men need to show more backbone. Having said that, with all that women went through, how often were they called "potential rapists"?
> 
> This country better find a way to get this demographic re-engaged because if they don't we are ALL going to be in trouble. This demographic is going to drive our economy for at least the next 30 years. They're going to go to war and they're going to pay taxes........WE HOPE!
> 
> Loads of our citizens are choosing to retire overseas due to a lower cost of living. It isn't a huge economic impact to us so no one cares.
> 
> With todays globalization, finding a job overseas isn't difficult for an American male with a college degree...especially a technical degree.
> 
> I wonder how much we'll care when some of these young men as entrepreneurs start the next Amazon in Japan, or the next Facebook in India or the next Apple in China. An American entrepreneur building a billion dollar company overseas. We'll care then but it will be too late.


Youngster, almost everything you wrote except the rape thing is based on higher education. Any male should be able to see through that...

Where are the "hard working Americans" that drive the economy?

Non-existent...


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> The fallacy of the No True Scottsman. You might not consider them feminists, but I bet that they do. So you can't just wave a magic wand and say that they're irrelevant simply because you define them out of existence.


I don't consider them irrelevant, however, feminism does have a basic definition.

For instance, you can't call yourself a believer in civil rights if you think white people deserve more rights than black people. And you can't consider yourself a feminist if you believe that women deserve special treatment and that giving birth entitles you to be financially dependent on a man after they are no longer married to you.

I know hypocrisy exists from my own gender and if you've seen my posts on here...you know I have no issue calling it out for what it is.


----------



## Truthseeker1

tom67 said:


> not a big reddit guy but...
> Wife cheats on husband, gets knocked up, and has lied for 8+ years that the child is his : TheRedPill


If this is true this story is sickening and that woman is one evil witch. She has earned whatever misfortunes come her way.


----------



## Hardtohandle

Truthseeker1 said:


> It matters to a lot of men. It maybe difficult to verify but it does matter. Not many men want a woman with a high number.


I don't give a fvck about the number.. 
I personally do not talk about such things or past relationships.

I just don't need to be told like is badge of pride and honor.. 

I'm no fool if a woman says put it in my a$$, I realize that she did this before.. I just don't need to know how many times and who did it.. 

I'm gonna stick with I just had a real bad experience.. I will let you know how the next one turns out.. 

ATM I'm in the camp ( as was stated before, forget who ) why buy the cow or bull when you get it all for free..


----------



## Buddy400

EnigmaGirl said:


> I think the whole "alpha" nonsense is a myth created by men for other men.


But, I'm pretty sure it isn't. I think it's a real phenomena with real consequences for gender relationships.

An Alpha Male is described as belonging to the top 10% of men that women are attracted to (by whatever measure women are attracted to guys). 

So, if men want sex more than women (and if you disagree about that, you can stop reading) and if women limit their willingness to have sex to the most desirable men (same as above), lots more women will have sex with the top 10% of men and fewer will have sex with the bottom.

What's the problem for women (assuming that they want exclusive relationships with men)? The "Alpha" males won't commit to exclusive relationships with them and the non-Alpha's will have dropped out of the market.

It used to be that women traded sex for commitment (not that I think that's the way society should work, but it did). So they got commitment. Now, there're getting more sex and less commitment.

Now if women don't actually want committed relationships with men, there's no problem.

Upper class educated women are going to have a hard time raising kids by themselves. Again, if they don't want kids, no problem.

If, as the MRA types think, career women think they can have sex with the Alpha Males until they're 35 and then settle down with a beta provider and have a family, I don't think that's going to work out for anyone either.


----------



## Truthseeker1

Hardtohandle said:


> I don't give a fvck about the number..
> I personally do not talk about such things or past relationships.
> 
> I just don't need to be told like is badge of pride and honor..
> 
> I'm no fool if a woman says put it in my a$$, I realize that she did this before.. I just don't need to know how many times and who did it..
> 
> *I'm gonna stick with I just had a real bad experience.. I will let you know how the next one turns out.. *
> 
> ATM I'm in the camp ( as was stated before, forget who ) why buy the cow or bull when you get it all for free..


From your description she sounds like a bit of a good time partner - which is ok if that is what you want - but I would not have been buying a house with her. 

is your XW still with the bf she cheated with?


----------



## Buddy400

techmom said:


> Most self-help books written for men are about getting laid more. Women's self- help books are mostly about building self confidence, less about sex. *Men place so much emphasis on sex,* especially if they aren't getting any.
> 
> I notice how you interpreted my post as insulting men who don't get laid, maybe you are projecting your views?


Like it or not; that's how it is.


----------



## Buddy400

Cletus said:


> There need be no more reason than "society happens".
> 
> When the conditions compelling marriage in a society recede, then marriage will fade as well. Perhaps the course of social equality has progressed to the point that marriage is no longer the default.
> 
> But I'm no sociologist, so maybe there's more to it, but I just see it as the realization of a lot of people now not doing that which a lot of people didn't necessarily want to do in the past, but had no alternative.


But doesn't somebody need to raise the kids?

Who's going to pay for our retirements?


----------



## Buddy400

EnigmaGirl said:


> LOL....I would equate this to the guy that appeals to women by talking about how much money he has.
> 
> Those types of guys always made me laugh when I was dating.
> 
> Unless you're writing me a check during the date turning all your assets over to me, *why would I be interested in that?* The only message it sends is that you appeal to women that are up for sale and think of women as a commodity who can be bought.


Money can be a proxy for intelligence and drive.


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> Oh I agree, just pointing out that it is supposed to be insulting. I'm also feminist, and it takes a bad rap because of a few nutjobs. I can support myself, don't want or need a guy to do it, am willing to be a full partner, and only ask for a full partner in return. I can't see how that's a bad deal for anyone worthwhile.
> 
> Many men seem to have this idea that feminists hate men and think they should be screwed at every turn. Not true, most of us love men.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think the guys that have a problem with feminism think the *few nutjobs* are running the show.

I suspect 95% of men agree with the feminism that you describe.


----------



## Hardtohandle

Truthseeker1 said:


> From your description she sounds like a bit of a good time partner - which is ok if that is what you want - but I would not have been buying a house with her.
> 
> is your XW still with the bf she cheated with?


The ExGF kept telling me she wanted to be with me.. She loved me and get this one.. The most loyal, faithful and honest she has ever been with anyone she has been with.. Which I realized later contradicted much she told me about her past.. 

Yes the XW is still with that guy.. I'm not saying she doesn't love him.. I assume she does.. But honestly financially she has nowhere to go.. She only works 10 hours a week and either is refusing or not really looking for more work. I am taking her to court in a few weeks and hopefully the judge will impute something a bit higher than 200 a month.. 

He sure isn't marrying her it seems. I wonder why that is.. 
The only way I can see her out of that relationship is to cheat with someone else and move in with them..

Sorry for the derail... Back to our regular debate..


----------



## Hardtohandle

Buddy400 said:


> Money can be a proxy for intelligence and drive.


Well, unless its inherited. You just can't be retarded and lazy and be rich..


----------



## RandomDude

EnigmaGirl said:


> LOL....I would equate this to the guy that appeals to women by talking about how much money he has.
> 
> Those types of guys always made me laugh when I was dating.
> 
> Unless you're writing me a check during the date turning all your assets over to me, why would I be interested in that? The only message it sends is that you appeal to women that are up for sale and think of women as a commodity who can be bought.


Well to be frank, can't blame the men for using the best approach to provide the most available options.

Wealth is a very powerful card to play when in the game, and it works very well in big cities where the culture is more materialistic.


----------



## Truthseeker1

Hardtohandle said:


> The ExGF kept telling me she wanted to be with me.. She loved me and get this one.. The most loyal, faithful and honest she has ever been with anyone she has been with.. Which I realized later contradicted much she told me about her past..
> 
> Yes the XW is still with that guy.. I'm not saying she doesn't love him.. I assume she does.. But honestly financially she has nowhere to go.. She only works 10 hours a week and either is refusing or not really looking for more work. I am taking her to court in a few weeks and hopefully the judge will impute something a bit higher than 200 a month..
> 
> He sure isn't marrying her it seems. I wonder why that is..
> The only way I can see her out of that relationship is to cheat with someone else and move in with them..
> 
> Sorry for the derail... Back to our regular debate..


The reason I ask is - you seem to pick the wrong kind of women. Perhaps some IC would help figure out why - there are plenty of good women out there who pick bad men - you need to find one and sweep her off her feet...but you do need to analyze and adjust the way you pick women to date....


----------



## tech-novelist

Buddy400 said:


> But, what if women are attracted to testosterone?


They are, of course, but do you know why?

Because it is an immune suppressant. Therefore, anyone who is healthy looking but is obviously testosterone-laden, must have an EXCELLENT immune system, and therefore could contribute that to any potential offspring.

Not that they are thinking this, of course; it's instinctual.


----------



## tech-novelist

T&T said:


> Bingo! Today's young man has caved, given up, has been beaten down. The question is, what are they going to do about it? So far, I see nothing...
> 
> What happened to young warriors?!
> 
> Sorry, but it kind of makes me chuckle and sad at the same time... What did women do when they weren't aloud to vote? They fought it!
> 
> Maybe, this will work itself over time. (lolz) What I'm seeing now is a bunch of "men" giving up and calling it "unfair"
> 
> When you think about it, it hilarious considering what women have been through!


Yes, when women couldn't vote, they got men to change that for them. What warriors!


----------



## moco82

Truthseeker1 said:


> It leaves a lot of people with regrets.


Je ne regrette rien.


----------



## Forest

Sorry Youngster, It was decent while it lasted. Maybe someday boundaries will matter.


----------



## tech-novelist

Buddy400 said:


> I sort of agree with you. Obviously, if things are as we say, then the only men complaining about it are the betas (insert disclaimer here that this does not apply to *me*,* I've *had* lots *of women).
> 
> However, I think there's more merit to the argument than it might appear and it doesn't work out for most women just as it doesn't work out for most men.
> 
> So I think us alpha males (who have managed to shake women off our d!cks for a couple of minutes of internet posting) and women should give it some thought and not dismiss it out of hand as whining by losers.


Good luck with convincing the rabid feminists (no, not you, lifeistooshort) to consider that.

By the way, I score "lesser alpha" on the (in)famous test, and am happily married, so I don't really count as a "bitter loser who can't get laid".


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> They can call themselves whatever they want, doesn't mean anyone cares. We wouldn't label all men's right activists nutjobs because there are a few that hate women. Or should we?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You shouldn't (and wouldn't), but some would.
Not naming any names, but one is posting on this thread. :smile2:


----------



## moco82

BetrayedDad said:


> I online dated for a while...
> 
> If you're average height, not overweight, groom yourself, have a job, not a criminal, and don't live with your parents, you're well within the top x%.



Depends on the country, region, metro area, and its ratio of middle-class men to attractive (in the eyes of the average local man) women. I've lived in countries/cities in which a guy could be missing one or more of your criteria and still date a woman who would be considered a trophy wife in some other countries/cities I know well.


----------



## Cletus

lifeistooshort said:


> They can call themselves whatever they want, doesn't mean anyone cares. We wouldn't label all men's right activists nutjobs because there are a few that hate women. Or should we?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No, but they fit the definition of "feminist" close enough that you can't just say that they aren't feminists. They may be militant feminists, or extreme feminists, but the "f" word still applies.

There are plenty of Baptists who say that a Catholic isn't a Christian. They're wrong, because they've narrowed the definition of the term so much that only those who fit into their little niche qualify. The definition of "feminist" is broad, and doesn't remove those who think they're entitled to a lifetime of support to which they might feel entitled for having suffered the slings and arrows of life with a smelly man. 

Donald Trump is a Republican, if most of the party machinery wishes he wasn't.


----------



## RandomDude

Only reason I got married was the baby bells and the fact that I was in a panic. I'm also already divorced in my late 20s.

The only good thing to have come out of the whole mess was my daughter, and of course, it's supposedly ideal for children to be raised in a 'family unit', but not everything is achievable. Besides it's better to have good co-parents then bad married parents anyday no?

So hell, the whole push for marriage in society is just stupid


----------



## Forest

technovelist said:


> You shouldn't (and wouldn't), but some would.
> Not naming any names, but one is posting on this thread. :smile2:


And it's tiring.


----------



## moco82

techmom said:


> I'm left wondering if the reason why some men are bitter is that not only did they not have sex with the hotties, but they had to settle for "good enough". And, to add insult to injury, she becomes bored with him and they end up in a sexless marriage.


Yup. The only way to make it worse still is some men did get a taste of hotties, concluded that those episodes were a statistical anomaly, and went on to settle for "meh, good enough" with hottie memories engraved in their brains.


----------



## Hardtohandle

Truthseeker1 said:


> The reason I ask is - you seem to pick the wrong kind of women. Perhaps some IC would help figure out why - there are plenty of good women out there who pick bad men - you need to find one and sweep her off her feet...but you do need to analyze and adjust the way you pick women to date....


Turnera recommended reading the first half of getting the love you want.. I got the audio book..


----------



## MountainRunner

Cletus said:


> There are plenty of Baptists who say that a Catholic isn't a Christian.


Oh, I hear that all the time out here in the Bible Belt of California and I laugh at them as they have no clue of what they're talking about...BTW @Cletus ...love the sig. Always remember..."He boiled for our sins", yes? 

*and now, back to our regularly scheduled program*


----------



## tech-novelist

moco82 said:


> Yup. The only way to make it worse still is some men did get a taste of hotties, concluded that those episodes were a statistical anomaly, and went on to settle for "meh, good enough" with hottie memories engraved in their brains.


This is much the way that women end up.
I assume that's not a coincidence. :smile2:


----------



## Icey181

technovelist said:


> Yes, when women couldn't vote, they got men to change that for them. What warriors!


This is what I find most interesting about the whole mythologization of 1st Wave Feminism.

These women were essentially a radical minority of highly active, middle to upper class, white women whose mother's had organized for the abolition of slavery and they moved on to demand Suffrage because they found it offensive that black men had the vote before white women.

Entire sections of conservative middle class women fought against Suffrage while working class women did not care a whit for it either way.

And the 1st Wave only succeeded because organized and politically active _men_ took up their mantle and forced it into the political discourse and passed it.

Men gave women the right to vote.

1st Wave Feminists were impressive women who primarily were arguing for full citizenship rights in a response to the jurisprudence surrounding the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and the effect it had on Southern Blacks before the end of Federal Reconstruction.

Today women claim to be "Feminists" because they think they are affiliating themselves with a group of powerful, independent, progressive, and tolerant women who fought for "equality for all," and triumphed due to their perseverance and refusal to let men hold them back.

Those Feminists exist only in the minds of modern women who want something to look up to.

The reality is considerable less politically correct and has more to do with men (primarily a faltering Democratic party rightly concerned it was about to be given the boot for another generation) than most women want to think about today.

Most 1st Wave Feminists were not driven by the "equality for all" rhetoric that is spouted as "the definition of Feminism" today.

Most were highly racist, middle to upper class, white women offended that black men could vote before them and were themselves utterly racist and dismissive of non-white individuals to the point that most modern liberals would find them repulsive.


----------



## T&T

technovelist said:


> Yes, when women couldn't vote, they got men to change that for them. What warriors!


too funny, tech.

Our Documents - 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women's Right to Vote (1920)


----------



## Constable Odo

Youngster said:


> I agree the young men need to show more backbone. Having said that, with all that women went through, how often were they called "potential rapists"?


You can't show backbone when the entire system is set to grind you into a pulp at any perceived -- whether justified or not -- misstep. All one has to do is look at how, in the case of Ferguson, MO, a cop's life was ruined when he justifiably defended himself against an attack from a member of a protected class. The media ground a narrative for weeks on their talking-head shows, devoid of facts, whipping people into a frenzy, and in the end, it turns out, he was exonerated based on the actual evidence.

Yet, having ultimately been proven to have done nothing wrong, where is he today?

So, if you want to poke your head out of the gopher hole, by all means, feel free to do so... just don't be surprised when you get a spike driven through it.




EnigmaGirl said:


> For instance, you can't call yourself a believer in civil rights if you think white people deserve more rights than black people.


can you call yourself a believer in civil rights if you support racial quotas and affirmative action?




Hardtohandle said:


> I don't give a fvck about the number..


I believe most men care about the number, at least, when its with a woman they are seeking a LTR or marriage. If you're just "having fun", then who cares what the number is, it's not like you're going to buy the milk when the cow is free, right?




Buddy400 said:


> An Alpha Male is described as belonging to the top 10% of men that women are attracted to (by whatever measure women are attracted to guys).


The Ladder Theory


----------



## Forest

Constable Odo said:


> can you call yourself a believer in civil rights if you support racial quotas and affirmative action?


Finally someone who can see that violating the rights of another to feel better is an improper, and self defeating exercise that leaves each side the poorer.


----------



## always_alone

Hmmmmm, what have I learned from reading this thread. Men don't marry women because they don't really like them. 

Women are simultaneously so powerful that they have rendered men's life meaningless, so much so that men no longer feel any need to participate in normal society, yet so impotent they cannot effect any change for the betterment of their own lives without the noblesse oblige of men.

Okay, I can live with that.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Why is this even an issue. If you ask women they get defensive and then admit they really don't care. Men and marriage are not on their radar. To me this is a bit of the old roasted ice. Women are unhappy no one wants them and then are unhappy that someone does. Men are unhappy that no one wants them too. Oh well, you all deserve one another. Buy a dog.


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> Most were highly racist, middle to upper class, white women offended that black men could vote before them and were themselves utterly racist and dismissive of non-white individuals to the point that most modern liberals would find them repulsive.


Could you provide some references for that? I have never heard this before.


----------



## lifeistooshort

It is true that many men went along with women getting the vote, but why did it take radicals for that to happen? Men had hundreds of years to cheerfully offer yet they didn't. 

This is often how social change works, it has very high levels of inertia. If men had handed this over out of the goodness of their hearts there would've been no need for radicals. Earlier womens suffrage supporters were locked up in loony bins, but when you make a stink it's not to affect the old guard. As the new generation comes up they are open to change. That seed has to be planted by someone otherwise things continue as they are.

The same thing happened with civil rights. If blacks hadn't marched and protested do you think whites would've cheerfully removed segregation and afforded blacks voting rights? Hardly, they had plenty of time for that but it wasn't until people started making a stink that changes happened.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Hmmmmm, what have I learned from reading this thread. Men don't marry women because they don't really like them.
> 
> *AA, I don’t see where you get the “men don’t really like women” from this thread. Sure, a couple seem angry at what they see as a women focused society and it’s bad effects on men (I think there’s some truth to this but even if you don’t think the anger is justified, I think it matters that a significant number of men feel this way. Just as it mattered in the 1950’s when a significant number of women were angry at what they saw was a man-focused society. Even if you don’t agree I think it’s a mistake to just dismiss it all out of hand). It seems like men really do like women and are pissed that they aren’t getting any despite their claimed intention to just live happily without them. *
> 
> Women are simultaneously so powerful that they have rendered men's life meaningless,
> 
> *Women do control access to sex. So, by that measure they have a lot of power. To a large degree men needed the lure of sex to buckle down and do all the things that women and society demanded of them as the price of obtaining sex (pathetic as that sounds, that’s the way it was).*
> 
> so much so that men no longer feel any need to participate in normal society,
> 
> *For many, without the prospect of sex there’s no need to knock themselves out when they could just play video games all day.*
> 
> Without the yet so impotent they cannot effect any change for the betterment of their own lives
> 
> *That’s true. They need to stop whining, better themselves and stop focusing on what women want. This is the better half of the MRA movement.*
> 
> without the noblesse oblige of men.
> *
> I think you meant women?*
> 
> Okay, I can live with that.
> 
> *So women can pat themselves on the back and say they won the “we’re better than you” game. However, I do think that women aren’t necessarily happier under the new rules and the same things causing some men to feel the way they do are responsible for many women being unhappy as well.*


----------



## Cletus

Constable Odo said:


> can you call yourself a believer in civil rights if you support racial quotas and affirmative action?


In a word, yes. But this thread isn't about that, so I defer.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy, can you point us to the "better half of the MRA movement"? Who are they? Where are they? What blogs or websites? This is an honest question.

I have never seen any MRA material that wasn't whiny, spiteful, vengeful, hateful and negative in tone. I would be happy to read about actual activism being done to help fathers and husbands and brothers and sons. Things like outreach to male victims of DV and rape, and equality for divorced dads. But whenever I read anything by any MRA, there is no activism there is only hateful, bitter blaming. Also, they only seem to care about the rights of straight, cis, white men. Minorities of any kind are usually bashed and mocked on MRA sites.

There are a lot of good articles at the Good Men Project that cover these topics without blaming and hateful rhetoric. So I do read there a lot. There are sometimes volunteer or activist opportunities written about there. But where else?


----------



## lifeistooshort

Hmm, so women control access to sex yet men aren't marrying because they can get all the sex they want without it. 

So either they aren't getting all this sex from women or women aren't controlling it very well.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Buddy, I'm afraid our worldviews cannot be reconciled.

What I was pointing to is that some men here are declaring simultaneously that society is female dominated, and that feminists have made men impotent AND that feminists are fooling themselves if they think they have any real power. All of what they have is thanks to men.

Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

And, I'm not buying the women control access to sex, therefore have power to make men "buckle down". Most of this thread has been about how easy it is for men to get sex without commitment. And how unnecessary anything but sex is for men.


----------



## Cletus

lifeistooshort said:


> So either they aren't getting all this sex from women or women aren't controlling it very well.


Ok, ladies. Break out those thigh-masters and work on your kegels. It's time to take back access control over your vaginas!


----------



## Runs like Dog

So what DOES equality look like. You're the one who's angry and bitter. What's next? '4 legs good 2 legs better'?


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Ok, ladies. Break out those thigh-masters and work on your kegels. It's time to take back access control over your vaginas!


What's really fun is that we are "supposed" to do this, to make us desirable/worthy, but then get criticized for having all the power.

And if we don't do this, life is good because men can get "milk", without buying the "cow," but we are of course, no longer worth having.

:scratchhead:


----------



## Mr The Other

Icey181 said:


> This is what I find most interesting about the whole mythologization of 1st Wave Feminism.
> 
> These women were essentially a radical minority of highly active, middle to upper class, white women whose mother's had organized for the abolition of slavery and they moved on to demand Suffrage because they found it offensive that black men had the vote before white women.
> 
> Entire sections of conservative middle class women fought against Suffrage while working class women did not care a whit for it either way.
> 
> And the 1st Wave only succeeded because organized and politically active _men_ took up their mantle and forced it into the political discourse and passed it.
> 
> Men gave women the right to vote.
> 
> 1st Wave Feminists were impressive women who primarily were arguing for full citizenship rights in a response to the jurisprudence surrounding the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and the effect it had on Southern Blacks before the end of Federal Reconstruction.
> 
> Today women claim to be "Feminists" because they think they are affiliating themselves with a group of powerful, independent, progressive, and tolerant women who fought for "equality for all," and triumphed due to their perseverance and refusal to let men hold them back.
> 
> Those Feminists exist only in the minds of modern women who want something to look up to.
> 
> The reality is considerable less politically correct and has more to do with men (primarily a faltering Democratic party rightly concerned it was about to be given the boot for another generation) than most women want to think about today.
> 
> Most 1st Wave Feminists were not driven by the "equality for all" rhetoric that is spouted as "the definition of Feminism" today.
> 
> Most were highly racist, middle to upper class, white women offended that black men could vote before them and were themselves utterly racist and dismissive of non-white individuals to the point that most modern liberals would find them repulsive.


I agree with pretty much everything you write. However, my conclusion is more generous. 

Readying Virginia Woolf is a depressing experience. She holds herself in very high regards as an educated and higher class woman. She furies against a society that does not provide her with the resources she is entitled to as an upper class person and would have if she were an upper class man.

Clearly, she had no concern for anyone, male or female who was not higher class. However, this is not unusual. Gandhi did not prioritize the very evident needs of the Dalit in India and his work in South Africa was for Hindus to in South Africa to have equal rights with the whites and equally more than blacks.

Winston Churchill's faults are so numerous it is remarkable that in the UK he is considered a great man by left and right alike. But he is.

People have some vision and courage. However, they are still products of their time and prejudices of their societies. If we are to recognise greatness in people, we have to accept it will be mixed up with human neuroses and weaknesses. That they manage to do worthwhile stuff even with the weakness is what makes it impressive.


----------



## Buddy400

Personal said:


> Men likewise also control access to sex, seriously women enjoy and want sex as well yet they don't always get it with who they want and or when they want either.
> 
> "Why won't you have sex with me?"
> 
> "Aren't I attractive enough for you?"
> 
> "C'mon just say yes, you know you want to!"
> 
> "Why didn't you take me, you knew I wanted you to?"
> 
> "Why won't you f**k me, are you gay?"
> 
> "Why don't you want to, I want you to be my first?"
> 
> ........etc.
> 
> Just some of the things some women have said to me when I turned them down, when they wanted to have sex with me and I didn't feel the same way or was otherwise already taken.


Personal,

We all know that women throw themselves at you for sex on a regular basis.

That could mean that you are an Alpha Male (and, therefore your experience is not that of the other 90%) or that you’re atypical. A 5 foot 3 inch guy was an excellent basketball player, but that doesn’t mean that size doesn’t matter in the NBA.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Buddy, can you point us to the "better half of the MRA movement"? Who are they? Where are they? What blogs or websites? This is an honest question.
> 
> I have never seen any MRA material that wasn't whiny, spiteful, vengeful, hateful and negative in tone. I would be happy to read about actual activism being done to help fathers and husbands and brothers and sons. Things like outreach to male victims of DV and rape, and equality for divorced dads. But whenever I read anything by any MRA, there is no activism there is only hateful, bitter blaming. Also, they only seem to care about the rights of straight, cis, white men. Minorities of any kind are usually bashed and mocked on MRA sites.
> 
> There are a lot of good articles at the Good Men Project that cover these topics without blaming and hateful rhetoric. So I do read there a lot. There are sometimes volunteer or activist opportunities written about there. But where else?


I don’t read any MRA sites. My only impressions of the movement are from what I read here. 

I’ve seen lot’s of references to male self improvement here from what I’ve taken to be MRA advocates.

If it’s not from MRA, then it’s from somewhere else.


----------



## RoseAglow

Mr The Other said:


> I agree with pretty much everything you write. However, my conclusion is more generous.
> 
> Readying Virginia Woolf is a depressing experience. She holds herself in very high regards as an educated and higher class woman. She furies against a society that does not provide her with the resources she is entitled to as an upper class person and would have if she were an upper class man.
> 
> Clearly, she had no concern for anyone, male or female who was not higher class. However, this is not unusual. Gandhi did not prioritize the very evident needs of the Dalit in India and his work in South Africa was for Hindus to in South Africa to have equal rights with the whites and equally more than blacks.
> 
> Winston Churchill's faults are so numerous it is remarkable that in the UK he is considered a great man by left and right alike. But he is.
> 
> People have some vision and courage. However, they are still products of their time and prejudices of their societies. If we are to recognise greatness in people, we have to accept it will be mixed up with human neuroses and weaknesses. That they manage to do worthwhile stuff even with the weakness is what makes it impressive.


:iagree:

Here is a cool timeline of voting rights in the US: 
http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/education/digitalmedia/us-voting-rights-timeline.pdf

Here is a timeline of when women got the right to vote world-wide:
Timeline of Women?s Suffrage Granted, by Country

"Equality for All" was not a possibility in the late 1800s/early 1900s in the US. People were battling for all kinds of citizenship rights. "Equality" is like any other social construct: it is evolving.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Personal,
> 
> We all know that women throw themselves at you for sex on a regular basis.
> 
> That could mean that you are an Alpha Male (and, therefore your experience is not that of the other 90%) or that you’re atypical. A 5 foot 3 inch guy was an excellent basketball player, but that doesn’t mean that size doesn’t matter in the NBA.


So you really think it is so rare to find a man who women actually want to have sex with?

Really, it isn't rare. I promise you. Women throw themselves at men all the time. And not just the top 10% alpha males some of you guys believe it happens to.

Some of you guys create a divide amongst yourselves with that polarized thinking about your own gender. 

Personal is a good man, is attractive but not George Clooney, is intelligent, and he doesn't hate or fear women. That's why women have wanted sex with him throughout his life. 

This doesn't mean all women want to have sex with him, either. It doesn't work like that. What happens is that when a man is comfortable in himself, he is a good man and doesn't hate women, and he is in places where women are, the women who are attracted to him will notice him, seek him out, and show obvious interest.

This actually IS the advice all the PUA blogs give, too. So why is it so hard to believe that it actually works?


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> Hmm, so women control access to sex yet men aren't marrying because they can get all the sex they want without it.
> 
> So either they aren't getting all this sex from women or women aren't controlling it very well.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, the idea that women control access to sex (though they seem to be using that control less lately), is not unique to me. It's pretty much accepted by a lot of mainstream people (i.e. HookingUpSmart comes to mind). Doesn't mean they're right, but it's far from an extreme opinion.

The theory is that the men that can get all the sex they want don't need to marry and that the men that can't get sex don't have the opportunity to marry. So, they're both true, just for different groups of men. Women who control access to sex control who they give that access to. The idea is that they give that access to the top males.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I don’t read any MRA sites. My only impressions of the movement are from what I read here.
> 
> I’ve seen lot’s of references to male self improvement here from what I’ve taken to be MRA advocates.
> 
> If it’s not from MRA, then it’s from somewhere else.


Ok well if you haven't read any of the actual MRA blogs, then maybe you don't understand why the hatred and racism and talk about rape actually disturb me so much, and why anyone who is spouting MRA rhetoric automatically gets put in a suspect box by me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> The idea is that they give that access to the top males.


This is an idea that jilted men came up with.

It is not true and never has been.

Women love men of every type, shape, size, flavor and personality.

If you guys could stop telling yourselves this myth, you could learn a lot and lose a lot of bitterness (not saying you personally).


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> Could you provide some references for that? I have never heard this before.


If you are so inclined I would suggest you do some reading on the history of the Eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th century and its ties to the early women's movement.

Margaret Sanger was particularly concerned with eradicating the "***** population" via selective employment of birth control against them as well as the lower classes.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was particularly annoyed at the notion that non-whites could receive the vote before women could, opposed the 14th and 15th Amendments on those grounds, and would often head into racist diatribes about how the new voters (that would be black men) needed to be offset by white women in order to prevent any serious damage to American politics and society.

And it goes on.

It is not a mistake that the early Feminist movements created massive racial divides which prioritized middle and upper class educated white women and seemed to cause fissures with the Civil Rights movement which persist to this day.

The rosey "Feminists were all about equality for all!" is rhetorical myth fashioned at some point during the rise of 2nd Wave Feminism to help legitimize assaults on traditional marriage and opposition to abortion.

Sit down and read _Woman, Morality, and Birth Control_, by Sanger if you want an insight into the mind of one of the most influential 1st Wave Feminists in American history.

It is an interesting experience.


----------



## Youngster

So I have a topic that is related to the original subject I thought I’d throw out there;

Collectively I think we’ve identified a lot of reasons why men aren’t getting married, particularly young men. Tell me how would you change this dynamic? How would you get young men re-engaged?

My thoughts;

1. Men need an organization like NOW or the NRA. An organization that advocates for men’s rights. One that calls out politicians and the media. When NOW calls all men “potential rapists”, there needs to be a group that responds and says “yes, and all women are potential pedophiles”. It needs to be an organization with money, power and attitude.
2.	Affirmative action needs to be put to an end. Jobs, college admissions, every organization in this country need to become blind when it comes to race, religion and gender.
3.	We need to find a way to stop the hook-up culture. It serves neither men’s nor women’s long term interests.
4.	Legislation needs to be passed in Washington (so it applies nationally) addressing divorce and the separation of finances following a divorce. Assets held before a marriage and the amount of money each spouse contributes to the household over the course of the marriage needs to be taken into account. Alimony needs to become a relic of the past.
5.	Similarly, once a couple separates/divorces child custody needs to become 50/50 by law. You don’t want the kids 50% of the time? Tough crap, you shouldn’t have had them in the first place. Along with custody, child support needs to be addressed by law nationally.
6.	Mandatory DNA testing for all children born in the US at birth. If the child is not yours biologically, then they aren’t your financial responsibility unless the male goes through a formal adoption process.

Tell me what else am I missing or what would you add?


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Buddy, I'm afraid our worldviews cannot be reconciled.
> 
> What I was pointing to is that some men here are declaring simultaneously that society is female dominated,
> 
> *Well, they think that current public policy is heavily in favor of the interests of radical feminists. I don't think that's too off base since the movement does have a lot of influence in the Democratic Party (not that there's anything wrong with that, other groups have a lot of influence in the Republican Party)*
> 
> and that feminists have made men impotent
> 
> *Yeah, that's just whining. Power is taken, not asked for.*
> 
> AND that feminists are fooling themselves if they think they have any real power. All of what they have is thanks to men.
> 
> *I think you're over thinking Icey's comment. But even so, that was just one commenter. It looks like you take ALL of the opposing comments as a whole, not differentiating between individuals. We can all be on the other side, yet have differences among ourselves.*
> 
> Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.
> 
> And, I'm not buying the women control access to sex, therefore have power to make men "buckle down".
> 
> *This is where we have the most significant difference in world view. As mentioned before the idea that women control access to sex is not an outlier. The promise of sex as an incentive for men to buckle down is also widely held (although it doesn't say much for men if it's true).*
> 
> Most of this thread has been about how easy it is for men to get sex without commitment.
> 
> *Some men.*
> 
> And how unnecessary anything but sex is for men.
> 
> *I know this disappoints you about men. There are several things about women that disappoint me. However, it is what it is. Not what we'd prefer it to be.*


----------



## Icey181

lifeistooshort said:


> It is true that many men went along with women getting the vote, but why did it take radicals for that to happen? Men had hundreds of years to cheerfully offer yet they didn't.


Allow me, as an American historian, to be blunt.

It is not a coincidence that a sudden movement to enfranchise women was launched in the aftermath of the enfranchisement of millions of former-slaves after the Civil War.



lifeistooshort said:


> This is often how social change works, it has very high levels of inertia. If men had handed this over out of the goodness of their hearts there would've been no need for radicals. Earlier womens suffrage supporters were locked up in loony bins, but when you make a stink it's not to affect the old guard. As the new generation comes up they are open to change. That seed has to be planted by someone otherwise things continue as they are.


The activists of the 1st Wave created the rhetoric, altered the discourse, and made it an increasingly growing issue.

And they were repeatedly defeated in their attempts to gain suffrage over the course of 40-years.

It was not until women's dedication to the war effort during 1917-1919 that major points of view of women's role in society shifted and support for Suffrage expanded beyond a small group of loud and active political idealists.

As much as I see the 1st Wave Feminists as a positive influence on political discourse in the United States, Suffrage was as much, if not more so, the product of America rewarding the sacrifices of an entire generation of women during a time of war.



lifeistooshort said:


> The same thing happened with civil rights. If blacks hadn't marched and protested do you think whites would've cheerfully removed segregation and afforded blacks voting rights? Hardly, they had plenty of time for that but it wasn't until people started making a stink that changes happened.


The Civil Rights movement worked because it managed to garner attention from the bulk of the American populace.

And again, as brave and courageous as the Civil Rights activists were, their movement was nothing without the support of the White Majority and the endorsement of President Johnson.

Major social movements like these are considerably more complex than the average American gives them credit for and owe considerably more to the run-of-the-mill average voting white person than most Identity Politics people are comfortable with conceding.


----------



## Lila

@Youngster, I didn't get involved in this thread earlier because I just don't see this epidemic you and some of the others see regarding men and marriage. My H, an engineer also, doesn't see it either. He manages a staff of about 20 engineers, all men, and all but 4 under the age of 35. They are all U.S. raised but from different cultural backgrounds, races, and sexual orientation. What he's seen is that many of these intelligent and well educated young men have very defined immediate and intermediate life goals that they tend to meet around the same age (30-32) before hitting what he calls "the wall of discontent". This is when they meet their intermediate professional goals after graduation, things have slowed down socially (no more wild parties), and they start to question the future (what will be their legacy?). H says it never fails and it's the running joke in his department. They all know these guys are going to start looking for someone to settle down with as soon as they start complaining about the "bar" scene. 

Seriously, there is no epidemic. You sound like Chicken Little with all of this apocalyptic talk. No, society will not cease to exist just because men and women are waiting until later in life to get married and/or settle down to a family life.


----------



## Cletus

Youngster said:


> Tell me what else am I missing or what would you add?


Before I'm willing to discuss what measures are necessary to re-engage young men as potential marriage partners, I first need to be convinced that it's a social goal worth that level of effort.


----------



## Lila

Youngster said:


> 3.	*We need to find a way to stop the hook-up culture. It serves neither men’s nor women’s long term interests.*



:rofl: I would love to see how anyone is going to stop young, virile, horny, consenting adults from having sex with each other.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Allow me, as an American historian, to be blunt.
> 
> It is not a coincidence that a sudden movement to enfranchise women was launched in the aftermath of the enfranchisement of millions of former-slaves after the Civil War.


Women's movements for suffrage predates this in other parts of the world. Not everything about the history of feminism relates to the personalities, time period, or nation that you refer to here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lila said:


> :rofl: I would love to see how anyone is going to stop young, virile, horny, consenting adults from having sex with each other.


It really isn't any different from past generations. Young, unmarried people just used to have to hide their sexual activities better. They would run off behind the barn or where ever they could get to.

It is far more healthy to do it openly, use protection, and be honest about their intentions (ie: if this is sex just for sex's sake, then say so, don't pretend you are trying to get to know someone or date them).

Some people will choose to remain celibate even though the opportunity is there, and these people should be free to make that choice, too.

Having sex is not illegal, people. And is the most natural urge and drive of all.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> And how unnecessary anything but sex is for men.
> 
> I know this disappoints you about men. There are several things about women that disappoint me. However, it is what it is. Not what we'd prefer it to be.


See, that's where we differ. I don't think "it is what it is". I think that's how you (and some others) perceive it to be. Some men actually do care about more than sex, and want to develop and maintain loving relationships.

Just as I think that what disappoints you about women only applies to some women.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> See, that's where we differ. I don't think "it is what it is". I think that's how you (and some others) perceive it to be. Some men actually do care about more than sex, and want to develop and maintain loving relationships.
> 
> Just as I think that what disappoints you about women only applies to some women.


One can care about BOTH or EITHER in different circumstances with different people.


----------



## Truthseeker1

always_alone said:


> See, that's where we differ. I don't think "it is what it is". I think that's how you (and some others) perceive it to be. Some men actually do care about more than sex, and want to develop and maintain loving relationships.
> 
> *Just as I think that what disappoints you about women only applies to some women.*


:iagree: I think when people have a bad experience or a few of them they can become despondent. They see the world through their bad experiences, their focus has been messed up by not so nice people. This does not only apply to dating.


----------



## Youngster

Lila said:


> @Youngster, I didn't get involved in this thread earlier because I just don't see this epidemic you and some of the others see regarding men and marriage. My H, an engineer also, doesn't see it either. He manages a staff of about 20 engineers, all men, and all but 4 under the age of 35. They are all U.S. raised but from different cultural backgrounds, races, and sexual orientation. What he's seen is that many of these intelligent and well educated young men is that they all have very defined immediate and intermediate life goals that they tend to meet around the same age (30-32) before hitting what he calls "the wall of discontent". This is when they meet their intermediate professional goals after graduation, things have slowed down socially (no more wild parties), and they start to question the future (what will be their legacy?). H says it never fails and it's the running joke in his department. They all know these guys are going to start looking for someone to settle down with as soon as they start complaining about the "bar" scene.
> 
> Seriously, there is no epidemic. You sound like Chicken Little with all of this apocalyptic talk. No, society will not cease to exist just because men and women are waiting until later in life to get married and/or settle down to a family life.


That's some great feedback you have, I guess I have a vastly different perspective in speaking with the young men I work with. 

According to the Pew Research Center;

Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center

You are incorrect by saying that men and women are only waiting longer to get married. Men and women aren't just waiting longer to get married, they're choosing not to get married at all. If you follow the link you'll see that in 2012 *23% of men over the age of 25 have never been married*. That's nearly 1 in 4. If you look at the trajectory of the graph it's happening at an increasing rate as well. If the trends continue *by 2020 almost 30% of men over the 25 will have never been married*.

Think about how bad statistically marriage must be in the younger generation to have such a large impact on the overall rate. Any older folks who have ever been married have no impact on changing the rate over time(unless they pass away).

If you're an advocate of marriage I'm not sure how you can say the sky isn't falling. If your under 50, there's a good chance that by the time you die people who have ever been married will be a minority in America. Think about this; I'm not saying people who ARE married will be a minority I'm saying people who have EVER been married will be a minority.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> Women's movements for suffrage predates this in other parts of the world. Not everything about the history of feminism relates to the personalities, time period, or nation that you refer to here.


And if British or French feminists were actually related in any way to this discussion, I would bring them up. 

They are not.

This discussion is about American mores and the influence that _American_ political discourse and socio-cultural movements have had on men.

I get it, you do not like that the historical reality of Feminism is not the pristine myth of "Crusaders for Equality" that you want them to be.

That does not change that Stanton was a racist, that Sanger wanted to eradicate the ***** population and utilize birth control to restrict the number of children working class women could get, or that none of their activism amounted to major national changes until after WWI and the Republican and Democratic parties attempted to garner support from a new voting base.

Also, for the record, British women did not receive universal suffrage until _1928_. French Women did not see it until _1944_.

In fact most of the democratic nations (perhaps all) awarded Suffrage to women at best a decade after American women gained the vote.

Some did not happen until the mid to late 20th century.


----------



## Youngster

Cletus said:


> Before I'm willing to discuss what measures are necessary to re-engage young men as potential marriage partners, I first need to be convinced that it's a social goal worth that level of effort.


I think men, women and children all do better from marriage. In the other thread someone posted death rates for married/unmarried men and women. I know children really lose out when they come from unmarried households. 

Someone must have some good statistics somewhere concerning men/women/children from married/divorced(or single parent)/cohabitation households.


----------



## Youngster

Faithful Wife said:


> It really isn't any different from past generations. Young, unmarried people just used to have to hide their sexual activities better. They would run off behind the barn or where ever they could get to.
> 
> It is far more healthy to do it openly, use protection, and be honest about their intentions (ie: *if this is sex just for sex's sake, then say so, don't pretend you are trying to get to know someone or date them*).
> 
> Some people will choose to remain celibate even though the opportunity is there, and these people should be free to make that choice, too.
> 
> Having sex is not illegal, people. And is the most natural urge and drive of all.


I think the bolded above is a lot of the problems with the hook up culture. I think it's more beneficial for men and women to practice serial monogamy rather than sleep with the best thing you can find because it's Saturday night.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Youngster said:


> I think the bolded above is a lot of the problems with the hook up culture. I think it's more beneficial for men and women to practice serial monogamy _rather than sleep with the best thing you can find because it's Saturday night_.


Good thing there are a whole host of options besides those two to choose from!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Youngster said:


> I think the bolded above is a lot of the problems with the hook up culture. I think it's more beneficial for men and women to practice serial monogamy rather than sleep with the best thing you can find because it's Saturday night.


This is just your opinion though. Do you think your opinion is more "right" than anyone else's?


----------



## Cletus

Youngster said:


> I think men, women and children all do better from marriage. In the other thread someone posted death rates for married/unmarried men and women. I know children really lose out when they come from unmarried households.
> 
> Someone must have some good statistics somewhere concerning men/women/children from married/divorced(or single parent)/cohabitation households.


The problem with all of the stats is that they are purely correlational. Which means they might be right, but until we start assigning children randomly to dual-parent and single-parent families, it's hard to know just why. 

Just like the death rate numbers. Maybe marriage increases your longevity. Or just maybe something about longevity makes you better long term marriage material. It's almost impossible to answer these questions on social issues because running the necessary experiments is immoral. 

We may also simply be in a transitional phase where the old style family unit and the new style replacing it are causing societal friction that's affecting outcomes. I highly doubt that our hominid ancestors were single-pair bonded for life, yet the species managed to dominate the planet nonetheless. 

Realize that I'm just arguing these issues intellectually, and that as a father, I considered it my duty to provide for my children while my wife stayed home and raised them. But that was my choice, and I'm not sure imposing it on a group that doesn't value that choice as much as did I will have the desired effect.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> This is an idea that jilted men came up with.
> 
> It is not true and never has been.
> 
> Women love men of every type, shape, size, flavor and personality.
> 
> If you guys could stop telling yourselves this myth, you could learn a lot and lose a lot of bitterness (not saying you personally).


FW,

We’ve been round and round about this before. But I’ll give one last go at explaining why I (and lots of others) believe this.

The nature of the world is that if something is widely desired and takes some difficulty to obtain, some people will get more of it than others. If most people desire good looking mates, some will get them and other will not (assuming one mate per person). If most people want money, some will get more than others. If most people want sex with attractive people (attractive meaning whatever qualities cause attraction), then some people will get more than others. If there are 10 spaces on the first tourist trip to the moon, only 10 people will get those spaces, regardless of how many want them. There is no possible way that more than 10 people can go no matter how qualified the applicants. No matter what, only half the people can be above average.

I believe that women are more selective than men about who they are eager to have sex with. So, let’s say that woman want to have sex with the top x%. Any successful effort on a man’s part to enter that percentile will simply knock some other man out of the top x%. So, while any one man can increase his chances of obtaining sex, it can only come at the cost of another man. Now, obviously, the top x% will vary from woman to woman. Now the category of overweight, gray haired guys with glasses (the category to which I belong) will, oddly enough, be in some woman’s (my wife’s) top x% but there no way that I belong in as many women’s top x% as Mr. Tall, Dark and Handsome belongs to.

Now, this is all based on the assumption that woman are choosier than men when it comes to sex. If you disagree on this (and I suspect you might), then it’s really not worth us talking to each other about this since we aren’t starting with the same set of assumptions. I’m pretty sure that most people would agree with me but I can’t prove it and don’t really care enough to go to the trouble to try to convince anyone that I’m right.

To the degree that every man has the ability to attain qualities that will increase his opportunities to have sex with more women, that’s true. And, if that’s his goal, then that’s what he should do.


----------



## Youngster

Faithful Wife said:


> This is just your opinion though. Do you think your opinion is more "right" than anyone else's?


Well, if we didn't have and express our opinions, TAM wouldn't really amount to much would it?

What do YOU think about the hookup culture. Is it good, is it bad?

I think if a lot of men and women are sleeping around with different partners that's not necessarily a good thing. 

Tell me, when would you think someone's number is too high? 50? 100? 500?


----------



## Cletus

Youngster said:


> Tell me, when would you think someone's number is too high? 50? 100? 500?


A person's number is too high when that person believes it to be too high. Nothing else matters, except perhaps the opinions of the mates he or she is trying to attract.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Youngster said:


> Tell me, when would you think someone's number is too high? 50? 100? 500?


I wouldn't think anything about a person's number at all, because I don't judge people based on who they have sex with. It has nothing to do with me.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> So you really think it is so rare to find a man who women actually want to have sex with?
> 
> Really, it isn't rare. I promise you. Women throw themselves at men all the time. And not just the top 10% alpha males some of you guys believe it happens to.
> 
> Some of you guys create a divide amongst yourselves with that polarized thinking about your own gender.
> 
> Personal is a good man, is attractive but not George Clooney, is intelligent, and he doesn't hate or fear women. That's why women have wanted sex with him throughout his life.
> 
> This doesn't mean all women want to have sex with him, either. It doesn't work like that. What happens is that when a man is comfortable in himself, he is a good man and doesn't hate women, and he is in places where women are, the women who are attracted to him will notice him, seek him out, and show obvious interest.
> 
> This actually IS the advice all the PUA blogs give, too. So why is it so hard to believe that it actually works?


actually, that would be my definition of alpha, the 10% who women drop their drawers for, with little or no effort. And my guess is most of that group would fit the PUA alpha stereotype.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> The nature of the world is that if something is widely desired and takes some difficulty to obtain, some people will get more of it than others....


I guess we won't be able to see each other's POV at all, because you lost me when trying to ascertain your opinion about "the nature of the world" as if it is a fact.

I have my own opinions about the nature of things and how and why they occur and how and why some people get the things they want and some don't.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Youngster said:


> Well, if we didn't have and express our opinions, TAM wouldn't really amount to much would it?
> 
> What do YOU think about the hookup culture. Is it good, is it bad?


For my part, I am not even sure what the "hook up culture" is. I know so few young people just getting it on with near strangers, though doing so once in a while is not a bad thing if adequate safety considerations are made. I DO think that the freedom to date and engage sexually outside of marriage is better than years past when one basically had to be married or risk pregnancy out of wedlock and that (supposedly) horrible shame. I remember one friend of mine growing up who said she would rather be dead than have her daughter come home pregnant. I thought, yah, that is putting things into proper proportions!

I think that there is such a whole range of good sexual relationship. I think that the focus on "getting" sex vs getting married is completely myopic. LIVE life, LEARN from it. And don't let it beat you up on the way. 




> I think if a lot of men and women are sleeping around with different partners that's not necessarily a good thing.


Why not? You have repeated that a number of times in this thread. It would be interesting for you to elaborate the why.
Tell me, when would you think someone's number is too high? 


> 50? 100? 500?


Does the number matter compared to the quality and the mentally healthy nature of the person at the end of the day?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I guess we won't be able to see each other's POV at all, because you lost me when trying to ascertain your opinion about "the nature of the world" as if it is a fact.


Ayuh. I figured I would take a pass at that one. Seems you picked it up.


----------



## Lila

Youngster said:


> That's some great feedback you have, I guess I have a vastly different perspective in speaking with the young men I work with.
> 
> According to the Pew Research Center;
> 
> Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center
> 
> You are incorrect by saying that men and women are only waiting longer to get married. Men and women aren't just waiting longer to get married, they're choosing not to get married at all. If you follow the link you'll see that in 2012 *23% of men over the age of 25 have never been married*. That's nearly 1 in 4. If you look at the trajectory of the graph it's happening at an increasing rate as well. If the trends continue *by 2020 almost 30% of men over the 25 will have never been married*.
> 
> Think about how bad statistically marriage must be in the younger generation to have such a large impact on the overall rate. Any older folks who have ever been married have no impact on changing the rate over time(unless they pass away).


As has been stated before, these statistics are skewed in that they don't take into account the non-heterosexual community. It should be interesting to see how the legalization of gay marriages in the U.S. impacts these statistics. 



Youngster said:


> If you're an advocate of marriage I'm not sure how you can say the sky isn't falling. If your under 50, there's a good chance that by the time you die people who have ever been married will be a minority in America. Think about this; I'm not saying people who ARE married will be a minority I'm saying people who have EVER been married will be a minority.


This isn't a matter of concern for me because those that wish to get married, will find a way to do it. Those that don't, won't. 

I don't think people should be peer pressured into marriage as a symbolic show of their devotion to their partner. As @Faithful Wife inferred, let young people make up their own minds on how they choose to show commitment to each other.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> [MENTION=155274]Seriously, there is no epidemic. You sound like Chicken Little with all of this apocalyptic talk. No, society will not cease to exist just because men and women are waiting until later in life to get married and/or settle down to a family life.


If a lot of people think there's an epidemic, it's probably worth considering.


----------



## Youngster

Cletus said:


> The problem with all of the stats is that they are purely correlational. Which means they might be right, but until we start assigning children randomly to dual-parent and single-parent families, it's hard to know just why.
> 
> Just like the death rate numbers. Maybe marriage increases your longevity. Or just maybe something about longevity makes you better long term marriage material. It's almost impossible to answer these questions on social issues because running the necessary experiments is immoral.
> 
> We may also simply be in a transitional phase where the old style family unit and the new style replacing it are causing societal friction that's affecting outcomes. I highly doubt that our hominid ancestors were single-pair bonded for life, yet the species managed to dominate the planet nonetheless.
> 
> Realize that I'm just arguing these issues intellectually, and that as a father, I considered it my duty to provide for my children while my wife stayed home and raised them. But that was my choice, and I'm not sure imposing it on a group that doesn't value that choice as much as did I will have the desired effect.


I agree with a lot of what you're saying. 

IMHO I think marriage is a good thing...I might be right and I might be wrong. Maybe cohabitation is the new normal. What worries me is that marriage rates are dropping drastically and no one knows if it's a good thing or not. Another important point is why are marriage rates dropping? 

At the start of this thread I surmised that marriage rates are dropping because young men feel disenfranchised. If that's true then I think that's a bad thing....something that will begin to impact other areas of society.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Youngster said:


> I agree with a lot of what you're saying.
> 
> IMHO I think marriage is a good thing...I might be right and I might be wrong.


I think you would be neither. Marriage, by itself, is nothing. It is a legal arrangement or a religiously sanctioned thing. Marriage between the right two people is better than a good thing. Marriage between the wrong two people is a totally awful thing. Nothing can be said of "marriage" without the consideration of the PEOPLE in it.




> Maybe cohabitation is the new normal. What worries me is that marriage rates are dropping drastically and no one knows if it's a good thing or not.


Good for whom? 



> Another important point is why are marriage rates dropping?
> 
> 
> 
> At the start of this thread I surmised that marriage rates are dropping because young men feel disenfranchised. If that's true then I think that's a bad thing....something that will begin to impact other areas of society.


Why is that a bad thing? If an institution or organization is disenfranchising its "members", then they SHOULDN'T join. What is the problem? I am not seeing it.


----------



## Youngster

NobodySpecial said:


> For my part, I am not even sure what the "hook up culture" is. I know so few young people just getting it on with near strangers, though doing so once in a while is not a bad thing if adequate safety considerations are made. I DO think that the freedom to date and engage sexually outside of marriage is better than years past when one basically had to be married or risk pregnancy out of wedlock and that (supposedly) horrible shame. I remember one friend of mine growing up who said she would rather be dead than have her daughter come home pregnant. I thought, yah, that is putting things into proper proportions!
> 
> I think that there is such a whole range of good sexual relationship. I think that the focus on "getting" sex vs getting married is completely myopic. LIVE life, LEARN from it. And don't let it beat you up on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? You have repeated that a number of times in this thread. It would be interesting for you to elaborate the why.
> Tell me, when would you think someone's number is too high?
> 
> 
> Does the number matter compared to the quality and the mentally healthy nature of the person at the end of the day?


Earlier in the thread someone posted statistics indicating a significant correlation between number of sexual partners and infidelity after marriage so there's one.

Certainly the higher one's number the more chances there are for STD's.

It took me 10 seconds to find this.....more sexual partners=less happy in marriage;

New Study Claims People Who've Had More Sexual Partners Report Unhappier Marriages

I could keep going........


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> See, that's where we differ. I don't think "it is what it is". I think that's how you (and some others) perceive it to be. Some men actually do care about more than sex, and want to develop and maintain loving relationships.
> 
> Just as I think that what disappoints you about women only applies to some women.


We always have the same specific vs. general problem. I’ve got to come up with a text editor that always inserts “many” in front of “men” or “women”.

I, as an example, care about more than sex and I want to develop and maintain a loving relationship. However, don’t let that fool you into thinking that sex isn’t very important to me.

In general, I believe that the importance that men in general place on sex disappoints you. However, I think you’re blowing it up out of proportion (as you, no doubt, think men here are blowing things about women out of proportion).

And, you’re right. Those things that disappoint me about women in general don’t apply to some women (including, most importantly, my wife and daughter).


----------



## NobodySpecial

Youngster said:


> Earlier in the thread someone posted statistics indicating a significant correlation between number of sexual partners and infidelity after marriage so there's one.
> 
> Certainly the higher one's number the more chances there are for STD's.
> 
> It took me 10 seconds to find this.....more sexual partners=less happy in marriage;
> 
> New Study Claims People Who've Had More Sexual Partners Report Unhappier Marriages
> 
> I could keep going........


Life <> statistics. I may choose what bridge to drive on based on how many failures it has had. But it makes WAY more sense in interpersonal relationships to look at the PEOPLE involved. But that is scary. And requires people to make bonds and connections. And bonds and connections risk pain. It is WAY easier to focus behaviors and their correlation studies. Which mean exactly nothing.


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> If a lot of people think there's an epidemic, it's probably worth considering.


Why? Genuinely curious. 

What's the scholarly thinking on this matter? 

Where do the anthropologists and scientists (not the politicians) stand on this issue? 

Do they feel that co-habitation vs. marriage may lead to a collapse in our society? 

People have quoted many statistics but no one has posted a scientific journal study or report from a legitimate source stating that this is a foreseeable problem in the future. If you or anyone else has a source, could you post it so that I can understand the concern?


----------



## Youngster

Faithful Wife said:


> I wouldn't think anything about a person's number at all, because I don't judge people based on who they have sex with. It has nothing to do with me.


You don't care now, what about when you were looking to marry? 

If my wife had told me her number was 100 it would have been an issue. It's been said throughout the thread a high number is an issue for most men.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> Life <> statistics. I may choose what bridge to drive on based on how many failures it has had. But it makes WAY more sense in interpersonal relationships to look at the PEOPLE involved. But that is scary. And requires people to make bonds and connections. And bonds and connections risk pain. It is WAY easier to focus behaviors and their correlation studies. Which mean exactly nothing.


actually, statistics can be used to predict life. If you want a long and happy marriage, marrying the town sl*t probably is not a wise choice, as probability says it will likely end in D. To deny this is to deny science....


----------



## Lila

naiveonedave said:


> actually, statistics can be used to predict life. If you want a long and happy marriage, marrying the town sl*t probably is not a wise choice, as probability says it will likely end in D. *To deny this is to deny science....*


What "science" do you speak of Dave? Could you direct me to a legitimate published study where they studied the length and happiness of a marriage vs. the number of partners?


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I guess we won't be able to see each other's POV at all, because you lost me when trying to ascertain your opinion about "the nature of the world" as if it is a fact.
> 
> I have my own opinions about the nature of things and how and why they occur and how and why some people get the things they want and some don't.


Well, I did make the assumption that we could start with basic economic principles......

So we're as far away from each other as can be.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> actually, statistics can be used to predict life. If you want a long and happy marriage, marrying the town sl*t probably is not a wise choice, as probability says it will likely end in D. To deny this is to deny science....


There are so many better reasons than statistics not to marry a town sl*t. Or the player jock. There are so few reasons TO marry either of these people.

Statistics cannot PREDICT life, or your journey through life. It feels like a life vest but it is not. What about all the guys who said they "did everything right"? And are now divorced? Their wife did not think they did everything right. But they were living by the right rule book written based on statistics! And married a gold digger instead of a sl^t.


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> What "science" do you speak of Dave? Could you direct me to a legitimate published study where they studied the length and happiness of a marriage vs. the number of partners?


read the research, many partners = high probability of cheating on you. It is just simple math.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> Statistics cannot PREDICT life, or your journey through life. It feels like a life vest but it is not. What about all the guys who said they "did everything right"? And are now divorced? Their wife did not think they did everything right. But they were living by the right rule book written based on statistics! And married a gold digger instead of a sl^t.


bullcr*p that is what statistics are for. To help you understand the chances of decisions you make. You don't spend your whole paycheck on the lottery, because the statistics tell you it is a cr*ppy investment.


----------



## Youngster

NobodySpecial said:


> I think you would be neither. Marriage, by itself, is nothing. It is a legal arrangement or a religiously sanctioned thing. Marriage between the right two people is better than a good thing. Marriage between the wrong two people is a totally awful thing. Nothing can be said of "marriage" without the consideration of the PEOPLE in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Good for whom?*
> I think marriage at the very least is good for children. If people decide to cohabitate and stay together I think that's good for children too. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any statistics for long term cohabitation. Maybe it's happening or maybe couples pop out a kid and then move on to the next partner. Just guessing but the legal ramifications of marriage(and the process of divorce) probably does keep some couples together over those who cohabitate.
> 
> *Why is that a bad thing? If an institution or organization is disenfranchising its "members", then they SHOULDN'T join. What is the problem? I am not seeing it.*
> 
> When the country asks young men to go to war and they say "screw you" we'll care. When a generation of entrepreneurs start billion dollar companies overseas, because they feel disenfranchised, we'll care. When our volunteer organizations can't staff positions, because young men won't do it, we'll care.


----------



## Buddy400

Buddy400 said:


> If a lot of people think there's an epidemic, it's probably worth considering.





Lila said:


> Why? Genuinely curious.
> 
> What's the scholarly thinking on this matter?
> 
> Where do the anthropologists and scientists (not the politicians) stand on this issue?
> 
> Do they feel that co-habitation vs. marriage may lead to a collapse in our society?
> 
> People have quoted many statistics but no one has posted a scientific journal study or report from a legitimate source stating that this is a foreseeable problem in the future. If you or anyone else has a source, could you post it so that I can understand the concern?


I’m trying to come up with an example so neutral that it doesn’t set off any alarms…..

OK, so let’s say that among a certain group of people working at a large company many believe that there is an epidemic of poor quality product coming off the lines. The evidence you see doesn’t seem to indicate that there is a problem.

Don’t you want to know more about why they think so? Could it be something that you’re not seeing? Maybe everything is fine and you need to convince them of that so that company moral doesn’t tank? I don’t think the best way to handle it is to just say that they’re wrong and move on.


----------



## 2&out

I now know why my marriage failed.... player jock marries hot fun cheerleader. My life is now solved - and there are statistics to back it up ! Cool !! LOL


----------



## eastsouth2000

may be its a generation thing, how old are you?

or an occupational thing, engineer (very time consuming job).

my great grandfather, grandfather, father, brothers are engineers. took them time to get married or start a family.

but yeah my generation graduated college in 2010. 95% of my high-school batch mates are not yet married. ages 25-28. but 40% are cohabitating. 50% have children.

marriage is evolving and seems to be an outdated concept. people are more liberated today and the concept of monogamy is meh.
the old stay home wife/mom. is long gone

the new word is *Cohabitation* "All the perks of marriage none of its disadvantages"


----------



## NobodySpecial

Youngster said:


> Why is that a bad thing? If an institution or organization is disenfranchising its "members", then they SHOULDN'T join. What is the problem? I am not seeing it.
> 
> When the country asks young men to go to war and they say "screw you" we'll care. When a generation of entrepreneurs start billion dollar companies overseas, because they feel disenfranchised, we'll care. When our volunteer organizations can't staff positions, because young men won't do it, we'll care.


When we ask them to go to war, they are going to say screw you because they don't want to get married? And no one is asking them to get married? They are going to say screw you because they are free to do what they want?


----------



## Lila

naiveonedave said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "science" do you speak of Dave? Could you direct me to a legitimate published study where they studied the length and happiness of a marriage vs. the number of partners?
> 
> 
> 
> read the research, many partners = high probability of cheating on you. It is just simple math.
Click to expand...

I did read that research but it was neither published in a journal or peer reviewed. The scientist who did the research admitted it had issues. Total bunk.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> bullcr*p that is what statistics are for. To help you understand the chances of decisions you make. You don't spend your whole paycheck on the lottery, because the statistics tell you it is a cr*ppy investment.


I think making *interpersonal *decisions based on changes is a dumb idea. There is a world of difference between the mathematical models of the lottery and the analysis on the historical ROI of investments and the possible correlation of # of partners (and a gazillion other factors that could never be quantified that likely went onto these failed relationships).

I think it is SO much more short sighted, where interpersonal relationships are concerned, to worry about much more than really knowing the person, their character, their beliefs.


----------



## Youngster

NobodySpecial said:


> *When we ask them to go to war, they are going to say screw you because they don't want to get married? *And no one is asking them to get married? They are going to say screw you because they are free to do what they want?


No they're going to say screw you because they're disenfranchised. From what I've seen I think they're saying screw marriage, screw America, screw everything. Are you going to fight and die for a country where nuts are calling "all men potential rapists"? IMHO young men have disengaged from society, the marriage rate is 1 side effect.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Youngster said:


> No they're going to say screw you because they're disenfranchised.


Disenfranchised from WHAT? Everything? That is rather a different conversation. But anyway, AFAIC the way our recent wars have been decided upon, the more young men and wlomen who say screw that, the better.



> From what I've seen I think they're saying screw marriage, screw America, screw everything.


Alrighty. Well that is a different thread. Cheers.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> I think making *interpersonal *decisions based on changes is a dumb idea. There is a world of difference between the mathematical models of the lottery and the analysis on the historical ROI of investments and the possible correlation of # of partners (and a gazillion other factors that could never be quantified that likely went onto these failed relationships).
> 
> I think it is SO much more short sighted, where interpersonal relationships are concerned, to worry about much more than really knowing the person, their character, their beliefs.


maybe, but you are taking a much higher risk w/the town sl*t that you are with the 'average' woman out there. Up to the individual, but to deny the probability is crazy. The best predictor out there is past behavior, so knowing that your fiancée is the town sl*t, you should not be surprised at what you get.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Youngster said:


> You don't care now, what about when you were looking to marry?
> 
> If my wife had told me her number was 100 it would have been an issue. It's been said throughout the thread a high number is an issue for most men.


You didn't ask me about my marriage preferences, you asked me about what I think is a too high number for "a person".

As for what I would consider for myself or a partner a high or low number, I consider everyone to have that right to make up their minds about that number themselves when they are getting ready to marry.

So what you are really trying to say is, why don't I apply the same standard to "people" as I do to a potential partners?

And the answer is, because I don't judge "people", and I don't feel anyone else has the right to, either.

Therefore, what I would choose for myself has nothing to do with what I think of "people".


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> I did read that research but it was neither published in a journal or peer reviewed. The scientist who did the research admitted it had issues. Total bunk.


meh, has issues =/= total bunk btw. We probably won't ever get 50% r2 correlations on anything to do with human behavior, but you will get some 'decent' correlations, along with prior behavior is still the best predictor of future behavior.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> maybe, but you are taking a much higher risk w/the town sl*t that you are with the 'average' woman out there. Up to the individual, but to deny the probability is crazy. The best predictor out there is past behavior, so knowing that your fiancée is the town sl*t, you should not be surprised at what you get.


What is really funny for me is the risk of marital failure would have been MUCH higher with someone who DIDN'T have premarital sexual experience. As I said, YMMV. I would still always chose a person for an interPERSONal relationship based on the person.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> I did read that research but it was neither published in a journal or peer reviewed. The scientist who did the research admitted it had issues. Total bunk.


Well, it’s the in the Huffington Post. They’d be expected to give it a Liberal spin, which they did. At least you know it’s not a right wing MRA thing.

Being published in a journal and being peer reviewed doesn’t make it true. Any worthwhile study acknowledges its shortcomings.

Never let a single study convince you of anything.

But, there’s an undeniable logic here.

Say that, when you were married, that was the only person you were allowed to play tennis with. Tennis is one of your favorite activities. You have played tennis with lots of other people but didn’t marry them for whatever reason. The more tennis partners you’ve played with, the higher the chances that a previous partner was more fun to play tennis with than the person you were married to. You might miss that. You might wish you were married to somebody that played better tennis.

Or, let’s say that the number of partners was a proxy for how many options were available to you. People with more options have a better chance of being dissatisfied with the one they chose.

As HuffPost points out, there could be alternate explanations. But, it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> What is really funny for me is the risk of marital failure would have been MUCH higher with someone who DIDN'T have premarital sexual experience. As I said, YMMV. I would still always chose a person for an interPERSONal relationship based on the person.


true about the limited experience as well. However, in todays world, choosing wisely is key. It is hard to choose wisely when you just fall in love. So I don't think that your interpersonal method is fool proof, and my guess is, that those with severe flaws still could 'get through'.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> But, it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.


Buddy...you don't get to decide what others should or should not dismiss. That's really the whole point. What seems to you to be a giant waving red flag that people "should" be worried about, means nothing to others.

There are people screaming about how sugar is killing us all.

There are people screaming about the middle east.

About the confederate flag.

About same sex marriage.

About the environment.

About GMO's.

About religion.

About sex scandals in the Catholic church.

About their local politics.

.............

Just because someone else takes up an issue, doesn't mean others "should" take up that issue.

We all get to decide what is important to us, and just because we may not decide what is important to us is the same thing as what is important to you doesn't make us wrong.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> true about the limited experience as well. However, in todays world, choosing wisely is key. It is hard to choose wisely when you just fall in love. So I don't think that your interpersonal method is fool proof, and my guess is, that those with severe flaws still could 'get through'.


Nothing is fool proof. And I never said "just falling in love". That is like 99% of what I don't mean. But analyzing statistics and plugging your potential mates metrics into a spread sheet and comparing them is not going to tell you anything about what s/he has learned about love, empathy, compassion, communication, character, integrity. I would rather someone's whose metrics were poor who used those experiences to learn than someone whose metrics were clean who was clueless. Oh wait. Maybe that is because the former is actually just like me and my husband!


----------



## Wolf1974

Youngster said:


> You don't care now, what about when you were looking to marry?
> 
> If my wife had told me her number was 100 it would have been an issue. It's been said throughout the thread a high number is an issue for most men.


Not just men. If I told my GF my partner number hit triple digits that would have killed that relationship.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Wolf1974 said:


> Not just men. If I told my GF my partner number hit triple digits that would have killed that relationship.


That's true. I personally find high numbers of partners disgusting and it makes me feel like I'm one in a long line. I get that most of us have a past but let's be reasonable.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## moco82

Personal said:


> "Why won't you have sex with me?"
> 
> "Aren't I attractive enough for you?"
> 
> "C'mon just say yes, you know you want to!"
> 
> "Why didn't you take me, you knew I wanted you to?"
> 
> "Why won't you f**k me, are you gay?"
> 
> "Why don't you want to, I want you to be my first?"
> 
> ........etc.
> 
> Just some of the things some women have said to me when I turned them down


I see a sequel for the "First-world problems" TV ad campaign.


----------



## RoseAglow

I read the same stats and see the opposite. Marriage getting rarer but it still something that the majority of people choose to experience.



Youngster said:


> That's some great feedback you have, I guess I have a vastly different perspective in speaking with the young men I work with.
> 
> According to the Pew Research Center;
> 
> Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center
> 
> You are incorrect by saying that men and women are only waiting longer to get married. Men and women aren't just waiting longer to get married, they're choosing not to get married at all. If you follow the link you'll see that in 2012 *23% of men over the age of 25 have never been married*. That's nearly 1 in 4. If you look at the trajectory of the graph it's happening at an increasing rate as well. If the trends continue *by 2020 almost 30% of men over the 25 will have never been married*.


By your own stats, 75% of men over the age of 25 have gotten married. That is a heavy majority. 3 out of every 4. 

If the trend continues 2 out of every 3 men will choose to get married in 2020. We expect some of the trends to change because marriage has now been opened up to more men and women.

There is a clear demographic change that shows people are getting married later. Here is a finding from 2012:

"Recently released Census data indicate that the number of new marriages in the U.S. went up in 2012, reversing a three-year decline...By age, the uptick in new marriages is concentrated among adults ages 35 and older."

New census data show more Americans are tying the knot, but mostly it?s the college-educated | Pew Research Center



> Think about how bad statistically marriage must be in the younger generation to have such a large impact on the overall rate. Any older folks who have ever been married have no impact on changing the rate over time(unless they pass away).


It's possible that people are not marrying because marriage is "bad"- except that so many people are, in fact, getting married.

Other possible explanations include:
-The Great Recession, which has had a strong negative effect on the financial situations for millennials, the age group most likely to get married for the first time
-The trend for people to co-habitate before getting married (or maybe instead of getting married) continues. Others feel differently, but I believe this is a good thing. There are many important characteristics that you're not going to find out about a person unless/until you've lived with them.
- The trend for finishing college and getting career/life experience before getting married continues.




> If you're an advocate of marriage I'm not sure how you can say the sky isn't falling.


Read above. I believe that marriage is an important investment. I think that people who are in strong marriages are happier, healthier, and raise happier and healthier kids. 

I am not worried if 3/4 people get married. Not everyone should be married, not every one wants to get married.

It's sort of like Parenting: thanks to birth control, men and women have the ability to opt out of parenthood. There are many people who do not want to be parents and/or would simply not be good parents.

There are many people who do not want to be married, and/or just don't have the characteristics to be a good partner.




> If your under 50, there's a good chance that by the time you die people who have ever been married will be a minority in America. Think about this; I'm not saying people who ARE married will be a minority I'm saying people who have EVER been married will be a minority.


If you go back far enough you'll see that the last 40 years might be considered the anomaly and we are just getting back to pre-WWII baselines. The chart I am trying to post is sticking to the bottom, but it's a snap shot from this census presentation: 

https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/acs/ElliottetalPAA2012presentation.pdf

There is no doubt that marriage is changing. Marital roles are changing. Age and incidence is changing. I am just not convinced that the sky is falling.


----------



## moco82

eastsouth2000 said:


> the new word is *Cohabitation* "All the perks of marriage none of its disadvantages"


For most of the developed world. In the US, the tax code makes a dent of a financial difference.


----------



## Forest

Icey181 said:


> If you are so inclined I would suggest you do some reading on the history of the Eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th century and its ties to the early women's movement.
> 
> Margaret Sanger was particularly concerned with eradicating the "***** population" via selective employment of birth control against them as well as the lower classes.
> 
> Elizabeth Cady Stanton was particularly annoyed at the notion that non-whites could receive the vote before women could, opposed the 14th and 15th Amendments on those grounds, and would often head into racist diatribes about how the new voters (that would be black men) needed to be offset by white women in order to prevent any serious damage to American politics and society.
> 
> And it goes on.
> 
> It is not a mistake that the early Feminist movements created massive racial divides which prioritized middle and upper class educated white women and seemed to cause fissures with the Civil Rights movement which persist to this day.
> 
> The rosey "Feminists were all about equality for all!" is rhetorical myth fashioned at some point during the rise of 2nd Wave Feminism to help legitimize assaults on traditional marriage and opposition to abortion.
> 
> Sit down and read _Woman, Morality, and Birth Control_, by Sanger if you want an insight into the mind of one of the most influential 1st Wave Feminists in American history.
> 
> It is an interesting experience.


We covered some of that in a college History class back in the 80s. Luckily at that time, these things still could and still were discussed some without people getting uproariously defensive. 

Heck, we even calmly covered some of the more "out-there" militant stuff from the 60s, that another poster mentioned in a separate thread in this forum. That thread was promptly locked. 

As I recall, cooler heads were able to reason with the broader base that their current ties to top publishers, network news bosses, etc would be shattered if a more reasoned approach was not followed.


----------



## Youngster

RoseAglow said:


> I read the same stats and see the opposite. Marriage getting rarer but it still something that the majority of people choose to experience.
> 
> 
> 
> By your own stats, 75% of men over the age of 25 have gotten married. That is a heavy majority. 3 out of every 4.
> 
> If the trend continues 2 out of every 3 men will choose to get married in 2020. We expect some of the trends to change because marriage has now been opened up to more men and women.
> 
> There is a clear demographic change that shows people are getting married later. Here is a finding from 2012:
> 
> "Recently released Census data indicate that the number of new marriages in the U.S. went up in 2012, reversing a three-year decline...By age, the uptick in new marriages is concentrated among adults ages 35 and older."
> 
> New census data show more Americans are tying the knot, but mostly it?s the college-educated | Pew Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible that people are not marrying because marriage is "bad"- except that so many people are, in fact, getting married.
> 
> Other possible explanations include:
> -The Great Recession, which has had a strong negative effect on the financial situations for millennials, the age group most likely to get married for the first time
> -The trend for people to co-habitate before getting married (or maybe instead of getting married) continues. Others feel differently, but I believe this is a good thing. There are many important characteristics that you're not going to find out about a person unless/until you've lived with them.
> - The trend for finishing college and getting career/life experience before getting married continues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read above. I believe that marriage is an important investment. I think that people who are in strong marriages are happier, healthier, and raise happier and healthier kids.
> 
> I am not worried if 3/4 people get married. Not everyone should be married, not every one wants to get married.
> 
> It's sort of like Parenting: thanks to birth control, men and women have the ability to opt out of parenthood. There are many people who do not want to be parents and/or would simply not be good parents.
> 
> There are many people who do not want to be married, and/or just don't have the characteristics to be a good partner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you go back far enough you'll see that the last 40 years might be considered the anomaly and we are just getting back to pre-WWII baselines. The chart I am trying to post is sticking to the bottom, but it's a snap shot from this census presentation:
> 
> https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/acs/ElliottetalPAA2012presentation.pdf
> 
> There is no doubt that marriage is changing. Marital roles are changing. Age and incidence is changing. I am just not convinced that the sky is falling.


I really want to thank you for a really awesome post. 

So maybe the "number of people who have never been married" problem isn't really a problem. It's just a cycle. Perhaps it's just a cycle that has been exacerbated by a society that now doesn't put as much value on marriage.

We might not know the answer to "why aren't men marrying" but maybe it doesn't matter if it's all part of a cycle.


----------



## Mr The Other

Buddy400 said:


> I’m trying to come up with an example so neutral that it doesn’t set off any alarms…..
> 
> OK, so let’s say that among a certain group of people working at a large company many believe that there is an epidemic of poor quality product coming off the lines. The evidence you see doesn’t seem to indicate that there is a problem.
> 
> Don’t you want to know more about why they think so? Could it be something that you’re not seeing? Maybe everything is fine and you need to convince them of that so that company moral doesn’t tank? I don’t think the best way to handle it is to just say that they’re wrong and move on.


Well, we can pretty much conclude that every generation has been worse than the one before then, since the mists of time.


----------



## RoseAglow

Youngster said:


> I really want to thank you for a really awesome post.
> 
> So maybe the "number of people who have never been married" problem isn't really a problem. It's just a cycle. Perhaps it's just a cycle that has been exacerbated by a society that now doesn't put as much value on marriage.
> 
> We might not know the answer to "why aren't men marrying" but maybe it doesn't matter if it's all part of a cycle.


Thanks, Youngster. 

If we want to encourage people to marry, I think we should keep the current incentives. I think also that in general, we should push to make divorce laws to that they reflect the current realities, including 50-50 custody when possible and appropriate. It's happening, it's where the trend is leading. This will make things fairer for men, women, and children. That's my political pulpit, LOL!

It could be that marriage truly is on it's way out. I'm not convinced though and would want to continue to watch the data for the trends.


----------



## Buddy400

Mr The Other said:


> Well, we can pretty much conclude that every generation has been worse than the one before then, since the mists of time.


It's been my goal in life to grow old without b!tching about "kids these days". I hate it when people do that.

And I'm pretty sure I haven't.


----------



## Buddy400

Buddy400 said:


> As HuffPost points out, there could be alternate explanations. But, it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.


I used "should not be dismissed out of hand" pretty clearly in context to mean "this study has some value and deserves to be considered (by those looking at this study)".

That seemed kind of mild compared to Lila's evaluation of the study as "Total Bunk".

But I'm the one telling people what they should think? That they're wrong?

Sensitive much? When you hear a reviewer say "everyone should go see this", do you send off angry emails like the following?



Faithful Wife said:


> Buddy...you don't get to decide what others should or should not dismiss. That's really the whole point. What seems to you to be a giant waving red flag that people "should" be worried about, means nothing to others.
> 
> There are people screaming about how sugar is killing us all.
> 
> There are people screaming about the middle east.
> 
> About the confederate flag.
> 
> About same sex marriage.
> 
> About the environment.
> 
> About GMO's.
> 
> About religion.
> 
> About sex scandals in the Catholic church.
> 
> About their local politics.
> 
> .............
> 
> Just because someone else takes up an issue, doesn't mean others "should" take up that issue.
> 
> We all get to decide what is important to us, and just because we may not decide what is important to us is the same thing as what is important to you doesn't make us wrong.


Now that you've shown up, I'm outta here.


----------



## Buddy400

Bugged said:


> *Men, in their infinite magnaminity(of which we have fantastic proof in the above mentioned countries) would have granted women rights?
> **BUAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA*
> thanks for the laughs.
> 
> [/B]


Well, here in the US, that's exactly what happened.


----------



## naiveonedave

Buddy400 said:


> Well, here in the US, that's exactly what happened.


but but that is not what they told me in women's studies, you must be wrong.>


----------



## Buddy400

Bugged said:


> *But I'm sure this is the feminist propaganda *and I'm sure that men had indeed an infinite magnanimity for granting women rights they had been denied for MILLENNIA by men simply because they weren't born with a penis...
> >
> 
> The level of misogyny on this forum is appalling to say the least...


I presume you actually do know how the 19th Amendment to the U.S. constitution became law, right? Men, and men only, voted for it. I'm not saying that the feminist movement was not important. But in the end it became law because men voted for it (since, obviously, they were previously the only ones that could vote).

How this has anything to do with misogyny is beyond me.


----------



## Cletus

Bugged said:


> But I'm sure this is the feminist propaganda and I'm sure that men had indeed an infinite magnanimity for granting women rights they had been denied for MILLENNIA by men simply because they weren't born with a penis...
> >
> 
> The level of misogyny on this forum is appalling to say the least...


You're going to have to do some fancy tap-dancing to get around the fact that the only people who could vote women's suffrage into existence in the US were men. 

Perhaps they did it for less than altruistic reasons, but they did it nonetheless.


----------



## Icey181

Forest said:


> We covered some of that in a college History class back in the 80s. Luckily at that time, these things still could and still were discussed some without people getting uproariously defensive.
> 
> Heck, we even calmly covered some of the more "out-there" militant stuff from the 60s, that another poster mentioned in a separate thread in this forum. That thread was promptly locked.


This is important. As an educator I am rather concerned with the notion of making history "politically correct" or whatever you want to term it, by de-sanitizing the reality of who these people were and what they actually wanted.

Something I always tell my students; if you are looking to find paragons of 21st Century Moral and Political ideology in the 1840s or 1910s…you will be sorely disappointed.

Blunt reality is always better to build actual understanding from.

For instance, this thread.

The reality is that every major research center, sociological study, college study, and news-site has noticed that millennials are increasingly less likely to marry and that young men are actually widening the gap of "never want to marry" between them and women.

That is a reality, as much as some people want to pretend all of the studies are made up propaganda.

Personally, I see a correlation with the ages of these young men, their environment (college campuses for many, work spaces for most), and the social, political, and cultural denouncements of them and this sudden turn to dropping out of society, so to speak.

With the irony, of course, being that "dropping out" of society is limited to men refusing to marry women.

I have plenty of 25-32 year old male friends who are not married, play board games and video games as their primary hobbies, and yet somehow manage to maintain healthy friendships and successful jobs without being married.

But according to the _women_ writing these articles, because they prefer WoW to the NFL, they are emotionally stunted adolescents.

Yeah, the biases in these discussions are always interesting.

And shaming these men has the opposite effect as intended.

You cannot shame a man with traditional masculinity after you spent 15-20 years of his life teaching him that traditional masculinity is oppressive, discriminatory, and sexist.


----------



## Icey181

Bugged said:


> But I'm sure this is the feminist propaganda and I'm sure that men had indeed an infinite magnanimity for granting women rights they had been denied for MILLENNIA by men simply because they weren't born with a penis...
> >
> 
> The level of misogyny on this forum is appalling to say the least...


While I understand that not everyone is well versed in American political history, but please stop spouting nonsense because you dislike reality.

American women considered political engagement _morally repugnant_ basically from 1776 to 1865.

And only a small handful of radical women, starting in the 1840s, seriously pushed for women's suffrage, and found a majority of male *and female* pushback until 1917-1919.

Your level of intellectual dishonesty when it comes to this topic is alarming, to be frank.

Believe it or not, there has never been a Constitutional Right conferred upon a group of Americans *without the express voting consent of the majority white male population*.

_Ever._

The very design of the American Constitutional system _requires_ that level of support before these things can change.

Feminists were not solitary warriors of freedom and equality fighting against the evils of patriarchy who single-handedly forced the knuckle-dragging Neanderthals that were white-men to confer upon them civil rights.

Sorry, but that _is_ feminist propaganda.

And utterly ahistorical.


----------



## moco82

Russia after the February (pre-Bolshevik) 1917 revolution. It was only really used once, to vote it the assembly that was supposed to write a new constitution--which the Bolsheviks thwarted. But the election took place and the assembly met, so had history gone slightly differently, it would have been a constitution written by representatives of citizens of both sexes over 20 years old.


----------



## Icey181

Personal said:


> 1893 for New Zealand and 1894 for South Australia which was then expanded to Australia upon Federation in 1901, the United States certainty didn't lead the way.


Yeah, I can read Wikipedia too.

If you bothered to read past the second paragraph you would have found this gem:


Wiki said:


> Most European, Asian and African countries did not pass women's suffrage until after World War I.


The reason that New Zealand and South Australia were able to achieve a limited form of ethnically restricted female suffrage was because of the structure of the British Empire at the time. Great Britain's intercontinental empire functioned as a loose confederacy of self-governing states.

And the primary political force behind the drive for Suffrage in those quasi-states were the members of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union.

You know, the one that started in _Ohio_.

You need to follow the blue links more often if you actually want to argue with someone who has half a decades' worth of professional scholarship on this topic under his belt.


----------



## Icey181

moco82 said:


> Russia after the February (pre-Bolshevik) 1917 revolution. It was only really used once, to vote it the assembly that was supposed to write a new constitution--which the Bolsheviks thwarted. But the election took place and the assembly met, so had history gone slightly differently, it would have been a constitution written by representatives of citizens of both sexes over 20 years old.


But instead, as a friend of mine and Russian Historian says, five little words described the path of Russian history…

"And then things got worse…"


----------



## moco82

Icey181 said:


> But instead, as a friend of mine and Russian Historian says, five little words described the path of Russian history…
> 
> "And then things got worse…"


These pivotal moments in history intrigue me. Makes me wonder how, when humanity numbered in the mere thousands, a small skirmish or even family feud in Ethiopia or in Mesopotamia determined when and how entire continents were to be populated.


----------



## Buddy400

Bugged said:


> you basically said, it was men, out of magnanimity (you quoted me) that granted rights to women..discarding the role the feminist movement played...if you think it was an easy battle..think again...


That's fair. Actually, I thought about .... the middle part but worried that it might be taken as twisting the quote. 

I didn't mean to discard the women's movement (and acknowledged them in a follow-up post.

I think men deserve some credit for doing it though, even though it might not have been out of magnanimity.

Having looked up magnanimity to be certain of its meaning "loftiness of spirit enabling one to bear trouble calmly, to disdain meanness and pettiness, and to display a noble generosity" I'm not certain that we can assume it was not magnanimous in large part (though I don't think you'd be happy receiving men's "noble generosity" either.


----------



## Icey181

Bugged said:


> >
> 
> To me anyone fighting for women's rights is a feminist. Maybe we have a problem with semantics here.


No. To be blunt you have a problem with definitions.

Feminists are a definable (indeed well defined) set of activists who advocated for a very specific set of narrow policy goals during a specific time period of history.

The idea of "Feminism" which you think you are advocating is a modern rhetorical construction which serves no other purpose than for certain people to lay claim to a legacy of morally superior individuals _who happen to agree with their modern definitions of Civil Rights_.

Guess what, you would consider 1st Wave Feminists xenophobic, racist, and bigoted individuals who happened to want the right to vote _so they could enforce their xenophobic and racist ideas on society_.

Not moral crusades for equality.



Bugged said:


> If men were the only ones allowed to vote it MEANS they weren't so civilized after all, don't you think?



The very concept of a democratic republic which allowed universal _male_ suffrage was anathema to the definition of "civilization" until some time around the early 1900s.

Most educated individuals, including basically every signatory of the Declaration of Independence and member of the Constitutional convention, agreed that such a system of government was the uncivilized mob rule of the basest degree.

Every republic in the history of human civilization restrained the right to vote to land-owning, military-capable men, for a reason.

That was true of the United States until the 1820s-1830s.

Considering that it only took the United States a single century to go from a classical definition of political republicanism to a nearly universal suffrage-based democracy is quite frankly *historically unique and damn impressive*.

Most civilizations were in existence for literally hundreds (and some thousands) of years before they even considered the notion of eliminating property requirements on the vote, let alone gender restrictions.



Bugged said:


> They amended an injustice that lasted for MILLENNIA because of the pressure of social movements (since you don't like the word feminist I'll use _social_ok?...I'm pretty sure most of these activists were women)...Are we supposed to clap our hands for that?
> I'm sure not going to do that.


As I would tell my students; by judging the actions and belief systems of people who lived and died generations ago you are fabricating a narrative that, while it may make _you_ feel morally superior, has absolutely nothing to do with actual history or _the actions of those people_.

Amazingly enough, if you apply modern 2015 morals to _any period of history before 2015_ you are going to find the past lacking.

It is almost as if every single generation of people presume their moral structure is the pinnacle of human society.


----------



## Mr The Other

Quite.
Clearly, it is ridiculous that the right to vote was denied. However, many things we do now will look ridiculous in future.


----------



## Nynaeve

I think you guys are being intentionally obtuse about the history of women's suffrage. 

Yes, men voted for it. If they hadn't, it wouldn't have been ratified.

But they most certainly didn't suddenly decide all in their own to be magnanimous and grant rights to women. It wasn't done in a vacuum. You can't just erase the history of women's advocacy and activism that convinced men to make that vote.

It's really rather laughable, the claim that feminism didn't have anything to do with it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Youngster

I'm going to try to move the discussion a little....I want to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. It think it went pretty well without a lot of agenda pushing, bashing or vitriol....cough cough cough.

I think there are a lot or reasons men are refusing to marry(also some of these might be true while others might be only men's perception)....

Sexual hookup culture(how it relates to a man's internal triggers) and how men and women relate given a loose dating scene.
The inherently "bad deal" marriage is for men financially given divorce laws.
Men's disenfranchisement in society.
Societies acceptance on couples living together outside of marriage.
Men(and women) are waiting to marry, which perhaps leads some to chooses to never marry. 
I apologize, I know I've missed more than a few.

Also, maybe this is all part of big cycle. Marriage rates will continue to go through cycles of oscillation. Sometimes changed slightly by external events such as the economy/war/disease/etc.

So Cletus brought up a great point that I'll pose here......does it matter? If the marriage rate continues to drop and eventually goes to zero does it matter to men/women/children/society? Will couples spend their lives together without the construct of marriage behind them? Is this an American issue and will it be our downfall or will a new stronger but different nation arise?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Nynaeve said:


> I think you guys are being intentionally obtuse about the history of women's suffrage.
> 
> Yes, men voted for it. If they hadn't, it wouldn't have been ratified.
> 
> But they most certainly didn't suddenly decide all in their own to be magnanimous and grant rights to women. It wasn't done in a vacuum. You can't just erase the history of women's advocacy and activism that convinced men to make that vote.
> 
> It's really rather laughable, the claim that feminism didn't have anything to do with it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You'll notice that only a certain handful of the guys here say things like this. It becomes quite obvious after awhile who thinks this way and who doesn't.


----------



## Cletus

I consider this issue to be a ray of hope.

The right to not be a slave.
The right to vote, regardless of gender or color
Basic civil rights
The right to marry, regardless of gender or color


And a host of others.

All of these things have been granted to their respective populations in this country by the majority that didn't belong to their demographic. White men alone gave the first two. White and black voters the third. Everyone above 18 the last. It usually takes the support of the operating majority to confer new rights on a minority. Sometimes that majority is dragged kicking and screaming to the table by the aggressive actions of the oppressed minority, and sometimes they manage to figure it out on their own. Once in a while, they are willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to enforce that new found dignity. 

You can perhaps be entitled to some anger over how long social change requires, but humans live a while, and old ideas don't get swept away overnight. Yet still, the overall arch of history is towards justice, as they say, and even the evil male patriarchy slowly and grudgingly comes along for the ride. And lucky for your if you're female, black, or gay that they do.

A gay person today might lash out and wonder why the straight population took so long to recognize his right to marry. Are women any less culpable for that situation than are men for not giving women the vote? Of course not. We do the best we can in the generation into which we are born.


----------



## Mr The Other

Bugged said:


> Dont' give the future for granted.
> What purpouse do you think *SHAMING *feminists serves?


Yes, it is ridiculous that women did not have the vote. Why are you arguing with this?


----------



## Buddy400

Nynaeve said:


> But they most certainly didn't suddenly decide all in their own to be magnanimous and grant rights to women.


Could you do me a favor and directly quote the person who said that men decided to give the vote to women entirely on their own and that the Women's Suffrage Movement had no effect?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> *All of these things have been granted* to their respective populations in this country by the majority that didn't belong to their demographic.
> 
> . . . . . . . .
> 
> You can perhaps be entitled to some anger over how long social change requires, but humans live a while, and old ideas don't get swept away overnight. Yet still, the overall arch of history is towards justice, as they say, and even the evil male patriarchy slowly and grudgingly comes along for the ride. And *lucky for you*r if you're female, black, or gay that they do.


I understand your point. But personally I don't feel any of the groups who have maintained power and control over other groups at any point in history EVER had the right to do so. And therefore, I do not see why any oppressed group should feel "grateful" for not being oppressed or for having certain "rights granted" to them by those who were oppressing them.

This applies across the board to all human beings throughout time.

There is no group that EVER had the "right" to more power than any other group. IMO.


----------



## Buddy400

It would really help the conversation if each side didn't start out with the belief that the other side was an a$$hole.

Is it really not possible to assume the best and give people the benefit of the doubt?


----------



## just got it 55

Youngster said:


> I don't know about the financial stuff, certainly in the past men have always had more to lose(and they did). I mean, lets say everyone in the US was required by law to sign a comprehensive pre-nup before marriage, would that change the marriage rate? I'm not sure it would.



Who cares as long as all parties sure held accountable or protected

55


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> It would really help the conversation if each side didn't start out with the belief that the other side was an a$$hole.
> 
> Is it really not possible to assume the best and give people the benefit of the doubt?


In the context of the topic of this thread, that's exactly what I said. Younger men AND women are not getting married as early due to progressive thinking on their parts. Let's give them the benefit of assuming they know what they are doing and not try to project upon them any reasons they themselves have not stated. Let's assume they will thrive instead of fail. Let's assume men and women will always want to couple and merge and have children, because there is no indication anywhere they do not. And the fact that they are doing it later in life and having less children, seems very wise to me as a choice for these young people. Young men AND women.

Remember, the original direction of this thread was specifically trying to go for "why don't MEN want to marry anymore", and some of the guys were annoyed that anyone would even suggest that maybe both men AND women don't want to marry as young anymore. So when you set up a thread that way, you're going to get a gender divide, of course.

I actually don't think most men think or act like the MRA guys we see on TAM. So when you see me bristle at those specific guys, please understand it is their specific rhetoric I am having an issue with. Men in general don't act that way or say those things, and therefore, I make no assumption that "men" are like those guys.


----------



## Nynaeve

Buddy400 said:


> Could you do me a favor and directly quote the person who said that men decided to give the vote to women entirely on their own and that the Women's Suffrage Movement had no effect?


Sure thing:



Buddy400 said:


> Bugged said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was the alternative to the feminist movement to fight for women's rights? Men, in their infinite magnaminity(of which we have fantastic proof in the above mentioned countries) would have granted women rights?
> *BUAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA*
> thanks for the laughs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here in the US, that's exactly what happened.
Click to expand...


Now, if you happen to think that feminism actually did have a role to play in men voting for women's suffrage then fine. But then that means that what Bugged described isn't "exactly what happened" here in the US.


----------



## EleGirl

Icey181 said:


> No. To be blunt you have a problem with definitions.
> 
> Feminists are a definable (indeed well defined) set of activists who advocated for a very specific set of narrow policy goals during a specific time period of history.


To be blunt, it is you have a problem with definitions. 

*feminism* - the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

*feminist *- a person who supports feminism.

I get that you are trying to force the definition you want the words to have to suit your purposes. But you do not define the words.



Icey181 said:


> The idea of "Feminism" which you think you are advocating is a modern rhetorical construction which serves no other purpose than for certain people to lay claim to a legacy of morally superior individuals _who happen to agree with their modern definitions of Civil Rights_.
> 
> Guess what, you would consider 1st Wave Feminists xenophobic, racist, and bigoted individuals who happened to want the right to vote _so they could enforce their xenophobic and racist ideas on society_.
> 
> Not moral crusades for equality.


The women at that time were more or less on the same ‘moral’ level of the men. We cannot take people out of their time, place them in modern times and judge them by today’s outlooks/values. You will not find one historical figure anywhere in the world who was perfect. Not one who did things in the past and held beliefs in the past that would not be looked on today as disgraceful.

If you are going to hold women to such a standard… they have to be perfect or anything they did does not count, then you must also hold men to the same standard. Humanity moves forward in small steps and spurts… pushed forward by very flawed humans.

The women who fought for women’s suffrage and woman’s rights also fought for the rights of blacks. They were not perfect humans. Neither were the men of that time. But the women who did this had some things right. For example they fought for the right of both all blacks and all women to vote. Note that in 1870, it was the women’s suffrage movement that tried to get an amendment passed that gave voting rights to all blacks and to women. It was the white males, the only people with power, who refused to give women, regardless of their race, the right to vote. Women were not even citizens of the USA. Only males of all races were citizens at this point.

Women did not get the right to vote or rights of citizenship until SEVENTY (70) years AFTER these were given to black males. I think that woman had every right to be royally p!ssed about this.

*1840 *- Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are barred from attending the World Anti-Slavery Convention held in London. This prompts them to hold a Women's Convention in the US.

*1850* - Worcester, Massachusetts, is the site of the first National Women's Rights Convention. Frederick Douglass, Paulina Wright Davis, Abby Kelley Foster, William Lloyd Garrison, Lucy Stone and Sojourner Truth are in attendance. A strong alliance is formed with the Abolitionist Movement. 

*1866* - Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony form the American Equal Rights Association, an organization dedicated to the goal of suffrage for all regardless of gender or race. 

*1868* - Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Parker Pillsbury publish the first edition of The Revolution. This periodical carries the motto “Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less!”

Many early suffrage supporters, including Susan B. Anthony, remained single because in the mid-1800s, married women could not own property in their own rights and could not make legal contracts on their own behalf. 

The Fourteenth Amendment is ratified. "Citizens" and "voters" are defined exclusively as male.

*1870 - The Fifteenth Amendment gave black men the right to vote. NWSA refused to work for its ratification and instead the members advocate for a Sixteenth Amendment that would dictate universal suffrage. *

*1871* - Victoria Woodhull addresses the House Judiciary Committee, arguing women’s rights to vote under the fourteenth amendment. 

*1878* - A Woman Suffrage Amendment is proposed in the U.S. Congress. When the 19th Amendment passes forty-one years later, it is worded exactly the same as this 1878 Amendment. 

*1887 *- The first vote on woman suffrage is taken in the Senate and is defeated. 

*August 26, 1920* - Three quarters of the state legislatures ratify the Nineteenth Amendment. 

American Women win full voting rights. 



Icey181 said:


> The very concept of a democratic republic which allowed universal _male_ suffrage was anathema to the definition of "civilization" until some time around the early 1900s.


This is just not true. 

*1865 *- Civil Rights Act of 1866 grants citizenship, but not the right to vote, to all native-born Americans "without distinction of race or color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude."

*1869* - Congress passes the Fifteenth Amendment giving African American men the right to vote.
*
February 3, 1870 *- the 15th amendment was ratified, granting African American men the right to vote.



Icey181 said:


> Most educated individuals, including basically every signatory of the Declaration of Independence and member of the Constitutional convention, agreed that such a system of government was the uncivilized mob rule of the basest degree.


You are right. The idea that all people were created equal was not actually what the constitution was about. The only people who were “equal” were the wealthy and educated white men of the time. But it was a step in the right direction. And with work “people” being used it lead to all people eventually become made citizens and having equal rights. 



Icey181 said:


> Every republic in the history of human civilization restrained the right to vote to land-owning, military-capable men, for a reason.
> 
> That was true of the United States until the 1820s-1830s.


So what. We are not every civilization. We are a better, more evolved country. Giving only land-owing men the right of citizenship and the vote has the effect of keeping people in their social ‘place’. The idea that the only people who should be citizens with the right to vote are those who are military-capable assumes that only men contribute to the society. It was also a false categorization because old men, sick men, and men who were never called up to fight had the right to vote.



Icey181 said:


> Considering that it only took the United States a single century to go from a classical definition of political republicanism to a nearly universal suffrage-based democracy is quite frankly *historically unique and damn impressive*.


Yes it is historically unique and impressive. But it would have never happened without several things… 1) people who worked long and hard to end slavery and 2) women who fought for women’s rights. White men as a whole were not going to just wake up one day and give those rights. It took a lot of social upheaval to get there.

Even the emancipation of slaves is not quite what it’s touted to be. During the civil war, there were more slaves in the northern states then in the southern states. The Emancipation Proclamation did not end all slavery, nor did it free all slaves. It clearly states that only slaves in the confederate states were emancipated. After the civil war, individual states that were in the union slowly passed laws emancipating the slaves in those states.

Lincoln emancipating the confederate slaves was not done for the benefit of the slaves, it was done to punish and break the backs of the southern slave owners. The idea was that the slaves would turn on their former owners. Which did not happen by and large.



Icey181 said:


> Most civilizations were in existence for literally hundreds (and some thousands) of years before they even considered the notion of eliminating property requirements on the vote, let alone gender restrictions.


So what, we are not most civilizations. It’s very sad that for most of human history women had the same legal rights as children. 



Icey181 said:


> As I would tell my students; by judging the actions and belief systems of people who lived and died generations ago you are fabricating a narrative that, while it may make _you_ feel morally superior, has absolutely nothing to do with actual history or _the actions of those people_.


The narrative you are posting here is incorrect in so many ways. There are many different ways to fabricate a narrative.

Despite the fact that these women were not perfect humans, it is fact that they were able to eventually win women the right to vote, for married women to own property, and quite a bit more.




Icey181 said:


> Amazingly enough, if you apply modern 2015 morals to _any period of history before 2015_ you are going to find the past lacking.


Of course. But who besides you is doing that? It’s you are looking at the women who fought for women’s suffrage through a lenses of the today’s views.

I


Icey181 said:


> t is almost as if every single generation of people presume their moral structure is the pinnacle of human society.


Nothing new with that.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> A gay person today might lash out and wonder why the straight population took so long to recognize his right to marry. Are women any less culpable for that situation than are men for not giving women the vote? Of course not. _*We do the best we can in the generation into which we are born*_.


Well... until the time when women got the right to vote, women are not responsible for it >

That last sentence is the most important. We need to look at where we, were we want to go and how to get there.


----------



## EleGirl

Youngster said:


> I'm going to try to move the discussion a little....I want to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. It think it went pretty well without a lot of agenda pushing, bashing or vitriol....cough cough cough.


LOL.. I think that your post has a lot of agenda pushing.. and I say that as kindly as I can. Let me explain.



Youngster said:


> I think there are a lot or reasons men are refusing to marry(also some of these might be true while others might be only men's perception)....


This is an agenda loaded statement. While I’m sure that some small number of men are ‘refusing to marry, so are some small group of women. 

But to cast it as somehow men as a whole are so injured that they are refusing to marry it little more than MRA rhetoric meant to tell women that we’d better start acting like pre-1950 women or no one will ever marry then. And of course the other side of this is that idea that young women are heartbroken because they cannot convince some poor young man into marriage so they can have the big, expensive wedding that they have dreamt of since they were little girls. More than one of the male posters on this thread was rather gleeful at the fantasy that young women were suffering from being rejected by all these young men who now refuse to marry.

Most men are not refusing to marry. It is true that both young men are choosing to marry later than 25. But so are most women.



Youngster said:


> Sexual hookup culture(how it relates to a man's internal triggers) and how men and women relate given a loose dating scene.


I don’t think that the dating scene is as loose as some here are making it out to be. If it were, there would not be an entire industry, PUA that is needed because so many men are not getting the sex they want in the supposed lose dating scene.
And… all a guy has to do if he does not like the loose dating scene is to not participate in it. There are plenty of women who do not participate in the loose dating scene.



Youngster said:


> The inherently "bad deal" marriage is for men financially given divorce laws.


This is hype. It’s untrue that marriage is an inherently “bad deal” for men financially given the divorce laws. This is nothing more than MRA propaganda.
Now why do I say this? 
No man has to marry a financially dependent woman. At least 70% of women work outside the home. A full 40% of women earn more than their husbands. Another 10% earn as much. So all a guy has to do is to pick a woman who is his financial equal, or close to it. That evens the financial playing field.

In the marriages where women earn more, it is the woman who will end up paying support and giving part of “HER” assets with a divorce.

More and more, child custody is 50/50. Child support will most likely be from this highest earning to the lowest earning. With 50% of women earning the same or more than their husbands, it’s as likely that a woman will be paying child support as a man.

More and more states are radically changing their divorce laws so that it’s very hard for a woman to get alimony. It’s awarded in only about 15% of the states. Most often it is temporary to help a SAHM/D to get training, etc to get back in the work force. 

Splitting assets… again.. pick a woman who makes as much and has as much. I know a woman who is a match maker to the wealthy. She says that most of her clients will not even agree to meet a woman how financial portfolio and earning power does not come close to theirs. Smart men. And smart women often do this as well.

And on top of all that, there are pre-nups.

If a man expects a woman to be a traditional SAHM who never works, never has a career, and is the caretaker of him, their children and their home then he needs to take responsibility for that. I would say the same to a woman who wants/agrees that her husband will be a SAHD (yes I know marriage where this is the case and they are doing just fine.) In that case, the couple needs to ensure that her financial wellbeing is taken care of. This is a mutual agreement. I have heard men here on TAM say that so many times. The only value those particular men see being brought into a marriage is the income they (the man) earns. What woman (or man) in her right mind would agree to be in a marriage where her husband views her has not contributing anything of value to their marriage. From experience it’s usually very young women caught up in the romance of marriage. Later they regret not having the hard talks no these topics. Shoot a woman/man who is going to be a SAHM/D should requires a pre-nup so that it’s very clear what their contribution is.

But if a man wants an even playing field, there are plenty of women out there who are more than willing to be an equal partner financially.
I don’t get why some many men (at least the so many I read on TAM) are working so hard to poison the minds of young men, and other men, against women and marriage. There are smart ways to protect one’s self. I’ve listed some above.

Yes I get that some of the men on TAM have gotten the shaft by wives who cheated and assets that had to be split. Guess what. So did I. I think that is fair to say that I have one of the more horrific stories here on TAM. Serial cheating, violence, huge amounts of assets lost. But I don’t see myself as a victim. I still don’t see marriage as a good thing. But something that people have to be smart about.



Youngster said:


> Men's disenfranchisement in society.


I just do not see disenfranchisement of men in society. Sorry but I don’t. I have a lot of men in my family, among my friends, and my co-workers. It’s just not there. None of them are these injured souls that the MRA and PUA talk about. 



Youngster said:


> Societies acceptance on couples living together outside of marriage.


Yes this is part of young people waiting to get married. They have been told over and over and over that marriage is nothing but a piece of paper. So they believe it. They are still forming relationships, but without the protections and benefits of marriage. (SS benefits, tax breaks, etc.) There are some 200+ legal benefits of marriage. Why do you think that the gay/lesbian community fought so hard for the right to marry? They want those rights. Note that under the old marriage laws, where all the assets of the wife passed to the husband, when he could throw her out without anything… Not even her own inheritance, … back then it was not something that the gay/lesbian community wanted. 



Youngster said:


> Men(and women) are waiting to marry, which perhaps leads some to chooses to never marry.


Yep, and a good number of those who never marry will form long term cohabitateive relationships.


Youngster said:


> I apologize, I know I've missed more than a few.


I’m sure someone will add to the list


----------



## EleGirl

Youngster said:


> Also, maybe this is all part of big cycle. Marriage rates will continue to go through cycles of oscillation. Sometimes changed slightly by external events such as the economy/war/disease/etc.


This is has always gone on. Good economic times, people marry earlier. In harder times, people marry later. But I think that we have something very different going on these days.

For the first time in history most people, upon reaching 18, are not ready to go out, find a job they can support themselves on, much less a family. 

A lot of young men and women then have to spend years getting training and/or a college degree. Then they have to get a job and settle in. 

In past times a young man was able to work on the farm, or get work because special training AFTER 18 was not required just to earn a living. 

In the past girls married very young. Parents wanted their daughters to be married as soon as possible so that they did not do something foolish like get pregnant out of wedlock. Plus, girls had no career options. Marriage and family was the only viable career they could have. 

And yes girls who were from better off families did go off to college… to become ‘educated’ (like take home economics, art, etc)… and of course to find the right college educated young man to marry.

Women working is not new at all. Since the dawn of time, women have worked every bit as hard as men. But as we have moved from an agricultural society to one in which working at home/farm is not the norm both men and women now have to find a career away from home. 



Youngster said:


> So Cletus brought up a great point that I'll pose here......does it matter? If the marriage rate continues to drop and eventually goes to zero does it matter to men/women/children/society? Will couples spend their lives together without the construct of marriage behind them? Is this an American issue and will it be our downfall or will a new stronger but different nation arise?


It’s not just an American Issue. In some European countries there are a lot fewer people marrying. They are either just living together or they are forming civil unions… which have more protections than living together.

I think that society will figure this out. But I do believe that when it settled down, if it ever does, there will be a norm and laws for how family life is constructed. There has never been a chaotic society that has lasted.


----------



## Constable Odo

Icey181 said:


> Your level of intellectual dishonesty when it comes to this topic is alarming, to be frank.


Rule #1 on TAM: Never let facts get in way of pushing your agenda. Keep on the narrative.



> Believe it or not, there has never been a Constitutional Right conferred upon a group of Americans *without the express voting consent of the majority white male population*.


I would disagree with you on this one point. Constitutional amendments are ratified by 3/4ths of the states legislatures or state ratifying conventions (21st amendment only.) There has never been a constitutional amendment which has been enacted by majority of the popular vote of the white male population.




Youngster said:


> I'm going to try to move the discussion a little....I want to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. It think it went pretty well without a lot of agenda pushing, bashing or vitriol....cough cough cough.


Likely each of the reasons you enumerate play a part in some form or another.



Youngster said:


> Also, maybe this is all part of big cycle. Marriage rates will continue to go through cycles of oscillation.


It is important to remember there are two components to what we think of as modern day "marriage". First, there is the civil component, which is really a joint property contract with terms and conditions pre-established by The State. The second is the religious sacrament, or "marriage" itself.

Truthfully, The State should not be issuing "marriage" licenses, since The State cannot grant a sacrament. In fact, The State should not even be issuing civil union licenses -- since what you are entering into is a contract with your spouse. This is why you have to go to court to get a divorce, you are essentially breaking your "marriage contract", and the court usually requires you to have another contract, a 'property settlement agreement' which the judge approves when he dissolves the first contract you entered into with your spouse. Your "civil union contract" should really be prepared by a legal expert and then signed by the parties in front of a notary, justice of the peace, clerk of the court, etc. 

However, never fear, The State is always there looking for its graft.




Youngster said:


> So Cletus brought up a great point that I'll pose here......does it matter? If the marriage rate continues to drop and eventually goes to zero does it matter to men/women/children/society? Will couples spend their lives together without the construct of marriage behind them?


Removing the social stigma of 1) living together; 2) having children out of wedlock; 3) divorce has directly contributed to the situation we find ourselves in today.


----------



## Youngster

EleGirl said:


> *LOL.. I think that your post has a lot of agenda pushing.. and I say that as kindly as I can. Let me explain.*
> 
> And I think most your posts do as well. I'm not trying to push an agenda, I'm TRYING to identify why men aren't getting married. If you read carefully through the thread, my summary(which you are quoting and don't like) is some of the feedback that has been posted in this thread.....not necessarily what I do or don't believe.
> 
> 
> *But to cast it as somehow men as a whole are so injured that they are refusing to marry it little more than MRA rhetoric meant to tell women that we’d better start acting like pre-1950 women or no one will ever marry then. And of course the other side of this is that idea that young women are heartbroken because they cannot convince some poor young man into marriage so they can have the big, expensive wedding that they have dreamt of since they were little girls. More than one of the male posters on this thread was rather gleeful at the fantasy that young women were suffering from being rejected by all these young men who now refuse to marry.
> 
> Most men are not refusing to marry. It is true that both young men are choosing to marry later than 25. But so are most women.
> 
> 
> I don’t think that the dating scene is as loose as some here are making it out to be. If it were, there would not be an entire industry, PUA that is needed because so many men are not getting the sex they want in the supposed lose dating scene.
> And… all a guy has to do if he does not like the loose dating scene is to not participate in it. There are plenty of women who do not participate in the loose dating scene.
> *
> 
> I don't think men are injured, I think they're disengaged....and to a very large extent men themselves are to blame. I really don't care about the MRA crap or 1950's women. This thread isn't about women so stop trying to make it about women. Please, if you want to make a thread about women do it elsewhere.
> 
> *This is hype. It’s untrue that marriage is an inherently “bad deal” for men financially given the divorce laws. This is nothing more than MRA propaganda.
> Now why do I say this?
> No man has to marry a financially dependent woman. At least 70% of women work outside the home. A full 40% of women earn more than their husbands. Another 10% earn as much. So all a guy has to do is to pick a woman who is his financial equal, or close to it. That evens the financial playing field.
> 
> In the marriages where women earn more, it is the woman who will end up paying support and giving part of “HER” assets with a divorce.
> *
> 
> Whether it's true or not 9 out of 10 men will tell you that marriage is a bad deal for men financially....that's a problem. Look at the responses in just this thread, most men see themselves as getting screwed in divorce, that's very telling. You're kidding yourself if you think this in no way influences men wanting to marry.
> 
> 
> *More and more, child custody is 50/50.*
> But it isn't 50/50 everywhere is it? Then the issue is still a problem.
> 
> Child support will most likely be from this highest earning to the lowest earning. With 50% of women earning the same or more than their husbands, it’s as likely that a woman will be paying child support as a man.
> 
> *More and more states are radically changing their divorce laws so that it’s very hard for a woman to get alimony. It’s awarded in only about 15% of the states. Most often it is temporary to help a SAHM/D to get training, etc to get back in the work force.*
> 
> The whole more and more thing again.....alimony is still a problem in a lot of states which needs to be fixed, period. Men's perception of alimony is probably much worse than what it actually is....which is a problem.
> 
> Splitting assets… again.. pick a woman who makes as much and has as much. I know a woman who is a match maker to the wealthy. She says that most of her clients will not even agree to meet a woman how financial portfolio and earning power does not come close to theirs. Smart men. And smart women often do this as well.
> 
> And on top of all that, there are pre-nups.
> 
> If a man expects a woman to be a traditional SAHM who never works, never has a career, and is the caretaker of him, their children and their home then he needs to take responsibility for that. I would say the same to a woman who wants/agrees that her husband will be a SAHD (yes I know marriage where this is the case and they are doing just fine.) In that case, the couple needs to ensure that her financial wellbeing is taken care of. This is a mutual agreement. I have heard men here on TAM say that so many times. The only value those particular men see being brought into a marriage is the income they (the man) earns. What woman (or man) in her right mind would agree to be in a marriage where her husband views her has not contributing anything of value to their marriage. From experience it’s usually very young women caught up in the romance of marriage. Later they regret not having the hard talks no these topics. Shoot a woman/man who is going to be a SAHM/D should requires a pre-nup so that it’s very clear what their contribution is.
> 
> But if a man wants an even playing field, there are plenty of women out there who are more than willing to be an equal partner financially.
> *I don’t get why some many men (at least the so many I read on TAM) are working so hard to poison the minds of young men, and other men, against women and marriage. *
> 
> No, young men's minds have already been poisoned. The purpose of this thread was to try and identify why men aren't marrying. Not to poison anyone. You might not like the responses but if that's what men are thinking then it's a problem that needs to be addressed.
> 
> 
> There are smart ways to protect one’s self. I’ve listed some above.
> 
> Yes I get that some of the men on TAM have gotten the shaft by wives who cheated and assets that had to be split. Guess what. So did I. I think that is fair to say that I have one of the more horrific stories here on TAM. Serial cheating, violence, huge amounts of assets lost. But I don’t see myself as a victim. *I still don’t see marriage as a good thing. *
> 
> I'm truly sorry about your past. I see good marriages as a very good thing for a number of reasons. Again, my purpose for this thread was to try and identify problems from the men's perspective.....to help marriage. I really have to ask, if you aren't pro-marriage why on earth are you a moderator on this site....Talk About Marriage? If you are against marriage how do you feel you can provide positive input on why men aren't marrying and how it can be fixed?
> 
> 
> But something that people have to be smart about.
> 
> 
> *I just do not see disenfranchisement of men in society. Sorry but I don’t. I have a lot of men in my family, among my friends, and my co-workers. It’s just not there. None of them are these injured souls that the MRA and PUA talk about. *
> 
> I see a lot of it. Maybe it's geographical phenomena.....I'm in New England. Calling them injured souls isn't really fair though. Because someone chooses not to be engaged doesn't make them an injured soul. The young men I know, here in NH, are good solid guys. They are in no way injured....they are just choosing not to be engaged. As I said in the opening posts, it's not just marriage where they're not engaged so the whole MRA/PUA mindset really doesn't apply.
> 
> 
> Yes this is part of young people waiting to get married. They have been told over and over and over that marriage is nothing but a piece of paper. So they believe it. They are still forming relationships, but without the protections and benefits of marriage. (SS benefits, tax breaks, etc.) *There are some 200+ legal benefits of marriage. *
> 
> So if it's such a great deal why are the marriage rates continuing to drop? If you believe some of the data, a greater and greater number of people are choosing to never get married....despite all of the legal benefits. Rose posted some data that it could by cyclical. What if it isn't though?
> 
> Why do you think that the gay/lesbian community fought so hard for the right to marry? They want those rights. Note that under the old marriage laws, where all the assets of the wife passed to the husband, when he could throw her out without anything… Not even her own inheritance, … back then it was not something that the gay/lesbian community wanted.
> 
> 
> Yep, and a good number of those who never marry will form long term cohabitateive relationships.
> 
> I’m sure someone will add to the list


----------



## unbelievable

Right on this forum, I have been told by women that there are absolutely no tangible benefits for a man to get married to a woman, that he does not have the right to expect anything at all from his wife. That certainly does seem to be the case. With that reality in mind, I would be hard-pressed to sell the institution of marriage to a young man. It is almost a guarantee that he will lose financially. It is almost certain that he will receive nothing at all from his partner beyond that which she feels like providing on any particular day. He can get that commitment without the legal entanglements of a marriage and without losing ownership of half his present and future property. 

92.8% of fathers of kids under 18 were employed in 2014. Married women with kids under 18, the employment rate was 67.8%. Unmarried mothers had an employment rate of 70.1%. Unmarried fathers with kids under 18 had an employment rate of 87%. 

Pretty obviously, marriage provides an inducement for males to be employed and it tends to make employment less necessary for women. That is a very obvious advantage for a woman. It probably also is an advantage for kids. What is the advantage of marriage for a man? 

Women pay only about 41% of all social security payroll deductions but between 62-84, they receive 56% of all social security benefits. After 85, they get 67%. It is logical to assume they receive a similarly disproportionate percentage of any other form of pension, life insurance, or estate settlements. Marriage, statistically, is a very sweet financial deal for a woman but not so much for a man. Even while the husband remains alive, he can expect his wife to make about 78% of all spending decisions. Again, a sweet deal for the woman, not so much for the man. 

I've never been married to a woman who earned as much as I did or who remained employed throughout the marriage or who didn't believe it was her God given right to control the vast majority of household spending. I have basically concluded there is no tangible benefit for a male to be married. As far as intangible benefits, the presence of a dependent wife does help to keep a man on a job he would otherwise quit and, therefore, a wife can help a man obtain a pension (which she will typically control in his life and will assume upon his death).


----------



## *LittleDeer*

unbelievable said:


> Right on this forum, I have been told by women that there are absolutely no tangible benefits for a man to get married to a woman, that he does not have the right to expect anything at all from his wife. That certainly does seem to be the case. With that reality in mind, I would be hard-pressed to sell the institution of marriage to a young man. It is almost a guarantee that he will lose financially. It is almost certain that he will receive nothing at all from his partner beyond that which she feels like providing on any particular day. He can get that commitment without the legal entanglements of a marriage and without losing ownership of half his present and future property.
> 
> 92.8% of fathers of kids under 18 were employed in 2014. Married women with kids under 18, the employment rate was 67.8%. Unmarried mothers had an employment rate of 70.1%. Unmarried fathers with kids under 18 had an employment rate of 87%.
> 
> Pretty obviously, marriage provides an inducement for males to be employed and it tends to make employment less necessary for women. That is a very obvious advantage for a woman. It probably also is an advantage for kids. What is the advantage of marriage for a man?
> 
> Women pay only about 41% of all social security payroll deductions but between 62-84, they receive 56% of all social security benefits. After 85, they get 67%. It is logical to assume they receive a similarly disproportionate percentage of any other form of pension, life insurance, or estate settlements. Marriage, statistically, is a very sweet financial deal for a woman but not so much for a man. Even while the husband remains alive, he can expect his wife to make about 78% of all spending decisions. Again, a sweet deal for the woman, not so much for the man.
> 
> I've never been married to a woman who earned as much as I did or who remained employed throughout the marriage or who didn't believe it was her God given right to control the vast majority of household spending. I have basically concluded there is no tangible benefit for a male to be married. As far as intangible benefits, the presence of a dependent wife does help to keep a man on a job he would otherwise quit and, therefore, a wife can help a man obtain a pension (which she will typically control in his life and will assume upon his death).


I think you will find that financially women who never marry are far better off financially. Yes women may only pay only 41% of all so ail security payroll deductions! however have thought that's because they gave up their careers to raise children? And women do the majority of the worlds unpaid work- work that men don't want to do- like nursing elderly relatives etc 

Perhaps there are no tangible benefits for women to marry. After all she will reduce her life expectancy if she marries, yet a man increases his if he marries. She will increase her work load, in the home. These days she is very likely to work in and outside the house doing the majority of housework and child rearing. She is also more likely to end up living in poverty in the event of a divorce, because she will continue to be he one who does the most sacrificing for the children statistically speaking. 

So no wonder women aren't wanting to marry these days.


----------



## NextTimeAround

SomeNeverLearn said:


> * In addition, money will be siphoned off from men's pay checks and taxes and transferred to women through paid maternity leave, free child care and free health care for single mothers and their children (both legal and undocumented).* In other words, "the bachelor tax" will be quite stealthy and well hidden. All of the aforementioned legislation has been either passed already or is in the works in the majority of feminized (hyper-gynocentric) nations. The alternative is Japan and a massive population decline. Our cowardly male politicians, who fear loss of election or re-election, in subservience to the misandric femocracy, will not allow that to happen. One way or the other, men will be made to suffer for women's ever increasing pathological narcissism and obnoxious sense of entitlement.


Even small businesses and start ups will have to pay maternity. I read that it's usually women who strt businesses....... because of course, they got tossed out of the big corporation due to office politics. 

If running a sole tradership / proprietorship, then you are essentially paying for someone else's maternity leave out of your savings.

So women will bepaying for this maternity leave, including women who chose not have children of their own.


----------



## Cletus

SomeNeverLearn said:


> Marriage rates have been declining for decades...


<Healthy application of the delete key>

Wow, that was quite a screed. Did your momma spank you one too many times in front of your friends?


----------



## lifeistooshort

unbelievable said:


> Right on this forum, I have been told by women that there are absolutely no tangible benefits for a man to get married to a woman, that he does not have the right to expect anything at all from his wife. That certainly does seem to be the case. With that reality in mind, I would be hard-pressed to sell the institution of marriage to a young man. It is almost a guarantee that he will lose financially. It is almost certain that he will receive nothing at all from his partner beyond that which she feels like providing on any particular day. He can get that commitment without the legal entanglements of a marriage and without losing ownership of half his present and future property.
> 
> 92.8% of fathers of kids under 18 were employed in 2014. Married women with kids under 18, the employment rate was 67.8%. Unmarried mothers had an employment rate of 70.1%. Unmarried fathers with kids under 18 had an employment rate of 87%.
> 
> Pretty obviously, marriage provides an inducement for males to be employed and it tends to make employment less necessary for women. That is a very obvious advantage for a woman. It probably also is an advantage for kids. What is the advantage of marriage for a man?
> 
> Women pay only about 41% of all social security payroll deductions but between 62-84, they receive 56% of all social security benefits. After 85, they get 67%. It is logical to assume they receive a similarly disproportionate percentage of any other form of pension, life insurance, or estate settlements. Marriage, statistically, is a very sweet financial deal for a woman but not so much for a man. Even while the husband remains alive, he can expect his wife to make about 78% of all spending decisions. Again, a sweet deal for the woman, not so much for the man.
> 
> I've never been married to a woman who earned as much as I did or who remained employed throughout the marriage or who didn't believe it was her God given right to control the vast majority of household spending. I have basically concluded there is no tangible benefit for a male to be married. As far as intangible benefits, the presence of a dependent wife does help to keep a man on a job he would otherwise quit and, therefore, a wife can help a man obtain a pension (which she will typically control in his life and will assume upon his death).




I see, so the women you've been married to must represent all. Got it. 
And you are a SM in the US army, you and I both know that this career path is incompatible with a career woman as your job always comes first. Period.
So don't bemoan the difference in earning power, you can't be a full partner in the rest of the household.

Geez, I don't get what's so hard to understand about choosing a partner that is doing well financially, but then of course you need to be a full partner and you can't choose soley on how hot she is. Can't expect financial equality and expect your career to come first and her to pick up most of the household and parenting responsibilities while also looking for the hottest you can get. I've seen many a post from men bemoaning what a b!tch wife is but, but, but she's soooooooo beautiful. 

If you don't want her making the financial decisions work that out before you get married. 

The social security argument of ridiculous, you're still on the tail end of generations of women who didn't have a ton of options. And since women disproportionately represent lower paying field then they will pay less SS, but they also have less to live on. Your SS payout is dependent on what you put in remember? 

If you don't make it a priority to find a woman with financial means you don't get to b!tch when she doesn't have them. If you don't want to support a stay at home then don't. And frankly nobody cares who doesn't want to get married, most of the high value women will find someone to marry them if that's what they want. Besides, in my experience many anti marriage men greatly overestimate what they have to offer vs what they're entitled to.

And in the end married men have much better health, while married women have worse health. As has already been pointed out..... so spin it any way you want. If a dude doesn't want to be married honestly nobody cares. That's his perogative.

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Married but Happy

> If a dude doesn't want to be married honestly nobody cares.


Indeed. But when lots of dudes don't want to marry, women write articles complaining about it! The upside is, we get to have fun posting about it whether we care or not!

The whole thing will work itself out in a generation or two. Either marriage will simply be less desirable to both men and women, or some other social change will resolve the so-called problem.


----------



## unbelievable

*LittleDeer* said:


> I think you will find that financially women who never marry are far better off financially. Yes women may only pay only 41% of all so ail security payroll deductions! however have thought that's because they gave up their careers to raise children? And women do the majority of the worlds unpaid work- work that men don't want to do- like nursing elderly relatives etc
> 
> Perhaps there are no tangible benefits for women to marry. After all she will reduce her life expectancy if she marries, yet a man increases his if he marries. She will increase her work load, in the home. These days she is very likely to work in and outside the house doing the majority of housework and child rearing. She is also more likely to end up living in poverty in the event of a divorce, because she will continue to be he one who does the most sacrificing for the children statistically speaking.
> 
> So no wonder women aren't wanting to marry these days.


Actually, you will find the opposite. Married women (by far) do better, financially, than unmarried women.


----------



## unbelievable

Giving up: 40% women, 28% men, 39% youth don't want a job | Washington Examiner


----------



## Youngster

Married but Happy said:


> Indeed. But when lots of dudes don't want to marry, women write articles complaining about it! The upside is, we get to have fun posting about it whether we care or not!
> 
> The whole thing will work itself out in a generation or two. Either marriage will simply be less desirable to both men and women, or some other social change will resolve the so-called problem.


I agree that eventually things will work out, what worries me is what happens between now and then?

Just throwing some ideas out......

What happens if the dudes who don't want to marry also don't want to become fathers? Will the birthrate drop precipitously? What if the birthrate stays the same but the men neglect their duties as fathers. Will it be a problem if the majority of a generation of children grow up in single parent homes with women as the mother and father?


----------



## unbelievable

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/upshot/us-employment-women-not-working.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1


----------



## unbelievable

Millennial Women Don't Want Top Jobs, Says Study


----------



## Fozzy

So I just read the first page of this thread. Then I jumped to the last page of this thread. 

I'm pretty sure I could start a discussion about Spongebob Squarepants and 30 pages later we'd be talking about feminists again.

/facepalm


----------



## Married but Happy

Youngster said:


> I agree that eventually things will work out, what worries me is what happens between now and then?
> 
> Just throwing some ideas out......
> 
> What happens if the dudes who don't want to marry also don't want to become fathers? Will the birthrate drop precipitously? What if the birthrate stays the same but the men neglect their duties as fathers. Will it be a problem if the majority of a generation of children grow up in single parent homes with women as the mother and father?


I suppose it could be a problem, but with nearly half of all children born to unmarried mothers now, I doubt that the birth rate will drop. Men won't stop having sex, after all. There may be a problem with men taking the role model as fathers - but I don't think that will change much from the current scenario, either. Besides, 75% of men will eventually marry, according to projections.


----------



## NobodySpecial

lifeistooshort said:


> I see, so the women you've been married to must represent all.


They certainly have one common denominator.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Married but Happy said:


> I suppose it could be a problem, but with nearly half of all children born to unmarried mothers now, I doubt that the birth rate will drop. Men won't stop having sex, after all.


There is one thing that I think would be a huge boon. A birth control method in the control of men that is easy, effective and really usable without the downside of the one, less than ideal, option available today.


----------



## coffee4me

unbelievable said:


> I've never been married to a woman who earned as much as I did or who remained employed throughout the marriage or who didn't believe it was her God given right to control the vast majority of household spending. I have basically concluded there is no tangible benefit for a male to be married. As far as intangible benefits, the presence of a dependent wife does help to keep a man on a job he would otherwise quit and, therefore, a wife can help a man obtain a pension (which she will typically control in his life and will assume upon his death).



This is sad to me and I can see why you don't see the tangible or intangible benefits of marriage. 

By contrast my military dad married an independent woman who was employed for the duration of the marriage. Of course her career took set backs due to military life but once he retired she excelled exponentially. 

Both did their share of child rearing but I would say she took on the lions share of housework with our help, so that he could go to night school for 12 years and 2 degrees. 

What I learned from them: If you pick the right partner each with the mindset of "what can I give the marriage to benefit us both" the intangible assets are priceless. The majority of people seem to think about marriage from the "what am I getting out of it camp." They accomplished more together as parents, partners, employees and spouses then they could ever accomplish alone. 

That's what my children now base their antiquated ideas of marriage on. My son and daughter both want to get married. 

My son will likely marry younger and he has his checklist of attributes his wife must have. That list includes working and being ambitious, having goals, family oriented, articulate not passive or passive aggressive, someone who inspires him to be better, someone who understands that he's not passive and has positive attitude. Someone who will be a partner in all aspects of life financial, parenting and fun. Oh and one more thing, the number absolutely matters to him. His own number and hers. He's 17.


----------



## ocotillo

Not to derail the usual TAM lovefest....

One thing that springs to my mind that affects both genders is the marriage tax penalty in the U.S. Tax preparation software has made it very easy to calculate how much more you're paying for the privilege of being married. I've chatted with same sex couples about this, (i.e. Why legal marriage is so important to them) and they've listed a number of benefits, but to me, none of them seem to really justify the cost.


----------



## Cletus

SomeNeverLearn said:


> Look to Japan - the only feminized country not yet resorting to mass immigration. Society will become increasingly misandric - as if there aren't enough man haters in existence - and eventually collapse under the weight of increasing Marxism => socialism, demanded by the increasingly Marxist gynocracy.


Well, I always say that if you have to have an overlord, she might as well have a vagina. 

Just makes sense, after all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SomeNeverLearn said:


> Look to Japan - the only feminized country not yet resorting to mass immigration. Society will become increasingly misandric - *as if there aren't enough man haters in existence* - and eventually collapse under the weight of increasing Marxism => socialism, demanded by the increasingly Marxist gynocracy.
> 
> In other words, our future is Greece. The future of all gynocentric, Marxist nations is Greece. France and Italy are right behind Greece, as is much of the EU. America is only standing because it can print money out of thin air. If we lose the ability to do that, we're done.


It's always about how women are man haters and destroyed our society. sigh.....


----------



## CuddleBug

I wasn't mentally mature or ready until age 24 ish. Then everything just started clicking from that point for me.

At age 25 ish I proposed to my wife to be, engaged and married later in the year. She was 20 ish.

To me, marriage is spiritual, financial, emotional, physical, legal and everything you can imagine together.

When you are ready, you are just ready.

Ladies today are men's equals in all respects.

I've noticed ladies drive the fancy muscle cars, party hard, everything guys do and its the ladies who don't want to get married.

So guys just do their own thing more and stay single. Then when the ladies do want to get serious and married, older, later in life, the guys are like, nope, no thanks and want to stay single.

That's what's I've noticed over the years anyways.


----------



## unbelievable

Because a couple of people have referenced my career (incorrectly), let me explain. I was Active Duty military until the early 90s. I am now a Reservist. That is a part time gig unless I am deployed. I have a full time job. Further, I have never married an unemployed woman. It has been my experience, however, that my female partners have elected to leave their careers after marriage. Not only has it been my experience, but it was also the case with two of my three brothers as well. We all married working women. Only one out of four (of us) still has an employed spouse. 

Any contract that doesn't involve tangible performance from both parties is worse than worthless. It's a trap. When I joined the service, I agreed to do specific things in exchange for the government doing certain things. If either of us adopted the position that we could do or not do as we felt, the transaction would have been meaningless. Same thing goes when I bought my car, my house, when I joined the police, etc. The marriage contract in the U.S. has increasingly become a one-sided affair in which the male party typically expected or required to provide security (as has been the case with marriage throughout history) but, unlike our predecessors, current males can no longer expect nurturing, meals, sex, housekeeping, or any other form of specific performance.
If the couple has a child, courts will (in most cases) use the force of government to compel the expected performance from the male. There is no performance, tangible or otherwise, I can expect from a wife beyond whatever she feels like doing on any particular day. It is no wonder the arrangement is losing it's appeal for men. How does that ring and ceremony provide them with anything they can't get by merely living with a woman?


----------



## always_alone

SomeNeverLearn said:


> Look to Japan - the only feminized country not yet resorting to mass immigration. Society will become increasingly misandric - as if there aren't enough man haters in existence - and eventually collapse under the weight of increasing Marxism => socialism, demanded by the increasingly Marxist gynocracy.
> 
> In other words, our future is Greece. The future of all gynocentric, Marxist nations is Greece. France and Italy are right behind Greece, as is much of the EU. America is only standing because it can print money out of thin air. If we lose the ability to do that, we're done.


 Japan is a feminized Marxist gynocracy :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## always_alone

Bugged said:


> :scratchhead::scratchhead::scratchhead::scratchhead::scratchhead::nerd:
> Can someone explain why women are destroying society?
> 
> This theory is not at all clear to me...


Because feminism. Haven't you been paying attention? :rofl:


----------



## Icey181

Man, I better trade in my graduate degree and tell my advisors and mentors that the piles of scholarly research and publications are wrong, because someone looked up the word "Feminism" on Wikipedia.

Anyone got the numbers for the History departments at Harvard and George Mason? There are a couple of frauds who need to have their tenure revoked.

I am certain Yale would also like to know that Rosemarie Zagarri defrauded them of a degree as well… 



EleGirl said:


> To be blunt, it is you have a problem with definitions.
> 
> feminism - the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.
> 
> feminist - a person who supports feminism.
> 
> I get that you are trying to force the definition you want the words to have to suit your purposes. But you do not define the words.


Actually no, and I am done with being polite about this.

Your average American is fundamentally ignorant of what Feminism is and substitutes platitudes and modern political rhetoric in the place of actual knowledge.

There is an entire body of scholarly work and American historiography which successive generation of intellectual geniuses have built in order to specifically explain to students that the two definitions you just gave are _functionally meaningless_.

I have 75-years worth of scholarly, researched, cited, vetted, and published academic work, authored by some of the most intelligent, highly respected, and highly decorated tenured women's professors in the history of American academia backing up what I have said here and teach on a University Campus.

You guys have your personal feelings and a handful of Wikipedia links.



EleGirl said:


> The women at that time were more or less on the same ‘moral’ level of the men. We cannot take people out of their time, place them in modern times and judge them by today’s outlooks/values. You will not find one historical figure anywhere in the world who was perfect. Not one who did things in the past and held beliefs in the past that would not be looked on today as disgraceful.


No kidding, that was my point.

Some of you want to transform these women into modern progressive thinkers and are offended when people point out they were no such thing.



EleGirl said:


> The women who fought for women’s suffrage and woman’s rights also fought for the rights of blacks. They were not perfect humans. Neither were the men of that time. But the women who did this had some things right. For example they fought for the right of both all blacks and all women to vote. Note that in 1870, it was the women’s suffrage movement that tried to get an amendment passed that gave voting rights to all blacks and to women. It was the white males, the only people with power, who refused to give women, regardless of their race, the right to vote. Women were not even citizens of the USA. Only males of all races were citizens at this point.


Thanks for yet another Wikipedia article, but as per usual, it is half wrong.

1) Not all Suffragists were Abolitionists. While there were direct ties between abolitionist activism and women's Suffrage activism, the two are neither one in the same nor inexorably linked. Point of fact, there were Suffragists who thought the focus on African American voting rights detracted their end goal (Stanton moved very radically into that particular camp).

2) You seem to be operating under the false assumption that women lacked political agency in the later 19th century and that women naturally supported Suffrage. Neither is true. Especially not in rural areas, the Midwest, and the South.



EleGirl said:


> Women did not get the right to vote or rights of citizenship until SEVENTY (70) years AFTER these were given to black males. *I think that woman had every right to be royally p!ssed about this.*


Well, your emotional reaction to what you consider a moral conundrum had no effect on the actual history.

Plenty of women opposed both African American voting rights _and_ Women's Suffrage.



EleGirl said:


> This is just not true.
> 
> 1865 - Civil Rights Act of 1866 grants citizenship, but not the right to vote, to all native-born Americans "without distinction of race or color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude."
> 
> 1869 - Congress passes the Fifteenth Amendment giving African American men the right to vote.
> 
> February 3, 1870 - the 15th amendment was ratified, granting African American men the right to vote.


Again, all I can do is 

The vast majority of republican states restricted voting rights based on a number of qualifiers (property ownership, military service, religious affiliation, ethnic identity, gender) well into the early 20th century.

And in the United States, despite the Constitutional Amendments, State governments and local populations suppressed those voting rights, whether it be for Blacks in the South, newly naturalized immigrants in New York, or 2nd and 3rd generation Asians on the West Coast precisely because, Amendments be damned, _the very concept of allowing these people to vote was offensive to them_.



EleGirl said:


> So what. We are not every civilization. We are a better, more evolved country. Giving only land-owing men the right of citizenship and the vote has the effect of keeping people in their social ‘place’. The idea that the only people who should be citizens with the right to vote are those who are military-capable assumes that only men contribute to the society. *It was also a false categorization because old men, sick men, and men who were never called up to fight had the right to vote.*


Not that you should, but you do not get it.

The fundamental basis of republican-voting rights was that a man who lived in society carried immense obligations; property ownership carried with it concomitant tax burdens and the duties of a patriarch which included total legal liability for his dependents. And every single able bodied male was required to turn his life over to the state in the case of war. Without exception.

Older and infirm men who never fought were still steeped in the civil, legal, and religious obligations of republic deferential patriarchy.

And as individuals steeped in obligation, they were given deliberative rights over the policies of the state.

That is pretty much the political calculus of every republic state in history.



EleGirl said:


> Even the emancipation of slaves is not quite what it’s touted to be. During the civil war, there were more slaves in the northern states then in the southern states.


Where did you learn this?

Because it is 100% *wrong*.

Seriously.



EleGirl said:


> Lincoln emancipating the confederate slaves was not done for the benefit of the slaves, it was done to punish and break the backs of the southern slave owners. The idea was that the slaves would turn on their former owners. Which did not happen by and large.


Again, where did you learn these things?

The planned aftermath of the Emancipation Proclamation was not a planned violent uprising of slave populations.

It did occasion quite a lot of slave-runaways to Union lines, but violent uprising was not the point.

It was a realignment of Lincoln's war aims to shore up both domestic political support and to prevent European powers, dependent on Southern cotton, from intervening on the side of the Confederacy.

And it worked across the board. Well, eventually.

Hell, even Wikipedia gets this one mostly correct.



Constable Odo said:


> I would disagree with you on this one point. Constitutional amendments are ratified by 3/4ths of the states legislatures or state ratifying conventions (21st amendment only.) There has never been a constitutional amendment which has been enacted by majority of the popular vote of the white male population.


1) Who do you think those state legislators were?
2) Who do you think voted those legislators in?

America is a Federal Republic.

Technically, there has never been a popular vote for the passage of _anything_ in American history.

If you want me to be excruciatingly specific:

There has never been a Constitutional Right conferred upon a group of Americans without the express voting consent of the duly appointed and elected plenipotentiaries of the majority white voting populaiton.



_____

This is getting tiresome and super thread hijacky.

The original point was simple:

Some of you continue to talk about "Feminism" as though the modern rhetorical platitudes offered by every self-identified Feminist ever actually represented something real.

It does not.

Feminism have never been about "equality of the sexes."

Feminism, and Feminists, have been dedicated to a variety of specific goals which are related in some way to a degree of equality _in some things_.

Hell, many historians endorse a historical interpretation that holds that 1st Wave Feminists demanded the right to vote, not because they wanted "equality" but because they considered themselves morally superior to men and thought they could create a Female-voting bloc which could take control of politics and force a more moral Federal government that would adopt social welfare policies.

And, given the research I have done on the WCTU and the 1st Wavers themselves, that is not far off.

Ok, I am done with thread jacking…


----------



## Icey181

Nynaeve said:


> I think you guys are being intentionally obtuse about the history of women's suffrage.
> 
> Yes, men voted for it. If they hadn't, it wouldn't have been ratified.
> 
> But they most certainly didn't suddenly decide all in their own to be magnanimous and grant rights to women. It wasn't done in a vacuum. You can't just erase the history of women's advocacy and activism that convinced men to make that vote.
> 
> It's really rather laughable, the claim that feminism didn't have anything to do with it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No one said that Feminism (or more specifically, 1st Wave Feminists) had nothing to do with Suffrage.

However, I would invite an explanation why Women's Suffrage was denied for 40-years until the aftermath of WWI…


----------



## Marduk

To return to the question that actually was asked...

I asked my dad (who divorced my mom 20 years ago) why he never remarried.

He's fit, active, wealthy, charming. 

His response: "why the hell would I do that? If I want to have sex, there's a number of women that I can call, who are good friends of mine, that will come over and have sex with me. If I want to go dancing, there's a number of other women I can call, who are good friends of mine, and we will go dancing. If I want to travel... well, you get the idea. And, when I'm done with that, I come home to my place and don't have to deal with any of the noise and bull**** of being married. If you think I'm lonely, I'm not."

So I asked my early 20's nephew a similar question about why he's not in an LTR... and he gave me a similar, if abbreviated response: "Tinder."


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> To return to the question that actually was asked...
> 
> I asked my dad (who divorced my mom 20 years ago) why he never remarried.
> 
> He's fit, active, wealthy, charming.
> 
> His response: "why the hell would I do that? If I want to have sex, there's a number of women that I can call, who are good friends of mine, that will come over and have sex with me. If I want to go dancing, there's a number of other women I can call, who are good friends of mine, and we will go dancing. If I want to travel... well, you get the idea. And, when I'm done with that, I come home to my place and don't have to deal with any of the noise and bull**** of being married. If you think I'm lonely, I'm not."
> 
> So I asked my early 20's nephew a similar question about why he's not in an LTR... and he gave me a similar, if abbreviated response: "Tinder."


When you asked him, what about love, he looked at you like you just spoke Greek. Unless he speaks Greek. Then he looked at you like he had no idea what you were talking about.

THAT is why men don't get married.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> *To return to the question that actually was asked...*
> 
> I asked my dad (who divorced my mom 20 years ago) why he never remarried.
> 
> He's fit, active, wealthy, charming.
> 
> His response: "why the hell would I do that? If I want to have sex, there's a number of women that I can call, who are good friends of mine, that will come over and have sex with me. If I want to go dancing, there's a number of other women I can call, who are good friends of mine, and we will go dancing. If I want to travel... well, you get the idea. And, when I'm done with that, I come home to my place and don't have to deal with any of the noise and bull**** of being married. If you think I'm lonely, I'm not."
> 
> So I asked my early 20's nephew a similar question about why he's not in an LTR... and he gave me a similar, if abbreviated response: "Tinder."


No one was asking about why an older person who HAS already been married at least once, doesn't get married.

And no one was asking why a young person doesn't get into an LTR. Your nephew has a 75% chance of getting married at some point.

My son also enjoys Tinder. In fact he just recently met a gal on there who appears may become his next LTR. She's a real sweetheart.


----------



## NobodySpecial

I am amazed by a lot of these responses. "I get", "I get", "I get". There are so many people who don't even understand what a good relationship IS. No wonder there are so many bitter divorcees on here.


----------



## Jung_admirer

Why aren't men marrying? Here's one opinion: 
https://www.toqonline.com/archives/v7n2/v7no2_Devlin.pdf


----------



## Faithful Wife

I don't have to read beyond "The War against Fatherhood, Marriage and the Family" to know that this is just one more opinion saying the same thing. Women bad, women hate men, women tearing down society...blah blah blah.


----------



## moco82

marduk said:


> To return to the question that actually was asked...
> 
> I asked my dad (who divorced my mom 20 years ago) why he never remarried.
> 
> He's fit, active, wealthy, charming.
> 
> His response: "why the hell would I do that? If I want to have sex, there's a number of women that I can call, who are good friends of mine, that will come over and have sex with me. If I want to go dancing, there's a number of other women I can call, who are good friends of mine, and we will go dancing. If I want to travel... well, you get the idea. And, when I'm done with that, I come home to my place and don't have to deal with any of the noise and bull**** of being married. If you think I'm lonely, I'm not."


This is why I'm sort of looking forward to aging. Dates after 25 are like interviews, but that must fizzle out as women your age stop shopping for a housemate/co-parent, either because they've already gone through one or two, or because that train is departed. The only trick is to keep the genes from the fat-prone side of my family in check.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> No one was asking about why an older person who HAS already been married at least once, doesn't get married.
> 
> And no one was asking why a young person doesn't get into an LTR. Your nephew has a 75% chance of getting married at some point.
> 
> My son also enjoys Tinder. In fact he just recently met a gal on there who appears may become his next LTR. She's a real sweetheart.


I thought the question was why are some men not marrying. 

And I thought this could be part of the reason that some men don't marry. Because they don't see a point.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> When you asked him, what about love, he looked at you like you just spoke Greek. Unless he speaks Greek. Then he looked at you like he had no idea what you were talking about.
> 
> THAT is why men don't get married.


My dad said he can love women as friends and that's great. He may or may not be having sex with them. But he gets some emotional intimacy when he feels a need for it. 

The other situation I didn't get into with him.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Youngster

marduk said:


> To return to the question that actually was asked...
> 
> I asked my dad (who divorced my mom 20 years ago) why he never remarried.
> 
> He's fit, active, wealthy, charming.
> 
> His response: "why the hell would I do that? If I want to have sex, there's a number of women that I can call, who are good friends of mine, that will come over and have sex with me. If I want to go dancing, there's a number of other women I can call, who are good friends of mine, and we will go dancing. If I want to travel... well, you get the idea. And, when I'm done with that, I come home to my place and don't have to deal with any of the noise and bull**** of being married. If you think I'm lonely, I'm not."
> 
> So I asked my early 20's nephew a similar question about why he's not in an LTR... and he gave me a similar, if abbreviated response: "Tinder."


So your nephews response certainly indicates that the current hook-up culture is having an affect on why men aren't marrying.

Hypothetically, I wonder if you were able to eliminate all the on-line dating/tinder/etc. stuff, over time would that change the marriage rate?


----------



## Forest

*Youngster*, and anyone else who remembers the initial topic:

I think I finally have the answer:

Young man ponders marriage, thinks study/advice would help.

Seeks out marriage-associated men's forum to gather info.

Sees that EVERY thread in this men's forum disintegrates into: "The misogynistic male misogyny in this thread is sickening, and giving me conniptions" followed by discussions on feminism.

Young man returns to an online game, strokes his dog approvingly, and orders pizza.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But again Marduk...your father WAS married. No one wonders why a divorced person doesn't get married again.

And your nephew still has a 75% chance of getting married at least once, regardless of how he feels right now.


----------



## Marduk

Youngster said:


> So your nephews response certainly indicates that the current hook-up culture is having an affect on why men aren't marrying.
> 
> Hypothetically, I wonder if you were able to eliminate all the on-line dating/tinder/etc. stuff, over time would that change the marriage rate?


I'm not sure, but it was for him. 

What he seemed to indicate was that it is so prevalent that he and his circle of friends (and their friends) all don't see a point to being exclusive. 

Plus, if they are exclusive, hooking up is so easy that it probably isn't exclusive. You get into a tiff with your gf one night, and she's getting laid by some rando (what they call random hookups) that night just to blow off steam. 

He seems to feel monogamy is dead.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Youngster

marduk said:


> I'm not sure, but it was for him.
> 
> What he seemed to indicate was that it is so prevalent that he and his circle of friends (and their friends) all don't see a point to being exclusive.
> 
> Plus, if they are exclusive, hooking up is so easy that it probably isn't exclusive. You get into a tiff with your gf one night, and she's getting laid by some rando (what they call random hookups) that night just to blow off steam.
> 
> *He seems to feel monogamy is dead.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Wow, how sad!

Never heard the term rando before. I hope to god I never hear my son or daughter use it!


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> But again Marduk...your father WAS married. No one wonders why a divorced person doesn't get married again.
> 
> And your nephew still has a 75% chance of getting married at least once, regardless of how he feels right now.


I'm not disagreeing with you. 

I'm saying that it seems like this line of thinking could be part of it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## michzz

People point to Tinder and the hook up culture of the current years as to why men don't marry.

In actuality, I think the root of it goes back to 1960 when "the pill" was introduced as the most effective birth control method.

Why do I say that? Because it is from that date that women started acting like men in pursuing sexual relationships. No more clamping of the knees together while "necking" in the car on a date.

So easier access to sex has a 50-year history at least. It's not about anything thought up in the last 5 years.


----------



## Youngster

Forest said:


> *Youngster*, and anyone else who remembers the initial topic:
> 
> I think I finally have the answer:
> 
> Young man ponders marriage, thinks study/advice would help.
> 
> Seeks out marriage-associated men's forum to gather info.
> 
> Sees that EVERY thread in this men's forum disintegrates into: "The misogynistic male misogyny in this thread is sickening, and giving me conniptions" followed by discussions on feminism.
> 
> Young man returns to an online game, strokes his dog approvingly, and orders pizza.


Ha ha ha. Sometime in the past day I think I was looking for a pizza and video game too!

I find these threads really hard sometimes. Emotions get the better of people(myself included) and the real issue we're looking to discuss gets lost. There are some amazingly smart people here, moderators and posters...I wish we were all better at discussing issues without the vitriol(and I include myself in that as well).


----------



## moco82

When a phenomenon in new generation seems wildly overblown by the previous generation, it probably is. All the hubbub about the "hook-up culture" seems to come mostly from elders and from click-baiting journalists and bloggers. The hubbub makes it sound like all you need to do is move into a downtown loft, download Tinder, and you'll be guaranteed to get laid with a reasonably attractive woman every day. Yet we know that is true for a small handful of men; and the small handful has been pulling this off well before the advent of the "hook-up culture". The most Tinder has done was slightly increase the frequency of intercourse for most men, but, in accounting/financial analysis terms, it is immaterial.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> My dad said he can love women as friends and that's great. He may or may not be having sex with them. But he gets some emotional intimacy when he feels a need for it.
> 
> The other situation I didn't get into with him.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yup. He "gets".


----------



## Marduk

moco82 said:


> When a phenomenon in new generation seems wildly overblown by the previous generation, it probably is. All the hubbub about the "hook-up culture" seems to come mostly from elders and from click-baiting journalists and bloggers. The hubbub makes it sound like all you need to do is move into a downtown loft, download Tinder, and you'll be guaranteed to get laid with a reasonably attractive woman every day. Yet we know that is true for a small handful of men; and the small handful has been pulling this off well before the advent of the "hook-up culture". The most Tinder has done was slightly increase the frequency of intercourse for most men, but, in accounting/financial analysis terms, it is immaterial.


I dunno man. I mean, maybe, but cognitive bias is what it is, I never had trouble getting laid when I wasn't married.

What he said about tinder culture is that everyone his age that he knows has been with dozens of other people. 

Another buddy of mine, who went nuts after a bad break up, slept with two dozen women in one month. I called bs, he proved to me how easy it was by doing the whole "swipe, swipe, come to my door at 7" thing and lo and behold a girl did.

He specifically told her that he didn't want to talk, let's just go get naked, and she said OK. And then he asked me to leave, of course. But I could come back in a couple of hours because she would be gone.

Right in front of her. 

She was fine with the whole thing.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> Yup. He "gets".


Apparently, that's all that counts for some.


----------



## Constable Odo

Icey181 said:


> 1) Who do you think those state legislators were?
> 2) Who do you think voted those legislators in?
> 
> America is a Federal Republic.
> 
> Technically, there has never been a popular vote for the passage of _anything_ in American history.


Relax. I'm not disagreeing with your basic points. The point I was trying to make is we really don't know if a majority of the white male population would have voted to give women the right to vote.

Or, put another way with a more modern twist: 100 years from now, will historians write that a majority of the American population supported same-sex marriage?

Because, when same sex marriage has been put the the popular vote, it has almost always lost, and the only way same-sex marriage has come to be has been through legislative fiat and judicial activism.

Had the right to vote for women been put to a popular vote, would it have passed? Nobody really knows for sure.




moco82 said:


> Dates after 25 are like interviews,


After my first non-date date with my now SO, I told her the only thing missing from our meeting was the clipboard and pen where she could mark down my answers on a pre-printed questionairre form  If our lives had taken a different path and we had just become friends rather than a couple, I would have bought her a clipboard to use on her future dating "interviews". After our first non-date date I did give her a big red "bull$hit" button she could bring with her and press whenever her dates started feeding her a ration of bull. It's vecroed to the dash of her car today 




michzz said:


> In actuality, I think the root of it goes back to 1960 when "the pill" was introduced as the most effective birth control method.


That, and easy access to abortion has made the consequences of sex less dire for women, so their "vested interest" in making sure the guy will stick around if she gets pregnant is certainly less important in today's world than 50 years ago.


----------



## Lila

Youngster said:


> So your nephews response certainly indicates that the current hook-up culture is having an affect on why men aren't marrying.
> 
> Hypothetically, I wonder if you were able to eliminate all the on-line dating/tinder/etc. stuff, over time would that change the marriage rate?


You've mentioned that the "hookup culture" is partly to blame for the drop in marriage rate. How would you propose to eliminate this "hook-up culture"?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Lila said:


> You've mentioned that the "hookup culture" is partly to blame for the drop in marriage rate. How would you propose to eliminate this "hook-up culture"?


I don't even understand the end goal. Anyone whose sole purpose in getting married is steady sex for price paid shouldn't get married.


----------



## Youngster

Lila said:


> You've mentioned that the "hookup culture" is partly to blame for the drop in marriage rate. How would you propose to eliminate this "hook-up culture"?


That's a great and question and to be honest I have no idea. Maybe more education in high school specifically addressing on-line dating/on-line hookups. Do you have any thoughts or are you thinking that now that the cats out of the bag we'll never get it back in?

If hookups are as bad as Marduk indicates I think we have a real problem. The young guys I work with seem to think they can get a sex partner whenever they want..... I'll be honest, when I hear stuff like this I just have a hard time getting my arms around it.

Let me also say(a little tongue in cheek) the young guys I work with are all engineers.......really great guys but not what you'd call gods gift to women. No one would mistake any of us for Tom Brady!
:smile2:


----------



## CTPlay

Despite all that has been done to me, I still believe in marriage. I believed it when I was a young man and no reason why one WW would forever change me on that opinion.

Marriage doesn't kill people. People kill people. 

Wait..


----------



## Forest

CTPlay said:


> Despite all that has been done to me, I still believe in marriage. I believed it when I was a young man and no reason why one WW would forever change me on that opinion.
> 
> Marriage doesn't kill people. People kill people.
> 
> Wait..


Don't bring guns into this!:laugh:


----------



## Lila

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't even understand the end goal. Anyone whose sole purpose in getting married is steady sex for price paid shouldn't get married.


I agree with you. Easy access to sex should not be one of the reasons for getting sex but as @Youngster OP indicates, there are men that believe the decline in marriage is a problem now or could become one in the future. Several causes to this problem were indicated, one of which was the "hookup culture". 
@Youngster identified what he believes is a problem (decline in marriage among young men), a potential cause for the problem ("hook up culture), so now I'm just wondering if he has a solution.

ETA: I don't believe a problem exists but am nevertheless interested in hearing others opinions.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Youngster said:


> That's a great and question and to be honest I have no idea. Maybe more education in high school specifically addressing on-line dating/on-line hookups. Do you have any thoughts or are you thinking that now that the cats out of the bag we'll never get it back in?
> 
> If hookups are as bad as Marduk indicates I think we have a real problem. The young guys I work with seem to think they can get a sex partner whenever they want..... I'll be honest, when I hear stuff like this I just have a hard time getting my arms around it.
> 
> Let me also say(a little tongue in cheek) the young guys I work with are all engineers.......really great guys but not what you'd call gods gift to women. No one would mistake any of us for Tom Brady!
> :smile2:


Well i would imagine that it partly depends on whether they think they're entitled to Giselle, though to be honest I think both Tom and Giselle are a little overrated. Just my opinion though 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila

Youngster said:


> That's a great and question and to be honest I have no idea. Maybe more education in high school specifically addressing on-line dating/on-line hookups. Do you have any thoughts or are you thinking that now that the cats out of the bag we'll never get it back in?
> 
> If hookups are as bad as Marduk indicates I think we have a real problem. The young guys I work with seem to think they can get a sex partner whenever they want..... I'll be honest, when I hear stuff like this I just have a hard time getting my arms around it.
> 
> Let me also say(a little tongue in cheek) the young guys I work with are all engineers.......really great guys but not what you'd call gods gift to women. No one would mistake any of us for Tom Brady!
> :smile2:


Honestly, it's not as prevalent as it's made out to be. This isn't an epidemic. 

Young people are waiting until later in life to get married. Young people are going to have sex. Stands to reason that they are going to have pre-marital sex. 

Historically, the "hook up culture" was predominately limited to those active in the bar scene. This excluded a big part of the young people population. That's just not the case anymore. With the advent of internet dating, the introverts and less socially outgoing are partaking in pre-marital sex just like the extroverts and social butterflies. They are now able to meet others just like themselves using the internet. 

The game is the same but the tools used to pick up people have changed. I think people believe there is an epidemic because online dating makes it possible for everyone to easily meet sexual partners within their pool of available candidates.

Look, marriage is a wonderful institution for those that _freely _choose to enter into it. I think we need to let "the next" generation make the choice for themselves. No need to start the anti-hookups campaign just yet. :smile2:


----------



## Cletus

At least I know I'm not old and crystallized enough yet to have a "Get off my lawn!" moment. 

Hookup culture isn't something to be afraid of. Between consenting adults, there are no victims here. They are choosing to do what they emphatically wish to do, and more power to them. I don't think the species is in any danger of going extinct from too few marriages any time soon. 

I suspect **** Habilis with his club had a sex life more in line with today's young people than with our parent's generation, short the easy electronic access to the hairy mate of his choosing within walking distance (but he WAS pretty handy).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Take away the stigma surrounding sex and WOW, we find that women want sex as much as men do! Who woulda thunk?


----------



## T&T

Faithful Wife said:


> Take away the stigma surrounding sex and WOW, we find that women want sex as much as men do! Who woulda thunk?


LOL! That has been my experience too.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Take away the stigma surrounding sex and WOW, we find that women want sex as much as men do! Who woulda thunk?


Nice try, not going to take the bait. :x


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh right...you still believe that these young men are having to beg, coerce and otherwise convince women into bed with them...because men want sex more than women. Thus, Tinder is full of women who are being begged and coerced into bed. Gotcha.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh right...you still believe that these young men are having to beg, coerce and otherwise convince women into bed with them...because men want sex more than women. Thus, Tinder is full of women who are being begged and coerced into bed. Gotcha.


Not going to take the bait, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. Because I have never and would never make such a statement. I might point out that social dating sites are populated with almost two men for every woman.


----------



## Forest

Cletus said:


> Not going to take the bait, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. Because I have never and would never make such a statement. I might point out that social dating sites are populated with almost two men for every woman.


Just another guy that applauds feminism being labeled a misogynist.


----------



## Cletus

Forest said:


> Just another guy that applauds feminism being labeled a misogynist.


Well, let's just say that we have a long history of arguing on this topic that has proven to be pointless, and leave it at that.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> Take away the stigma surrounding sex and WOW, we find that women want sex as much as men do! Who woulda thunk?


Nooooo that cannot be!!!

The world is surely coming to an end. >


----------



## Forest

Cletus said:


> Well, let's just say that we have a long history of arguing on this topic that has proven to be pointless, and leave it at that.


If only your counterparts were so well-heeled and intelligent. If you don't mind being trashed by the people you're lobbying for....


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> Not going to take the bait, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. Because I have never and would never make such a statement. I might point out that social dating sites are populated with almost two men for every woman.


My thought on the ratio being 2:1 is that women would be more careful. So fewer women would use hookup sites (not dating but hookup) sites. It sounds like a very good way for a woman to end up in a very bad situation.

With that ratio, I it must not be all that easy for men to find women on those sites to have hookups with.....

Seems that we are getting conflicting info...

one person says that young men, even nerdy young men, can get sex on hookup sites anytime they want.

But then another says that there are twice as many men on the sites... What to think :wink2:


----------



## Youngster

EleGirl said:


> My thought on the ratio being 2:1 is that women would be more careful. So fewer women would use hookup sites (not dating but hookup) sites. It sounds like a very good way for a woman to end up in a very bad situation.
> 
> With that ratio, I it must not be all that easy for men to find women on those sites to have hookups with.....
> 
> Seems that we are getting conflicting info...
> 
> one person says that young men, even nerdy young men, can get sex on hookup sites anytime they want.
> 
> But then another says that there are twice as many men on the sites... What to think :wink2:



Hey who ever said nerdy?
:smile2:

I tell my wife all the time, once you have a man with a pocket protector, you never go back!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> Well, let's just say that we have a long history of arguing on this topic that has proven to be pointless, and leave it at that.


Let's also say that I totally respect and enjoy Cletus and would never call him a misogynist. The thought of it is absurd, he clearly has nothing against women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Forest said:


> If only your counterparts were so well-heeled and intelligent. If you don't mind being trashed by the people you're lobbying for....


Gee it's not like I can read or anything....you've called me out more than once on this thread. I get it Forest, you don't like me or what I have to say or whatever....duly noted.

Can you stop trying to recruit people to be against me now? Thanks.


----------



## MountainRunner

Faithful Wife said:


> Take away the stigma surrounding sex and WOW, we find that women want sex as much as men do! Who woulda thunk?


Oh the humanity! 

j/k FF...But you knew that....I hope. *grin*


----------



## Cletus

EleGirl said:


> one person says that young men, even nerdy young men, can get sex on hookup sites anytime they want.
> 
> But then another says that there are twice as many men on the sites... What to think :wink2:


Think hard, Ele. You're smart, for a woman (wink, wink).

Look, I have never said that there aren't ample women looking for all manner of relationships from dating, to marriage, to hookups. But the numbers don't lie - the social dating sites, including Tinder, are reporting them. There are no doubt many, many women looking for and finding men. But for every woman looking, there are two guys. 

That doesn't necessarily mean much. Maybe women are getting every date they want and every man simply has double the wait in line for his turn. Maybe it means some or lots of guys are going dateless. Maybe it means nothing at all. 

But the term "sausage fest" has been used in the media, and I wouldn't be too happy to walk into a bar with that ratio trying to walk out with a date.


----------



## Forest

Faithful Wife said:


> Gee it's not like I can read or anything....you've called me out more than once on this thread. I get it Forest, you don't like me or what I have to say or whatever....duly noted.
> 
> Can you stop trying to recruit people to be against me now? Thanks.


Jeez. Other than some needy attention seeker, who are you? Is there a confounding yawning emoticon?

Surely, you can show me where I've "called you out more than once on this thread"?


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Let's also say that I totally respect and enjoy Cletus and would never call him a misogynist. The thought of it is absurd, he clearly has nothing against women.


Thank you, that was magnanimous. And you, in return, are no misandrist.


----------



## alltheprettyflowers

bs, there are people who have enough money in the bank at 25 years of age. Its utter lies to say that one has to wait in order to get married. Yeah maybe those who are incapable need to wait until they are 40 or 50.


----------



## EleGirl

Forest said:


> Just another guy that applauds feminism being labeled a misogynist.


Not one person labeled Cletus a misogynist. He certainly not one.


----------



## EleGirl

Youngster said:


> Hey who ever said nerdy?
> :smile2:
> 
> I tell my wife all the time, once you have a man with a pocket protector, you never go back!


I agree.... >


----------



## EleGirl

alltheprettyflowers said:


> bs, there are people who have enough money in the bank at 25 years of age. Its utter lies to say that one has to wait in order to get married. Yeah maybe those who are incapable need to wait until they are 40 or 50.


No one has said not that no people 25 and under have any enough money in the bank. 

However most do not.

Age Average balance

Under 25 $3,865

25–34 $21,524

35–44 $54,054

45–54 $103,269

55–64 $154,421

65+ $176,696


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Look, I have never said that there aren't ample women looking for all manner of relationships from dating, to marriage, to hookups. But the numbers don't lie - the social dating sites, including Tinder, are reporting them. There are no doubt many, many women looking for and finding men. But for every woman looking, there are two guys.


2 to 1? For location based hookup apps, maybe, but not across the board.

This Is Why Men Outnumber Women Two-to-One on Tinder - Mic
http://www.businessinsider.com/women-on-******-*******-2013-7
Some Interesting Online Dating Statistics : Christie Hartman, PhD
What is the male : female ratio on big five dating websites - Match.com, eHarmony, PlentyofFish, Zoosk and *******? - Quora



> In short, it depends on the site, the business model of the site, the location you are in, and how old you are, and it can skew from perfectly even, to as many as 3:1 or 2:5 M:W.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> Not one person labeled Cletus a misogynist. He certainly not one.


How did someone come up with Cletus, of all people, of being a misogynist? That is kind of baffling.


----------



## Wolf1974

NobodySpecial said:


> How did someone come up with Cletus, of all people, of being a misogynist? That is kind of baffling.


for some it's easier to throw out names and stereotypes on people because they don't share your opinion. I have also been called a misogynist and it couldn't be further from the truth. Can always tell when the small minded run out of things to argue they resort to name calling.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Wolf1974 said:


> for some it's easier to throw out names and stereotypes on people because they don't share your opinion. I have also been called a misogynist and it couldn't be further from the truth. Can always tell when the small minded run out of things to argue they resort to name calling.


But the person who made the misogynist representation was accusing someone whose comments did not say that at all. I don't get it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Because NS, Forest, who is the one who accused me of calling Cletus a misogynist, thinks that I am a man hater and assumes I call all men misogynists. Or that is what I was left to conclude.


----------



## moco82

marduk said:


> Another buddy of mine, who went nuts after a bad break up, slept with two dozen women in one month. I called bs, he proved to me how easy it was by doing the whole "swipe, swipe, come to my door at 7" thing and lo and behold a girl did.


That's it! I'm downloading Tinder.


----------



## moco82

Cletus said:


> I suspect **** Habilis with his club had a sex life more in line with today's young people than with our parent's generation, short the easy electronic access to the hairy mate of his choosing within walking distance


Hairy mates... is that when spouses get too comfortable with each other to groom regularly?


----------



## Runs like Dog

You gotta love it. Someone asks 'why aren't men marrying?' and for each and every one of the 10,000 reasons proffered, angry feminists and women shriek that the reason is bullsh^it. The lack of self awareness is world-class.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> 2 to 1? For location based hookup apps, maybe, but not across the board.
> 
> This Is Why Men Outnumber Women Two-to-One on Tinder - Mic
> http://www.businessinsider.com/women-on-******-*******-2013-7
> Some Interesting Online Dating Statistics : Christie Hartman, PhD
> What is the male : female ratio on big five dating websites - Match.com, eHarmony, PlentyofFish, Zoosk and *******? - Quora


A mathematician and an engineer agreed to take part in an experiment.

They were both placed in a room and at the other end was a beautiful naked woman on a bed. The experimenter said every 30 seconds they would be allowed to travel half the distance between themselves and the woman. The mathematician said "this is pointless" and stormed off'. The engineer agreed to go ahead with the experiment anyway. The mathematician exclaimed on his way out "don't you see, you'll never actually reach her?" To which the engineer replied, "so what? Pretty soon I'll be close enough for all practical purposes!"

The 2:1 aggregate number was a Good Enough Approximation for discussion in a marriage forum. This isn't a peer-reviewed article in a published journal.


----------



## Deejo

Women dig my misogynism.

They LOVE what I hold against them.


----------



## Deejo

Bugged said:


> As for the hookup culture:
> I don't know what it is like where you live but here Tinder is an app for Hookers sleazes or erotomanicas of both sexes...


You say that like a right swiper.

This is sarcasm. I'm presuming you know how Tinder works based on your comment.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Bugged said:


> Ths is , yet again, another *misogynistic post.*
> Women here don't *shriek *anything, they made very spot on comments.


Yes they threw out every single point made by men, w/o qualification. Priceless. Spot on!


----------



## Runs like Dog

Tell you what - you work out the reason why amongst yourselves w/o our input and get back to us when you're done. Then we can all agree you're right and we've learned another lesson.


----------



## Jung_admirer

So if I push the ancient Greek... Are we all not misoprodotists?


----------



## Marduk

Bugged said:


> As for the hookup culture:
> I don't know what it is like where you live but here Tinder is an app for Hookers sleazes or erotomanicas of both sexes...


No judgement there... :wink2:


----------



## Buddy400

Cletus said:


> Hookup culture isn't something to be afraid of. Between consenting adults, there are no victims here. They are choosing to do what they emphatically wish to do, and more power to them. I don't think the species is in any danger of going extinct from too few marriages any time soon.


Is Hookup Culture a problem? Interesting question. If you've just got a passing idea of what "Hookup Culture" consists of and how prevalent it actually is, I'd recommend the web site HookingUpSmart.com. This is run by a woman who is a rabid opponent of MRA, so it should be fairly trustworthy. She has all kinds of research about it.

Her main takeaways:
1) Everybody thinks everybody's doing it but it's maybe only 20% of young people actually are.
2) It serves most men's purposes (easy access to sex) 
3) It does not serve most women's purposes (commitment)
4) She does not believe most women can deal with casual sex easily, although she has no problems with those that can deal with it doing it. 

My impression:
1) It works to the advantage of those men who have easy access to sex.
2) It removes the incentives those men might have to get involved in more fulfilling relationships with women
3) It removes many of these men from the pool of men that woman could otherwise have fulfilling relationships with
4) It serves the purposes of women who want to have casual sex (although that percentage is lower than people like FW believe). Not that they ever had a problem getting sex, but the stigma is removed.
5) It works against those women who want relationships but are uncomfortable with casual sex
6) It works against those women that feel the need to engage in casual sex that they do not want due to peer pressure.
7) It works against those men who do not have easy access to sex and used to be in a position to offer commitment in trade.
8) In summary, it reduces the possibility that both genders will end up in fulfilling committed relationships.

More negatives than positives.

Personnel experience: My 21 year old daughter (who has only been with her LTR boyfriend) often feels like there's something wrong with her and that somehow this is a problem. She also feels like she would be wrong to advise a friend of hers against casual sex that she has reason to believe will cause her friend emotional pain. My sons are pretty much unaffected (they're neither getting more or less sex than they would have before hookup culture). My friend's stud alpha 24 year old son is absolutely cleaning up and appears to be shooting for Wilt's record. Me? Can't help feeling like it would be really nice to be 21 again and know what I know now:smile2:

What can be done? Not much. Legislation certainly isn't going to do any good. We'll have to wait and see how it shakes out. In the meantime, young women should be encouraged to do what they feel is best for then and ignore social pressures to the contrary (yeah, like that'll happen). Young men should learn what actually attracts women.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> You've mentioned that the "hookup culture" is partly to blame for the drop in marriage rate. How would you propose to eliminate this "hook-up culture"?


Why is a reduction in marriage rates and increase in hook-up culture bad?

Last time I checked, divorce rates were down.

Maybe it's because people that never really wanted to be married now have a viable 2nd option that doesn't mean celibacy or veiled judgement.


----------



## Marduk

Buddy400 said:


> 2) It serves most men's purposes (easy access to sex)
> 3) It does not serve most women's purposes (commitment)


Last time I heard, a lot of women are enjoying the hook-ups, too.

It may actually serve these women well that there may be fewer of them partaking. They get more to choose from, and greater frequency.

Think about it. A new hot guy every day of the week with no BS. That would be compelling to some women.

And when they don't want it... poof! No more hot guys.

It's like on-demand hot water. As much as you want whenever you want it. And you shut it off, and don't have to pay to keep the water warm waiting for you.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> The 2:1 aggregate number was a Good Enough Approximation for discussion in a marriage forum. This isn't a peer-reviewed article in a published journal.


Did you read anything I posted? No, of course not, as you've already predetermined that anything I say is to be summarily dismissed with a few patronizing comments.

Or perhaps you really do think that 2:1 male to female is somehow the equivalent of 50:50 or 3:5?

If so, I hope you are not an engineer, mathematician, or machinist.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> Did you read anything I posted? No, of course not, as you've already predetermined that anything I say is to be summarily dismissed with a few patronizing comments.
> 
> Or perhaps you really do think that 2:1 male to female is somehow the equivalent of 50:50 or 3:5?
> 
> If so, I hope you are not an engineer, mathematician, or machinist.


From the first line of the first source you quoted:

"A new study conducted by research firm GlobalWebIndex has found that about *62% of all location-based dating app users are male.* " (emphasis mine)

That's a couple of percentage points closer to 5:3 than it is to 2:1. 2:1 is a good enough approximation since we're dealing with more or less indivisible humans. This is also limited to the location based services, which are the ones used more for hooking up. 

But very well, since pedantry is your stock-in-trade, I will amend my statement to officially stand as there are 5 men on social dating sites for every 3 women. I reduced my approximation error from 5% to 2%. Satisfied? Are you this much fun at parties?

I am an engineer, and a successful one at that, partly because I can manage to see the forest through the trees, and the point of the discussion, in case you missed it, was that women are overall a sizable minority in online dating. YMMV depending on your chosen dating site.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've mentioned that the "hookup culture" is partly to blame for the drop in marriage rate. How would you propose to eliminate this "hook-up culture"?
> 
> 
> 
> Why is a reduction in marriage rates and increase in hook-up culture bad?
> 
> Last time I checked, divorce rates were down.
> 
> Maybe it's because people that never really wanted to be married now have a viable 2nd option that doesn't mean celibacy or veiled judgement.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I don't see it's an issue but was curious to hear OP's solution to a supposed problem.


----------



## always_alone

Runs like Dog said:


> Yes they threw out every single point made by men, w/o qualification. Priceless. Spot on!


I know, silly me. I thought that maybe just maybe I could argue that men cared about more than getting sex. Lesson learned!


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> That's a couple of percentage points closer to 5:3 than it is to 2:1. 2:1 is a good enough approximation since we're dealing with more or less indivisible humans.
> 
> But very well, since pedantry is your stock-in-trade, I will amend my statement to officially stand as there are 5 men on social dating sites for every 3 women. I reduced my approximation error from 5% to 2%. Satisfied? Are you this much fun at parties?
> 
> I am an engineer, and a successful one at that, partly because I can manage to see the forest through the trees, and the point of the discussion, in case you missed it, was that women are overall a sizable minority in online dating. YMMV depending on your chosen dating site.


I don't know why I bother trying to converse with you, but I **acknowledged** that study you just quoted and the pointed out that it *referred to* only one type of social media dating site**. Very specifically **location based app**

Then I posted articles that showed why **that** business model would likely draw more men than women and **several** articles that showed that *women participate equally or more *in **other** types of sites, including the adultery sites, and other hook-upy type sites. 

So, call me a pedant for caring about facts and evidence if you wish, but let's not pretend that I am quibbling over the numbers you are on about here.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> I don't know why I bother trying to converse with you...


Nor do I, when the alternative is so much easier.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Nor do I, when the alternative is so much easier.


Your dismissiveness and utter unwillingness to even register a point is amazing to me.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> Your dismissiveness and utter unwillingness to even register a point is amazing to me.


Fine, let's go down that road and see where it leads:

"Note that the sites with the most females are match-based sites. These sites require you to fill out a long questionnaire (something many men don’t like) and choose your matches for you rather than allowing you to browse freely for who you want. eHarmony in particular is known for people looking to get married rather than hook up or date casually."

You have stated that there is fundamentally no difference between men and women in their interest for casual sex. Then why do women reach parity or even outnumber men on the sites where the population is ostensibly looking for relationships, while men outnumber the women by the (nearly) 2:1 ratio I mentioned for the sites where the object is geared more towards hookups and casual dating, i.e., the location based dating apps? 

Every single one of these references, and yes I read them (except for the broken link) in one way or another acknowledges that more men than women, sometimes many more men, are using social media for the purpose of getting laid.


----------



## NobodySpecial

When FW and AA start tag teaming, even I'm out. Cheers.


----------



## EllisRedding

Been off the boards for a while. Came across this thread, 1st page seemed like it had promise, skipped over to the last few pages and :surprise::surprise::surprise: (although it really wasn't a surprise it would go in this direction...).

Anyways, I am in my 30s, got married in my 20s, no regrets. I was talking to a guy today who is 24 getting married in a few months, I had nothing but encouragement for him. Age is just a number ...

I just simply look at it that marriage is not for everyone and there is nothing wrong with that. The worst thing you can do is to get married b/c you feel like that is what you are supposed to do. If you find what you believe is the right person go for it. If not, no biggie just keep doing your thing. 

It will be very interesting to see how things progress in the next 20+ years as that is when my kids will be facing these questions. 

I do believe that the cultural shift towards materialism and self-centerism (if that is even a word) has pushed more young men/women to just focus on instant gratification (something that doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with a LTR/Marriage, and something that feeds in well to the hookup culture)


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> When FW and AA start tag teaming, even I'm out. Cheers.


Um...you must have misunderstood. I'm not on Cletus's case, nor on AA's team, on their particular back and forth thing they did just now. I had no part in that one.

Please don't insinuate things that didn't happen. I get enough grief on this board for what I actually *DO* say to have to take it on for things I had nothing to do with.

I like Cletus a lot.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Um...you must have misunderstood. I'm not on Cletus's case, nor on AA's team on their particular back and forth thing they did just now.


My bad. I misunderstood.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Take away the stigma surrounding sex and WOW, we find that women want sex as much as men do! Who woulda thunk?


Now, you and elegirl say that women want sex as much as men do. And, you're women and I'm not, so I take that into consideration. And my personnel experience is that some women seemed to want sex as much as I did (and some didn't). 

But I'm not getting my understanding that *most* men want sex more than *most* women from my personal experience, or MRA sites or other men. I'm getting it from mass media in general, everything I've heard from other people and what other women say. In fact, it's absolutely routine for women here on TAM on other threads to mention this as a known truth. So, I guess I'd have to get you two and women on TAM that disagree in a room together to fight it out.

Unless what you're saying is that in "a more perfect world" women would want sex as much as men. If that's the case, then I understand the point and just question the practicality of considering that possibility in regards to the real world.


----------



## Cletus

Bugged said:


> Which might mean that women interested in casual sex don't need an app or a social media to get laid, not necessarily that they are less interested.
> A friend of mine goes to speed dating nights because she doesn't trust apps..she wants to see people before agreeing to meet them alone even in public places. She thinks it's safer.


That is a valid possibility.


----------



## Cletus

Buddy400 said:


> But I'm not getting my understanding that *most* men want sex more than *most* women from my personal experience, or MRA sites or other men. I'm getting it from mass media in general, everything I've heard from other people and what other women say. In fact, it's absolutely routine for women here on TAM on other threads to mention this as a known truth. So, I guess I'd have to get you two and women on TAM that disagree in a room together to fight it out.


This is the road I had hoped to avoid going down, and since I already know where this goes, I too am going to have to bow out.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Now, you and elegirl say that women want sex as much as men do. And, you're women and I'm not, so I take that into consideration. And my personnel experience is that some women seemed to want sex as much as I did (and some didn't).
> 
> But I'm not getting my understanding that *most* men want sex more than *most* women from my personal experience, or MRA sites or other men. I'm getting it from mass media in general, everything I've heard from other people and what other women say.


I have no way to know, but I wonder if the more pressure is removed from women to be the "good girl" and the less their value to their mate is attached to their purity and virginity, the more they will free to express themselves openly. Dunno.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Every single one of these references, and yes I read them (except for the broken link) in one way or another acknowledges that more men than women, sometimes many more men, are using social media for the purpose of getting laid.


The other link was about the famous adultery site, and the reason it is broken is that its name is censored on TAM.

Other sites include POF and *******, which are also used for hookups.

I am only pointing out that the ratio you refer to is about very high risk hook-up apps, where it is unsurprising that women would be more suspicious of. The danger of a random man coming straight to your house? Of course, women are less interested.

Doesn't mean they aren't using dating sites for hook-ups. Just means they want more accountability.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Yup. He "gets".


That's the point. It isn't working out for the women he "gets" from as it is for him. That's why I think this all matters at least as much for women as for men.

And, he's probably not getting as much as he could in a happy, fulfilling, loving relationship because he has no incentive to give it a try. So, even though he's "getting" he's probably not getting as much as he could.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> That's the point. It isn't working out for the women he "gets" from as it is for him. That's why I think this all matters at least as much for women as for men.


I have a different perspective. I, personally, would not want a long term commitment with someone who does not even know that intimacy is not something you get. It is something you share. That life and relationship is freaking awesome when you can think past sex, dancing, money and the "stuff" you "get". It would be a very big benefit to me to find that out BEFORE getting stuck with someone like Marduk's Dad. I would rather be alone. I think that the removal of pressure to marry, the removal of the pressure to marry Marduk's Dad and people like him is a serious Net Good Thing.




> And, he's probably not getting as much as he could in a happy, fulfilling, loving relationship because he has no incentive to give it a try.


Someone is responsible to incentivize him to try? Some of managed to grow up with no incentive. 



> So, even though he's "getting" he's probably not getting as much as he could.


Well that much I agree with. Too bad for him.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> That's the point. It isn't working out for the women he "gets" from as it is for him.


And really, we have no idea of these women don't want to "get" theirs as well. How would we. We have no idea who they are. They could be takers as well.


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> When FW and AA start tag teaming, even I'm out. Cheers.


My brain went exactly the wrong way with that one.

But I got a smile on my face, so thanks.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Unless what you're saying is that in "a more perfect world" women would want sex as much as men. If that's the case, then I understand the point and just question the practicality of considering that possibility in regards to the real world.


Younger people don't take on the shame of our elders, or so it appears. And therefore, the previous generation's type of conditioning isn't happening to the same extent on younger women. 

Basically...younger women know they like looking at porn, just like younger men do. They don't feel shamed by it, so they follow their natural urges and do so. This is just one example of how the younger generation is not taking on our shaming tactics any longer.

The result of their refusal to be shamed by us old people, is that if men and women are given equal authority over their own bodies and desires, and agency in going after what they actually want, you see a different overall picture and pattern of behavior....which is namely, that women want sex as much as men do.

I asked my 28 y/o son the other day if he thinks men are more sexual than women. He said "no...why would anyone think that? It isn't logical".


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> My brain went exactly the wrong way with that one.
> 
> But I got a smile on my face, so thanks.


Although I'm sure Cletus would love it if AA and I tag teamed him...this time we did not. It would be so inappropriate as we are all in monogamous relationships, anyway.


----------



## Marduk

Buddy400 said:


> Now, you and elegirl say that women want sex as much as men do. And, you're women and I'm not, so I take that into consideration. And my personnel experience is that some women seemed to want sex as much as I did (and some didn't).
> 
> But I'm not getting my understanding that *most* men want sex more than *most* women from my personal experience, or MRA sites or other men. I'm getting it from mass media in general, everything I've heard from other people and what other women say. In fact, it's absolutely routine for women here on TAM on other threads to mention this as a known truth. So, I guess I'd have to get you two and women on TAM that disagree in a room together to fight it out.
> 
> Unless what you're saying is that in "a more perfect world" women would want sex as much as men. If that's the case, then I understand the point and just question the practicality of considering that possibility in regards to the real world.


I would say, again from personal experience, that men and women's sex drives are more the same than they are different. Women's just seems slightly more complex and nuanced (from this guy's perspective) and men's seem slightly more straightforward (from this guy's perspective).

What I've seen is that it seems to be more common that women have a cultural overlay on top of them that says that's a bad thing.

Once you get past that, either by helping them or just finding the ones that disarmed it before they met you... party city.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Younger people don't take on the shame of our elders, or so it appears. And therefore, the previous generation's type of conditioning isn't happening to the same extent on younger women.


They don't take on the shame if they are not shamed. It requires parental and societal ACTION to instill that kind of shame in people.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Although I'm sure Cletus would love it if AA and I tag teamed him...this time we did not. It would be so inappropriate as we are all in monogamous relationships, anyway.


LOL!


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Although I'm sure Cletus would love it if AA and I tag teamed him...this time we did not. It would be so inappropriate as we are all in monogamous relationships, anyway.


Hey, hey, hey... let's not make this dirty.

All I wanted to do was watch.

From a dark corner.

Not too far away.

Just pretend I'm not here.

Don't make it weird.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> They don't take on the shame if they are not shamed. It requires parental and societal ACTION to instill that kind of shame in people.


True, but I'm seeing and hearing about a lot of younger women who are aware of this societal and even parental shaming, but who don't pick it up. They just shun the shame, because they can see the stupid hypocrisy of it.

But keep in mind I live in Diversity-topia, where the young people most certainly do not take on the views of conservative older folks, and even the older folks around here ain't all that conservative. We've got a lot of aging hippies, who are and were all for free love.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> Although I'm sure Cletus would love it if AA and I tag teamed him...this time we did not. It would be so inappropriate as we are all in monogamous relationships, anyway.


This was enough to get me to finally weigh in on this thread...

Now that the fantasy has been dismissed, I will silently watch from a distance again...while highly disappointed...you know, just in case...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Nah.....we respect the bond between Cletus and Brandine too much to get in the middle of it.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> Nah.....we respect the bond between Cletus and Brandine too much to get in the middle of it.


And cartoon over bites really get me worked up...

:rofl:


----------



## Runs like Dog

always_alone said:


> I know, silly me. I thought that maybe just maybe I could argue that men cared about more than getting sex. Lesson learned!


You asked the question. If you don't like any of the answers then don't ask. It's like Monty Python - - "What''s your favorite color?" Blue? "Wrong !!!!!"


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Someone is responsible to incentivize him to try?


Nope. It's absolutely no one's responsibility.

It's just that life works out better when incentives are lined up with optimal results.

It's wrong to kill people regardless of whether or not there's a potential punishment. But you'll end up with less killing if there are incentives against it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Nope. It's absolutely no one's responsibility.
> 
> It's just that life works out better when incentives are lined up with optimal results.


Lie works out better for whom? Are we to divide the world into incentors and incented? 



> It's wrong to kill people regardless of whether or not there's a potential punishment. But you'll end up with less killing if there are incentives against it.


There is almost no evidence to support this. There is evidence to support the death penalty actually increases murder rates.

Which is entirely beside the point when talking about interpersonal relationships.

I don't accept that there is something fundamentally better about high marriage rates.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> And really, we have no idea of these women don't want to "get" theirs as well. How would we. We have no idea who they are. They could be takers as well.


True. I interpreted your comment as implying that it might be an uneven exchange. 

If everybody's happy; then everybody's happy.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> True. I interpreted your comment as implying that it might be an uneven exchange.



I actually don't care if it is or it isn't an uneven exchange. I don't think people are entitled to even. If she wanted more and was fool enough to fall for a taker, live, learn and move on. There is no world view that is "better for everyone". I don't care to have my freedom to think, to be smart, to choose my own destiny curtailed by someone else' vision of what is "better for everyone". If ever single person acted with purpose toward better for THEM and the people they loved and cared for (better if they did love and care) then we would all be moving there together.


----------



## lifeistooshort

In the end I don't think it matters if there are some people that don't want to get married. Good for them. Most of the people I know over age 30 are married, so clearly men are getting married. And many will continue, because eventually many people crave more than casual hookups, assuming they can get them anyway. Marriage has always existed in society, whether sanctioned by the church or not, because that kind of stability is good for society and families. Whether it becomes civil unions or domestic partnerships it will always exist in some fashion, and if you think you're getting out of paying alimony because you lived with a girlfriend for 10 years instead of marrying her you're sadly mistaken. Laws will simply evolve to accommodate it. When there's real gender equality regarding whose responsibility it is to pay bills you'll have more equitable settlements. 

As I've already said, quality women who want to get married will because they're high value and someone will want to settle with them. I never had to demand anyone marry me, my first husband wanted to get married. I had several boyfriends propose to me before that, and my current husband was all in when I told him that I wanted to be married and if he didn't I understood. If I had someone who thought I was good for hookups I might go along with it to the extent I wanted a hookup but as soon as I wanted something more I'd be on the lookout for something better. If I'm not that important to you well then you're not that important to me. I'm not really the hookup type though.....

Quality men who want to get married will because they're high value. Those who don't are free to make that decision and hopefully they're honest about it, and anyone who dates them should accept it at face value. If they're stupid enough to hang on thinking they will change someone that's on them, we've all seen the guy who refuses to marry his girlfriend of years only to marry the first woman he meets after gf finally dumps him. And the guy who just calls them up when he gets horny? Well he might get some women to go along with that but many of the quality women will eventually get snapped up by someone who thinks they're worth more then a hookup phone call, and everyone eventually gets old. When you're older and need some help see what your booty calls do for you if that's how you want to live. Relationships are like everything else in life, to a large extent you're going to get what you put in.

And frankly what decent woman wants to be married to some guy who wants to get laid and then play video games all day? Such a man would make a poor husband anyway.

There are plenty of good men who are willing to get married.....my husband jokes with me sometimes about how if he let me go I'd get snapped up right away. Whether that's true or not I don't know but I do know a lot of men through various venues, nobody I communicate with as I'm happily married, but enough to know there are plenty available ones out there.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Lie works out better for whom? Are we to divide the world into incentors and incented?
> 
> 
> 
> There is almost no evidence to support this. There is evidence to support the death penalty actually increases murder rates.
> 
> Which is entirely beside the point when talking about interpersonal relationships.
> 
> I don't accept that there is something fundamentally better about high marriage rates.


Nobody,

I’m going to put some extra effort into this because I just can’t for the life of me understand how you could respond the way you did based on what I actually said. Or, somehow I worded what I said in such a way as to totally misrepresent myself.

“It's just that life works out better when incentives are lined up with optimal results.”

All I meant by this is, for example, if hard work is an optimal result then life will work out better if hard workers are rewarded than if hard workers were fired. Or, if helping injured strangers in seen as the optimal result; laws allowing bystanders to assist without having to worry about being sued would be helpful in obtaining that result. 

“you'll end up with less killing if there are incentives against it.” 

This has nothing to do with the death penalty. Personally, I’m against the death penalty. You do agree that killing people should result in some consequence don’t you?

“I don't accept that there is something fundamentally better about high marriage rates” 

I don’t think I’m on record here as making a value judgment about high marriage rates. I used killing as an example because I was pretty certain most people would agree that it was bad.

Could you help me out a little by explaining how you got to the response you made?


----------



## Marduk

I just had an epiphany.

Men aren't marrying because women.

Except the gay ones, of course. Those are the men's fault.

Except where you can't do that. Because republicans.

Who else can I make mad with just one post?


----------



## lifeistooshort

marduk said:


> I just had an epiphany.
> 
> Men aren't marrying because women.
> 
> Except the gay ones, of course. Those are the men's fault.
> 
> Except where you can't do that. Because republicans.
> 
> Who else can I make mad with just one post?


What if I refuse to marry because I don't like your dog? Surely there are dog lovers that will upset >


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> I asked my 28 y/o son the other day if he thinks men are more sexual than women. He said "no...why would anyone think that? It isn't logical".


Without arguing one side or the other, why is it not logical?

Everyone on the forum was falling all over themselves agreeing with me when the statement was "men are more violent than women". There are very clearly real world X/Y chromosome related differences between men and women.

Why is it de facto illogical to think that those differences _might_ extend into sexuality, particularly given that sex development and differentiation is the PRIMARY difference between us, driven by the underlying unambiguous and verifiable genetic means?

Whether you believe there is a fundamental innate drive difference between the sexes or not, it is not illogical on the face of it to ask or consider it possible. To think otherwise is to elevate an a priori assumption to the status of a given.

From the time in utero that my testosterone system kicked in we went down very different developmental paths. I'm bigger than you, stronger than you, and have dangly bits that you don't. It is to me no less of a leap of logic to assume that from that difference plus 18 or so years of maturation that we (the collective we) would wind up in precisely the same spot sexually.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> But keep in mind I live in Diversity-topia, where the young people most certainly do not take on the views of conservative older folks, and even the older folks around here ain't all that conservative. We've got a lot of aging hippies, who are and were all for free love.


Ain't it grand? When we're not researching the background of our free-range chickens, we're sucking on the ever-lasting gobstopper of a 60's era free love hangover.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Nobody,
> 
> I’m going to put some extra effort into this because I just can’t for the life of me understand how you could respond the way you did based on what I actually said. Or, somehow I worded what I said in such a way as to totally misrepresent myself.
> 
> “It's just that life works out better when incentives are lined up with optimal results.”
> 
> All I meant by this is, for example, if hard work is an optimal result then life will work out better if hard workers are rewarded than if hard workers were fired. Or, if helping injured strangers in seen as the optimal result; laws allowing bystanders to assist without having to worry about being sued would be helpful in obtaining that result.
> 
> “you'll end up with less killing if there are incentives against it.”
> 
> This has nothing to do with the death penalty. Personally, I’m against the death penalty. You do agree that killing people should result in some consequence don’t you?
> 
> “I don't accept that there is something fundamentally better about high marriage rates”
> 
> I don’t think I’m on record here as making a value judgment about high marriage rates. I used killing as an example because I was pretty certain most people would agree that it was bad.
> 
> Could you help me out a little by explaining how you got to the response you made?


I think that optimal results are determined by individuals. And I think incentives are the lamest of reasons to do something. I work to make a living because I have to. I do what I do because I fantastic at it, and it give me great satisfaction. I help people because they are in need, and it is the right thing to do. And because I care about them.

Killing is bad. I don't refrain from killing because I might go to jail. I don't kill people because it is wrong. Because THEY deserve not to be killed.

I think living by rules is an immature way to live. We have to have them because some people are idiots or just nasty. And I feel bad for them that they will never grow smarter or more whole than having to live by some ledger sheet.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> Without arguing one side or the other, why is it not logical?


Like you said earlier, when we go round and round on this topic, we really never get anywhere. So no matter what reasons I give for my position, you'll have reasons for yours, and it is just like a game of tic tac toe....so I'll refrain.

And as far as our free lovin' hippie population out here....well, technically I'm one of them.


----------



## EleGirl

Runs like Dog said:


> You gotta love it. Someone asks 'why aren't men marrying?' and for each and every one of the 10,000 reasons proffered, angry feminists and women shriek that the reason is bullsh^it. The lack of self awareness is world-class.


Ah, you mean that the woman are not buying that women are such awful creatures that men cannot stand women? LOL


If I were to start a thread that said that all men were so awful that women are refusing to marry them.. you'd see men crying foul and attacking that stance. Get real.

What I find the most amusing this and the other thread on why men don't want to marry women.. is that they are insulting both men and women..

The premise of the threads are that young men are immature children who play video games all day and won't get a job. But they won't marry women because women are awful creatures.

So the ones that you call screaking are basically saying that the idea put forth is bunk.

Young men are just fine. They seem to be choosing to marry a few years older than they did in the last decade or two.

Young women are just fine. They too seem to be choosing to marry a few years older than they did in the last decade or two.

So we are saying that young people, male and female, are for the most part doing just fine and making up their own minds to marry about 5 years later than the previous few generations...

But we get streaked at say.. no you hate men and women are evil, terrible and not man wants to marry them.

Now who is being unreasonable? Those who find most people to be good? Or those who feel that half the population are evil b!tches?


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Like you said earlier, when we go round and round on this topic, we really never get anywhere. So no matter what reasons I give for my position, you'll have reasons for yours, and it is just like a game of tic tac toe....so I'll refrain.


That's why I wasn't arguing the case this time, just its merits. Neither position is inherently illogical even if we can't convince the other with the data. 

That much I AM willing to argue about.


----------



## Runs like Dog

EleGirl said:


> Ah, you mean that the woman are not buying that women are such awful creatures that men cannot stand women? LOL
> 
> 
> If I were to start a thread that said that all men were so awful that women are refusing to marry them.. you'd see men crying foul and attacking that stance. Get real.
> 
> What I find the most amusing this and the other thread on why men don't want to marry women.. is that they are insulting both men and women..
> 
> The premise of the threads are that young men are immature children who play video games all day and won't get a job. But they won't marry women because women are awful creatures.
> 
> So the ones that you call screaking are basically saying that the idea put forth is bunk.
> 
> Young men are just fine. They seem to be choosing to marry a few years older than they did in the last decade or two.
> 
> Young women are just fine. They too seem to be choosing to marry a few years older than they did in the last decade or two.
> 
> So we are saying that young people, male and female, are for the most part doing just fine and making up their own minds to marry about 5 years later than the previous few generations...
> 
> But we get streaked at say.. no you hate men and women are evil, terrible and not man wants to marry them.
> 
> Now who is being unreasonable? Those who find most people to be good? Or those who feel that half the population are evil b!tches?


Well if you're that angry, antagonist and narrow minded it's easy to see why you're alone. Like I said, you asked, we answered and the response to that was "F6CK YOU YOU PIECE OF SH^IT!"

Well ok then, that settles it. THERE'S your reason. Not sure what you do with that information other than bang your head on a locker. Not sure there's anywhere to go from "well I heard your points and they're all stupid and loathsome, you're a retard and go to hell. why won't anyone appreciate me???"

I'm really not clear on how that solves the question you asked.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> That's why I wasn't arguing the case this time, just its merits. Neither position is inherently illogical even if we can't convince the other with the data.
> 
> That much I AM willing to argue about.


Ok but....I don't wanna go down the rabbit hole, I'll just answer the question and leave it at that.

It is illogical because we would not say that "men are hungrier than women", even if they eat slightly more due to their bigger size. And sex drive is a natural basic urge in all of us, just like hunger is. Our bodies naturally know what to do and know what it is we are seeking when it comes to hunger...and there's no gender difference.....so logically there would not be one when it comes to sex drive, either.

And my kid is the one who said this (though I do agree with him), but keep in mind that his perspective comes from:

*not having experienced parental shaming himself, and having had a great, open sex positive education from an early age

*having been chased by any number of women and girls throughout his life

*having never experienced "repressed" girlfriends, only highly sexual ones who matched or exceeded his sex drive

*having a highly sexual mom who isn't ashamed of that fact (as an example, he knows about and has read posts on my sex positive blog)


----------



## Faithful Wife

Runs like Dog said:


> Well if you're that angry, antagonist and narrow minded it's easy to see why you're alone. Like I said, you asked, we answered and the response to that was "F6CK YOU YOU PIECE OF SH^IT!"
> 
> Well ok then, that settles it. THERE'S your reason. Not sure what you do with that information other than bang your head on a locker. Not sure there's anywhere to go from "well I heard your points and they're all stupid and loathsome, you're a retard and go to hell. why won't anyone appreciate me???"
> 
> I'm really not clear on how that solves the question you asked.


Dude, you need help.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> Now, you and elegirl say that women want sex as much as men do. And, you're women and I'm not, so I take that into consideration. And my personnel experience is that some women seemed to want sex as much as I did (and some didn't).


My experience is that some men have wanted sex as much as I do, some didn’t. My experience is that married men lose all interest in sex… even when their wife is still very interested in sex.

So I have done some reading on the topic. What I found out is that men choose to make their marriages sexless, or near sexless, as often as women do. 

Now you will seldom hear man admit this. Oh no, even my ex told people that it was me who did not want sex… the liar. 

I’ve dated men who were very prudish about sex. It happens.

Women in the past have not spoken up about the men in their lives not wanting sex or seeming to have low to no libido. That’s because we were taught that men want sex all the time. So there is something wrong with us.

When a husband does not want sex with his wife, she blames herself. Society asks her what is wrong with her… does she need to lose weight? Is she a b!tch?

When wife does not want sex with his wife, he blames her. Society blames her.

So women have kept this very quiet. They don’t talk about. It took me years before I would talk about it. I certainly don’t in my real life. I only do it here on TAM to give support to women whose husbands withhold sex, use it as reward/punishment, etc.


Buddy400 said:


> But I'm not getting my understanding that *most* men want sex more than *most* women from my personal experience, or MRA sites or other men. I'm getting it from mass media in general, everything I've heard from other people and what other women say. In fact, it's absolutely routine for women here on TAM on other threads to mention this as a known truth. So, I guess I'd have to get you two and women on TAM that disagree in a room together to fight it out.


There have been a lot of ‘known truths’ that have eventually been proven false. For example the earth is not really flat after all. The universe also does not revolve around the earth.
Apparently saying that a fair number of men do not want sex all the time does not sell the news. So what people hear is that men want sex all the time. They are always ready for sex. Say something often enough and most will think it is the truth.

I’ve also heard it from men constantly… they want sex all the time, if it’s offered they will not turn it down, no matter who is offering (as long as she does not look like the hunch back).

So yea, a good number of women who post on TAM will say that men more than women do because that’s what they have been taught. I actually used to believe it until I experienced something very different.

Now it might be the case in their own marriage. But, for every marriage where there is a woman who does not want sex, or seldom wanted it, there is a matching marriage out there where the roles are reversed.



Buddy400 said:


> Unless what you're saying is that in "a more perfect world" women would want sex as much as men. If that's the case, then I understand the point and just question the practicality of considering that possibility in regards to the real world.


The major different that I see between men and women is that men are more willing to take serious risks to have sex. Women know that meeting some guy on line and hooking up with sex is a great way to end up raped, beaten and/or killed. 

It’s not anywhere near as likely that a man would be raped, beaten and/or killed by a woman he meets on an app.

Not doing something because of its inherent danger is not lack of desire, it’s smart way to stay alive and healthy.

A lot of the women who come to TAM and say that men want sex more than women are parroting things that they have been told over and over.... just because something is a "known truth" does not mean that it is really true. 

In the Victorian Era it was a ‘known truth’ that women did not enjoy sex. Women did not orgasm. Women only had sex to please their husbands. A woman who enjoyed sex and even (gasp) orgasmed was considered to have a mental illness, “Hysteria”. The cure for it was the dildo. Women who suffered from “Hysteria” would go to their doctor for treatment of ‘hysteria’. This treatment consisted of the doctor using a dildo and his hands to give her an orgasm. Apparently a lot of women suffered from ‘hysteria’ so the doctors who treated hysteria had full waiting rooms all the time. 

Of course there were those lower class women. Now those women did enjoy sex. The Victoria view of that is that lower class had defective moral values.


----------



## Mr The Other

Runs like Dog said:


> Well if you're that angry, antagonist and narrow minded it's easy to see why you're alone. Like I said, you asked, we answered and the response to that was "F6CK YOU YOU PIECE OF SH^IT!"
> 
> Well ok then, that settles it. THERE'S your reason. Not sure what you do with that information other than bang your head on a locker. Not sure there's anywhere to go from "well I heard your points and they're all stupid and loathsome, you're a retard and go to hell. why won't anyone appreciate me???"
> 
> I'm really not clear on how that solves the question you asked.


Get back in the cellar and play video games.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok but....I don't wanna go down the rabbit hole, I'll just answer the question and leave it at that.
> 
> It is illogical because we would not say that "men are hungrier than women", even if they eat slightly more due to their bigger size. And sex drive is a natural basic urge in all of us, just like hunger is. Our bodies naturally know what to do and know what it is we are seeking when it comes to hunger...and there's no gender difference


Ok, then still outside of the rabbit hole, since we still might learn something here, I would say that the person who needs to eat more absolutely IS hungrier. 

A person who rides a century in a day will feel hungrier on a 2000 calorie/day diet than a sedentary office worker. The desire to eat - his hunger level and frequency - and the amount of food required to keep hunger at bay for the heavy exerciser will necessarily be greater. 

Some people need more sleep than others. Some have more fast-twitch muscles and some slow-twitch. Some like Lance Armstrong have vo2 max numbers that allow them (with a little help) to win the Tour de France whereas no amount of training on earth could get me to that level. These are not differences of kind, they are differences of degree, and that's precisely what we are debating - a difference of degree and whether or not it is logical to believe that one gender might have a difference of degree in one particular metric. 

I say it's eminently logical to assume that it's POSSIBLE.



> .....so logically there would not be one when it comes to sex drive, either.


I can't concede this. The two drives are completely unrelated and arise from utterly different mechanisms. It is not logical to connect them in any way, at least until such a connection has a physiological basis and a proven connection. No one has ever died from a desire for sex, but people will eat their dead relatives when pushed hard enough into a corner. Maybe I could agree if every time I had a plate of pasta I got randy (come to think of it, maybe I do...but that's entirely coincidental).

Good conversation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> Ok, then still outside of the rabbit hole, since we still might learn something here, I would say that the person who needs to eat more absolutely IS hungrier.
> 
> A person who rides a century in a day will feel hungrier on a 2000 calorie/day diet than a sedentary office worker. The desire to eat - his hunger level and frequency - and the amount of food required to keep hunger at bay for the heavy exerciser will necessarily be greater.



Right but the person who rides could be a woman and the sedentary office worker could be a man so....I don't see this as a good argument because calorie consumption could be higher or lower for any individual than any other individual. Exercise isn't gender specific.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> From the time in utero that my testosterone system kicked in we went down very different developmental paths. I'm bigger than you, stronger than you, and have dangly bits that you don't. It is to me no less of a leap of logic to assume that from that difference plus 18 or so years of maturation that we (the collective we) would wind up in precisely the same spot sexually.


I also don't agree that body size or internal versus external sex organs has anything to do with sex drive, and I don't think it is logical to assume there is a correlation here. In some ape species, the peen is tiny and sometimes barely visible, but the female's buttocks and vulva swell into a huge, very visible mass of tissue.


----------



## Cletus

EleGirl said:


> My experience is that some men have wanted sex as much as I do, some didn’t. My experience is that married men lose all interest in sex… even when their wife is still very interested in sex.


Well, if we're posting anecdotes, I have only known one woman with whom I was sufficiently intimate to know in my life who wanted sex as much as I did. From what I've read here, I don't think I'm much if at all above average either. For instance, left to my own schedule and a willing partner, I probably wouldn't do it daily. 



> So I have done some reading on the topic. What I found out is that men choose to make their marriages sexless, or near sexless, as often as women do.


This I believe. I would be interested in hearing why - whether it is a fundamental lack of desire for sex, or a lack of desire for sex with a particular partner.

A spouse who is substituting masturbation for intercourse is not making his life sexless, and I have some experience with having sex with a spouse who doesn't share your enthusiasm for the act. 

In other words, I try not to conflate desire for or interest in sex with frequency of intercourse when one lacks a good and willing partner, even in a marriage. Spouses losing interest in sex might just as well be a condemnation of monogamous sexual relationships.


----------



## EleGirl

Runs like Dog said:


> Well if you're that angry, antagonist and narrow minded it's easy to see why you're alone.


Um.. I'm not alone, where do you get that idea from?


Why are you saying I'm angry? Saying that both young men and young women are doing just find is expressing anger? Really? Stickning up for both young men and young women is hate? :scratchhead:




Runs like Dog said:


> Like I said, you asked, we answered and the response to that was "F6CK YOU YOU PIECE OF SH^IT!".


No I did not ask anyone on this forum, especially not from you.. I don't recall any women on this thread asking for the opinion of the men as a source of the FINAL OPINION.

I responded to an article that I disagree with and I gave my opinion. 

Before I responded I discussed the article with the my 26 year old son and some of his male friends. None of them agreed with the article. They thought it was insulting to both young men and young women. I then talked to my SO.. a 55 year old man. He thought that the article was laughable at best.

You gave your opinion. I gave mine. That is what a forum is about.


I'm sorry that your anger is boiling up to the point that you cannot even have a civil conversation... that you disintegrate to the point of cursing.. yelling.



Runs like Dog said:


> Well ok then, that settles it. THERE'S your reason. Not sure what you do with that information other than bang your head on a locker. Not sure there's anywhere to go from "well I heard your points and they're all stupid and loathsome, you're a retard and go to hell. why won't anyone appreciate me???".


LOL.. why would I whine on about "why won't anyone appreciate me?" I have a good, full life, a good job where I am respected, a family who love me, a SO too. 

I think all that negativity is you, yelling at yourself. Why else would you imagine that anyone here has said what you are accusing? 

Maybe you need to take a break and cool off.



Runs like Dog said:


> I'm really not clear on how that solves the question you asked.


What question do you think I asked? I've been responding to points made in an article that I disagree with.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Right but the person who rides could be a woman and the sedentary office worker could be a man so....I don't see this as a good argument because calorie consumption could be higher or lower for any individual than any other individual. Exercise isn't gender specific.


Agreed, I just chose an example with an obvious cause and effect. The cause doesn't necessarily have to be something you do, it could as easily be something you are. In fact, sitting in a chair 24/7, there's pretty good odds that I would be hungrier than you on the same diet, because metabolic needs are _in general_ higher for (usually larger) men. 

And, of course, it could be the opposite, individual variation being what it is. Which is why I never hesitate to agree that even if there is a difference for sex drive, there is also a very large and meaningful overlap. So even if I am right, many women will have a higher sex drive than do many men. 

Plus, I might add, I don't actually care what the answer is. It doesn't emasculate me in any way if women and men are identical.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> I also don't agree that body size or internal versus external sex organs has anything to do with sex drive, and I don't think it is logical to assume there is a correlation here. In some ape species, the peen is tiny and sometimes barely visible, but the female's buttocks and vulva swell into a huge, very visible mass of tissue.


The only one that comes to mind is the increased difficulty women (again, on average) have in achieving orgasm compared to men. Something that is difficult to do might decrease the innate interest in doing it. 

Pure speculation, of course.


----------



## coffee4me

Faithful Wife said:


> True, but I'm seeing and hearing about a lot of younger women who are aware of this societal and even parental shaming, but who don't pick it up. They just shun the shame, because they can see the stupid hypocrisy of it.
> 
> But keep in mind I live in Diversity-topia, where the young people most certainly do not take on the views of conservative older folks, and even the older folks around here ain't all that conservative. We've got a lot of aging hippies, who are and were all for free love.



I'm not seeing this shift where I live. It's very ethnically diverse and perhaps more influenced by cultural differences. 

Girls in jr high school/high school are still shamed and called ****s while boys are players and man *****s. 

That doesn't seem to be much different than when I was young. However it does seem to be accepted and expected that kids will be having safe sex within a monogamous relationship with a boyfriend/girlfriend in high school. 

Perhaps when they go off to college the mindset shifts to accepting the hook up culture as they have more freedom and it's more accepted in that environment. 

Don't think I'd shame my kids for being part of the hook up culture if that what they choose but I'm not going to encourage it either.


----------



## T&T

Cletus said:


> The only one that comes to mind is the increased difficulty women (again, on average) have in achieving orgasm compared to men. Something that is difficult to do might decrease the innate interest in doing it.
> 
> Pure speculation, of course.


Don't forget about the women that are multi-orgasmic! I wish! >


----------



## Cletus

T&T said:


> Don't forget about the women that are multi-orgasmic! I wish! >


Yes, his Noodley-ness has a wry sense of humor.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> Plus, I might add, I don't actually care what the answer is. It doesn't emasculate me in any way if women and men are identical.


I know, and I get that....however I'm not arguing that we're identical. Some women want sex more than some men, and vice versa, and some men want sex more than other men, and same is true for women....there's a very large spectrum of sexual proclivity possible for either a man or a woman. So no, not identical.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> Well, if we're posting anecdotes, I have only known one woman with whom I was sufficiently intimate to know in my life who wanted sex as much as I did. From what I've read here, I don't think I'm much if at all above average either. For instance, left to my own schedule and a willing partner, I probably wouldn't do it daily.


I was responding in kind to the other poster's own experience, his anecdotes. 





Cletus said:


> This I believe. I would be interested in hearing why - whether it is a fundamental lack of desire for sex, or a lack of desire for sex with a particular partner.
> 
> A spouse who is substituting masturbation for intercourse is not making his life sexless, and I have some experience with having sex with a spouse who doesn't share your enthusiasm for the act.
> 
> In other words, I try not to conflate desire for or interest in sex with frequency of intercourse when one lacks a good and willing partner, even in a marriage. Spouses losing interest in sex might just as well be a condemnation of monogamous sexual relationships.


In both men and women, the major reason for not wanting sex with their spouse boils down to not wanting sex with the a particular partner. There is usually a buildup of anger and resentment that shuts down their desire for that person.


----------



## Faithful Wife

coffee4me said:


> I'm not seeing this shift where I live. It's very ethnically diverse and perhaps more influenced by cultural differences.
> 
> Girls in jr high school/high school are still shamed and called ****s while boys are players and man *****s.
> 
> That doesn't seem to be much different than when I was young. However it does seem to be accepted and expected that kids will be having safe sex within a monogamous relationship with a boyfriend/girlfriend in high school.
> 
> Perhaps when they go off to college the mindset shifts to accepting the hook up culture as they have more freedom and it's more accepted in that environment.
> 
> Don't think I'd shame my kids for being part of the hook up culture if that what they choose but I'm not going to encourage it either.



Yes I was talking more about the young adults than the teens...however, even teens are far more liberal here than in other places, I assume. Again, largely because their parents are all free lovin' hippies.

We also have more strip clubs per capita than any other US city...and sex work is considered legitimate work by most young people here, there is a lack of shaming of those who are SW's. Although of course there are still some with attitudes about it, by and large, nudity and sexuality are very accepted and appreciated here.

I live in the inner SE area of my city. Cletus lives in a suburb about 30 miles away. There's a huge difference between here and there, too.

But not like the difference between here and the deep south or anything.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> I know, and I get that....however I'm not arguing that we're identical. Some women want sex more than some men, and vice versa, and some men want sex more than other men, and same is true for women....there's a very large spectrum of sexual proclivity possible for either a man or a woman. So no, not identical.


I have never argued otherwise, and if I've been mistaken for saying that, I apologize for the miscommunication. I have only argued for what in my business would be called the ensemble average.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oy. Had to look that up, but still am no closer to knowing what it means.

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


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> I live in the inner SE area of my city. Cletus lives in a suburb about 30 miles away. There's a huge difference between here and there, too.


Yes, but Cletus was raised and graduated high school in the SE area of your city and still frequents the night life in the Hawthorne district. 

The area where Cletus now lives bears no resemblance to the Town Proper, and us liberal types live in the shadows wearing flannel and beards for camouflage while listening to country music for cover.


----------



## Faithful Wife

That's why you're cool. I mean, OMG! What if you'd been raised out *there*! 

(shudder)


----------



## Faithful Wife

By the way Cletus....have you been by here lately?


----------



## Runs like Dog

Mr The Other said:


> Get back in the cellar and play video games.


Again, what's YOUR explanation, other than 'all men suck'.


----------



## Runs like Dog

EleGirl said:


> What question do you think I asked? I've been responding to points made in an article that I disagree with.


Why men are not marrying? Or have you been in a coma?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Runs like Dog said:


> Again, what's YOUR explanation, other than 'all men suck'.


Sooooo....you think Mr. The Other thinks that all men suck? :scratchhead:


----------



## EleGirl

EleGirl said:


> What question do you think I asked? I've been responding to points made in an article that I disagree with.





Runs like Dog said:


> Why men are not marrying? Or have you been in a coma?


The article addresses more things then the topic of the title. I think I'll address anything that is stated in the article.

Maybe I'll even start talking about baby seals too.. .they are so cute... >


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> The article addresses more things then the topic of the title. I think I'll address anything that is stated in the article.
> 
> Maybe I'll even start talking about baby seals too.. .they are so cute... >


And tasty, from what I hear.


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> And tasty, from what I hear.


Yikes, do not eat that baby seals. That's like eating puppies. :surprise:

Stick to salmon.


----------



## pragmaster

Youngster said:


> Well, the other thread pretty much devolved with the usual suspects getting involved so lets try a new one.
> 
> This thread is about MEN and why THEY aren't marrying. If you want to talk about why women aren't marrying then start your own thread, preferably in the Ladies Lounge.
> 
> So why do you think MEN aren't marrying? Is it a age/race/geographical demographic? Is it a problem solely in the US? Is it economic or cultural?


The answers are simple. I'm 26 and got divorced last year due to an unfaithful ex-wife. 

1) Cost of living has gone up. Marriage AND Divorce are EXPENSIVE. However, one of the good reasons to get married from a financial perspective is dual income; access to a, or better mortgage. 

2) My generation is busy with school and work. Little time to commit. Just wait another 10 years and you'll see the stats change. With a higher population, there is more competition for a good education and thus scholars can't risk falling behind in academics. 

3) Follow by example. We've seen too many of our parents divorced to want to repeat the same mistake.

4) Less traditional. We are more self-entitled to have things our own way and also more and more of us don't believe a piece of paper or a ring is necessary for love and commitment. 

5) Polyamorous culture. More and more people are willing to have open relationships because they feel like they can't get everything they need from one partner. 

6) A shiiiiit load of shiiiitty people and unfaithful partners have given marriage a bad name. 

7) Too much upfront investment of time and personal space. Family implications are embarrassing and unnecessary.

8) Egg culture. Men can't be the dominant controlling men they used to be. Not a bad thing obviously but the whole feminism thing has really created a problem for traditionalists.


----------



## EllisRedding

pragmaster said:


> The answers are simple. I'm 26 and got divorced last year due to an unfaithful ex-wife.
> 
> 1) Cost of living has gone up. Marriage AND Divorce are EXPENSIVE. However, one of the good reasons to get married from a financial perspective is dual income; access to a, or better mortgage.
> 
> 2) My generation is busy with school and work. Little time to commit. Just wait another 10 years and you'll see the stats change. With a higher population, there is more competition for a good education and thus scholars can't risk falling behind in academics.
> 
> 3) Follow by example. We've seen too many of our parents divorced to want to repeat the same mistake.
> 
> 4) Less traditional. We are more self-entitled to have things our own way and also more and more of us don't believe a piece of paper or a ring is necessary for love and commitment.
> 
> 5) Polyamorous culture. More and more people are willing to have open relationships because they feel like they can't get everything they need from one partner.
> 
> 6) A shiiiiit load of shiiiitty people and unfaithful partners have given marriage a bad name.
> 
> 7) Too much upfront investment of time and personal space. Family implications are embarrassing and unnecessary.


Excellent points. I am only 10yrs older than you but many of your points applied even when I got married over 10 yrs ago.

1) At least where I live (considered one of the most expensive areas in the US) cost of living and affordable housing is a huge issue. It has become very common now for kids to move back in with their parents after graduating college. My wife and I lucked out, we actually lived with my Dad for nearly 3 years after getting married rent free, so this gave us a big headstart.

2) Agreed

3) I actually used my parents' along with their divorce as an example of what I didn't want. I lucked out, but after dealing with that I would not have settled for just anything.

4) Yup, more materialistic, instant gratification, social media (grass is greener on the other side), etc...

5) I honestly don't know anyone who is having an open relationship, but do see more of the hookup culture (good or bad, depends on the person, I don't particularly find it a positive when I think about my kids growing up)

6 & 7) So true


----------



## Mads

Some men also do not have the time, due to careers, to pursue a serious relationship.


----------



## moco82

Mads said:


> Some men also do not have the time, due to careers, to pursue a serious relationship.


That's why some guys aim to get married right after business [grad] school.


----------



## SongoftheSouth

toonaive said:


> Yep. All of the above posts nail it. I have strongly encouraged my oldest son, just out of college, to not even think of such a thing until he is at least 35. By then, he will know who he is, have some money in the bank, and his own identity. Even at that age, he will have no trouble finding women. He has seen how difficult my marriage and divorce was to me. He sees no point in making any marriage decision any time soon. If a woman brings it up before he is ready? Run! There are few, if any, benefits for men to marry anymore, but lots of pitfalls.


It is a truly sad commentary that this is very true. It should be explained to young people that marriage is a legally binding contract that is horribly slanted against the greater wage earner, often, the male and fairness is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Although this is cynical; it may be wise to consider this perspective these days I guess.


----------



## 3kgtmitsu

I don't think marriage is a bad thing necessarily, but it is risky especially if you see how many people get screwed over or are miserable. Its the 'me' generation, everyone out for themselves. Look at the divorce rate for people under 30 and compare that to those 2 generations ago, its a night and day. Honesty and Integrity and good ol family values just seemed to be more important. I do have my own set of marriage issues but nothing compared to others, but I can see first hand how people just flip and become a completely different person when married. It can be a healthy thing and when you are a good team it does make life better.


----------



## 3kgtmitsu

Lol, that sounds like pretty cold and harsh world to live in to me. Poor kids


----------



## morituri

One big reason for the existence of marriage has to do with the bringing and rearing of children. But I wonder if it wouldn't be better for children if both their parents had no emotional or physical attachment to one another. The children, theoretically, would have two loving parents and two households (which usually becomes a reality after a divorce anyway) with none, to very little, of the drama which results from the fallout of a romantic relationship that went to Hell. Eliminate this reason and marriage loses one of its strongest attractions.


----------



## EllisRedding

morituri said:


> One big reason for the existence of marriage has to do with the bringing and rearing of children. But I wonder if it wouldn't be better for children if both their parents had no emotional or physical attachment to one another. The children, theoretically, would have two loving parents and two households (which usually becomes a reality after a divorce anyway) with none, to very little, of the drama which results from the fallout of a romantic relationship that went to Hell. Eliminate this reason and marriage loses one of its strongest attractions.


I am a believer that kids should have both parents raising them together under one household, I don't necessarily see it as a positive shipping kids off between two household. However, as someone who was a child of divorced parents (who actually wanted my parents to get divorced), I also recognize that being in a dysfunctional household is just as unhealthy for children to grow up in. I am not willing to give up on the family/marriage dynamic because if it works I think it is the best option, but it can be difficult to stick with t his idea given what I went through and I have seen others go through as well.


----------



## Holland

morituri said:


> One big reason for the existence of marriage has to do with the bringing and rearing of children. But I wonder if it wouldn't be better for children if both their parents had no emotional or physical attachment to one another. The children, theoretically, would have two loving parents and two households (which usually becomes a reality after a divorce anyway) with none, to very little, of the drama which results from the fallout of a romantic relationship that went to Hell. Eliminate this reason and marriage loses one of its strongest attractions.


The reason for me (and him) going into a second marriage has nothing to do with children as we are both past having kids. We will get married because of wanting to show a commitment to each other to the exclusion of all others, a secret club of two with the added benefit of already have a blended clan of 5 kids that are all in their teens.

I am a big believer in the possibility of bio kids being just fine being part of a two household family as mine are, they are all thriving post divorce, their schooling, attitudes, social lives and general well balanced being proves it.


----------



## moco82

morituri said:


> One big reason for the existence of marriage has to do with the bringing and rearing of children. But I wonder if it wouldn't be better for children if both their parents had no emotional or physical attachment to one another


That's exactly how potential marriages were screened in Orwell's _1984_.


----------



## moco82

3kgtmitsu said:


> I don't think marriage is a bad thing necessarily, but it is risky especially if you see how many people get screwed over or are miserable. Its the 'me' generation, everyone out for themselves.


Baby Boomers?


----------



## morituri

Holland said:


> I am a big believer in the possibility of bio kids being just fine being part of a two household family as mine are, they are all thriving post divorce, their schooling, attitudes, social lives and general well balanced being proves it.


Nevertheless, many children are scarred for life by the before and after marriage behavior of their parents. Seldom do they ever receive the much needed therapy after divorce that will heal their emotional wounds.



moco82 said:


> That's exactly how potential marriages were screened in Orwell's 1984.


No one is proposing this as a forced social engineering experiment. I believe that there are enough men and women out there that would probably choose this alternative form of parenting. It certainly can't be anymore worse than the existing model.



EllisRedding said:


> I am a believer that kids should have both parents raising them together under one household, I don't necessarily see it as a positive shipping kids off between two household. However, as someone who was a child of divorced parents (who actually wanted my parents to get divorced), I also recognize that being in a dysfunctional household is just as unhealthy for children to grow up in. I am not willing to give up on the family/marriage dynamic because if it works I think it is the best option, but it can be difficult to stick with t his idea given what I went through and I have seen others go through as well.


As in my reply to moco82, this should not be forced upon western societies but neither should those same societies prevent couples from choosing to do it for an irrational fear that it may become something permanent and/or the preferred standard in the future.


----------



## naiveonedave

morituri said:


> Nevertheless, many children are scarred for life by the before and after marriage behavior of their parents. Seldom do they ever receive the much needed therapy after divorce that will heal their emotional wounds.
> 
> True
> 
> No one is proposing this as a forced social engineering experiment. I believe that there are enough men and women out there that would probably choose this alternative form of parenting. It certainly can't be anymore worse than the existing model.
> Disagree, it would be worse. More expensive having two households, different rules at each by different parents, etc. Would be similar to current D
> 
> 
> As in my reply to moco82, this should not be forced upon western societies but neither should those same societies prevent couples from choosing to do it for an irrational fear that it may become something permanent and/or the preferred standard in the future.
> Surprised it isn't happening already, though the tax benefits are worth something.


----------



## morituri

naiveonedave said:


> morituri said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is proposing this as a forced social engineering experiment. I believe that there are enough men and women out there that would probably choose this alternative form of parenting. It certainly can't be anymore worse than the existing model.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree, it would be worse. More expensive having two households, different rules at each by different parents, etc. Would be similar to current D
Click to expand...

The households would already be in place, before the children arrived, so the majority costs of establishing them would no longer factor in. As far as different rules are concerned, there is more than a good chance that the parents would have similar rules since they would share close to the same values but without all the emotional garbage of a dead marriage between them.

There is one financial drawback and that would be the claiming of the children as dependents on tax returns. But seeing how gay marriage has become a permanent societal fixture, this may not be as contentious and just may end up helping non custodial parents of former marriages.


----------



## EllisRedding

morituri said:


> The households would already be in place, before the children arrived, so the majority costs of establishing them would no longer factor in. As far as different rules are concerned, there is more than a good chance that the parents would have similar rules since they would share close to the same values but without all the emotional garbage of a dead marriage between them.
> 
> There is one financial drawback and that would be the claiming of the children as dependents on tax returns. But seeing how gay marriage has become a permanent societal fixture, this may not be as contentious and just may end up helping non custodial parents of former marriages.


As far as kids, keep in mind the added complications of education. Unless the assumption is that both parents will live in the same school district (and one not move from there at any point), odds are the kids will spend much more of their time with the parent who is in the school district they attend.

I also don't necessarily agree that there is a good chance the rules will be similar. My guess you will get to the point where each parent thinks their way is the best, and since they don't have the other parent living with them, all the more incentive to do things as how they see fit.


----------



## Hardtohandle

morituri said:


> One big reason for the existence of marriage has to do with the bringing and rearing of children. But I wonder if it wouldn't be better for children if both their parents had no emotional or physical attachment to one another. The children, theoretically, would have two loving parents and two households (which usually becomes a reality after a divorce anyway) with none, to very little, of the drama which results from the fallout of a romantic relationship that went to Hell. Eliminate this reason and marriage loses one of its strongest attractions.


We as a society are just not there yet.. 

You might as well ask for flying cars and laser guns.. 

You want to 2 people to fvck and have kids with no emotional attachment ? People are killing each other over RELIGION..


----------



## morituri

Hardtohandle said:


> We as a society are just not there yet..
> 
> You might as well ask for flying cars and laser guns..
> 
> You want to 2 people to fvck and have kids with no emotional attachment ? People are killing each other over RELIGION..


Couples have availed themselves of young women to serve as "surrogate mothers" or more precisely, rented wombs, for a few decades.

What about human artificial insemination? That has also been around for quite a few decades as well.

The point is that it is not as far out as you think it is.


----------



## Constable Odo

NobodySpecial said:


> When (censored) and (censored) start tag teaming, even I'm out. Cheers.


Without naming any names or pointing to any specific posters within this thread or others, the sooner you realize there is a certain "cabal" of posters who promote "right-think" according to their pre-defined narrative on these forums, and, actively work to stifle any dissenting opinion, the better off you will be to simply ignore their postings, and not engage them, when you see them.




marduk said:


> I would say, again from personal experience, that men and women's sex drives are more the same than they are different. Women's just seems slightly more complex and nuanced (from this guy's perspective) and men's seem slightly more straightforward (from this guy's perspective).


From an evolutionary perspective, women have always had a greater stake in the reproductive process. It has really only been within, say, the past century that many of those historical dangers associated with pregnancy have started to be alleviated; thus, freeing women to be more sexually expressive. 

However, instinctive behaviors do not disappear overnight. The best way to experience a completely uninhibited woman is to make her feel safe and secure, so she trusts you implicitly.




lifeistooshort said:


> [...] clearly men are getting married. And many will continue, because eventually many people crave more than casual hookups, assuming they can get them anyway.


One of the reports from the National Marriage Project in the mid/early-2000's indicated that men trade monogamy for easier access to sex. Although the study is over 10 years old, I do not suspect that reasoning has changed much -- eventually, men get tired of the "chase" as they age and are willing to settle for one woman in exchange for access to regular sex.




pragmaster said:


> 1) Cost of living has gone up. Marriage AND Divorce are EXPENSIVE.


I got divorced (uncontested, non-adversarial) 12 years ago. Going through the pre-nup process now. My pre-nup has already cost me more than my divorce did, and I'm not through.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Post third wave feminism is pretty much man-hate. It is and if people were honest they'd admit it. The problem for post third wave feminists is they believe men are too stupid to realize that so they concoct a new reason for hating men when the men aren't thrilled with them over that. I say good luck and godspeed with that.


----------



## EllisRedding

Runs like Dog said:


> Post third wave feminism is pretty much man-hate. It is and if people were honest they'd admit it. The problem for post third wave feminists is they believe men are too stupid to realize that so they concoct a new reason for hating men when the men aren't thrilled with them over that. I say good luck and godspeed with that.


Wow, there are 3 waves, yikes (sorry, never looked in to feminism except for some teachings from Married ... With Children :smile2 ...


----------



## tech-novelist

Cletus said:


> Without arguing one side or the other, why is it not logical?
> 
> Everyone on the forum was falling all over themselves agreeing with me when the statement was "men are more violent than women". There are very clearly real world X/Y chromosome related differences between men and women.
> 
> Why is it de facto illogical to think that those differences _might_ extend into sexuality, particularly given that sex development and differentiation is the PRIMARY difference between us, driven by the underlying unambiguous and verifiable genetic means?
> 
> Whether you believe there is a fundamental innate drive difference between the sexes or not, it is not illogical on the face of it to ask or consider it possible. To think otherwise is to elevate an a priori assumption to the status of a given.
> 
> From the time in utero that my testosterone system kicked in we went down very different developmental paths. I'm bigger than you, stronger than you, and have dangly bits that you don't. It is to me no less of a leap of logic to assume that from that difference plus 18 or so years of maturation that we (the collective we) would wind up in precisely the same spot sexually.


No, men and women are exactly the same except when men are bad and women are good!
Don't make me remind you again! :grin2:


----------



## tom67

technovelist said:


> No, men and women are exactly the same except when men are bad and women are good!
> Don't make me remind you again! :grin2:


Don't whip the dead horse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic


----------



## McDean

Most everything that needs to be said about this has by this point....here are my redundant two pennies....I was a teenager in the 80s and in college in the early 90s, got married in 2006 (I waited until I was 34yrs old) and am now on the brink of divorce as anyone who has read my threads is aware. My wife of 9yrs is 9yrs younger than I am so I have seen first hand some of the generation diffs.

Having spent the past 2.5months studying our pasts together and our situation now, here is my response to the original question posed in this thread:

1) Young men have witnessed, and the media has supported what they have seen, the men before them torn to pieces in divorce courts, child custody hearings and in general for being men.
2) I now recognize the 'huge' mistake this country in particular has made in not being more clear in our definition of equality between men and women - I've always supported equal rights but let's look at the list of issues women on this site list in other threads: 
a) My husband is boring in bed, doesn't want sex as much as I do, I'm not attracted to him anymore, someone else is more attractive...blah blah blah - equality misstep #1 - these threads make me laugh because I can remember hearing them from all of my 'guy' friends in my late teens and early 20s, and I also remember women being upset by how quickly we could love them and leave them...now women have started doing it to us as well and in marriages to boot (realize it happens in both directions but would suggest men have always struggled with it more - the new freedoms women enjoy make their need for us less necessary)
b) My husband is mean to me, won't talk to me, ignores me, doesn't help out around the house etc etc etc - all of these can be true or exaggerated but consider this - equality misstep #2 - in our drive to be equal many men have started treating women like they do other men. If I don't talk to one of my male friends for 2 months neither of us gives a sh1t! Won't change a thing in our relationship. Equality in house work is a tough one, last I checked my wife can't lift a new sink into place, mow our 1.5acre lawn, put up a pergola, etc and while I would still do dishes is it fair for me to do them 50% of the time? Mean to you, well let's consider that one for sure - I see this in the corporate setting all the time, my male execs can tell me to pound sand when I screw things up and my ability to come back from that impresses them and wins me points, but if they said that to a female colleague how would it be received? We're not equals in any way shape or form when it comes to communication and I'm not implying one way is better than another just not equal.
3) Women have always controlled sex, probably a good thing since they have to carry the children. Now however because they can prevent pregnancy relatively easily they can be as frivolous as most men would choose to be if given the chance. So if a women, who 40yrs ago would have loved a man who: brought home the bacon, was good to her and the kids, did fun things for, and with the family, and listened to her and yes she would have lived with more frequent sex than she wanted or maybe less than rocket ship sex every time...she can now dump him because the items listed before the sex item no longer carry as much weight to them....you judge whether it's good or bad but to me something is lost here and if for women now a top priority is sex then I really don't need to marry you because I don't have to work so hard on the rest of the list...
4) Schools talk about and teach the divorce rates - anyone with an average IQ knows they have a 50/50 chance of divorce going in, if you know you have a 75% chance of losing in a divorce your might as well look at marriage like a table game in vegas,is it worth the risk or would you be just throwing good money after bad?
5) Even the most awesome looking marriages in the media seemingly end and almost always for the same reason - someone else was involved, fidelity seems impossible for the vast majority of people anymore...
6) If a women doesn't want to have sex it's her choice, if a man doesn't there is something wrong with him. If a women is no longer attracted to her spouse - he must have let himself go or is mean or is angry or doesn't understand how tired she is, or doesn't listen well enough, or or or, but if man claims the same thing he is - insensitive, unsupportive, mean, typical male. In truth equality may be at it's lowest point ever, just not in the ways we typically think.
7) Honestly, can anyone tell the younger men what they will gain by being married? In reading the posts on here and such, yes I know there are successful marriages because I have read a few on here, and my parents and my wife's parents are examples as well, but there you have the different generation dragon popping up....so again, what do you truly gain? As a man I can tell you, very little anymore because we are seen as disposable...

If I were 25 again, I would seriously consider going the single route with multiple partners and FWBs and if a few kids came along at least we could coparent amicably (maybe) without having had a whole messy emotional 'beforehand' leading up to the coparenting discussion. In truth, I find the state of things oddly ironic given everything I heard growing up - I no longer believe women want relationships more than casual sex any more than men do, they are just newer to the playing field we have always played on. I think it is funny because in the push for equality we may have to finally ask if marriage is an outdated idea....

To any women reading this novel, I love you to death - have loved women since I can remember noticing the difference between us, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that in becoming equal with us you have invited a lot of [email protected] into your lives like long hours at work, unrealistic expectations of mates, unrealistic expectations of yourselves and you are still stuck with body image issues and the old [email protected] that was always there before as well (by the way look up Mid-Life Crisis in women on the internet - seems there has been an explosion of that in the past decade - welcome to the club ladies!)...Lastly, I realized over this Summer that an expectation I had of my woman, that I never articulated before, was that her high expectations of me would drive me to be a better man...it did, but her 180 has driven me back to being the best I can be for me and I struggle to see how that wouldn't be easier being a 20 something with no strings, no expectations and darn near free sex on demand!?!


----------

