Shortage of "economically attractive" men reason for marriage decline according to new study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next sexual revolution will be in our households. Women need to demand equal partners. I’m a millennial and I do feel like my generation was better at picking equal partners. I passed on so many scrubs. I married an equal partner who does chores, cooks and cares for our kids equally.

No scrubs

It's much more likely that the next sexual revolution will be sex tech/dolls/robots that allow men to fulfill AR/VR enhanced sexual needs solo at home. This will further diminish the utility of women and lead to major disruptions in the dating and marriage markets over the next few decades. Ultimately it will be a disaster because what people need most out of long-term relationships is social connection and companionship, but I suspect humanity will have to re-learn that lesson the hard way.

FIFY! I think you mean it will further diminish the utility of men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next sexual revolution will be in our households. Women need to demand equal partners. I’m a millennial and I do feel like my generation was better at picking equal partners. I passed on so many scrubs. I married an equal partner who does chores, cooks and cares for our kids equally.

No scrubs

It's much more likely that the next sexual revolution will be sex tech/dolls/robots that allow men to fulfill AR/VR enhanced sexual needs solo at home. This will further diminish the utility of women and lead to major disruptions in the dating and marriage markets over the next few decades. Ultimately it will be a disaster because what people need most out of long-term relationships is social connection and companionship, but I suspect humanity will have to re-learn that lesson the hard way.

+1

Humanity is eating away at itself, but humans are too stupid to want to do something about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many males don’t do a second shift at home come 6pm, 7pm, or 8pm.

They focus on themselves (have a beer, shovel food down, have a rest, read Apple news, watch tv, pass out on the couch), and maybe some short Goof Around time with their young kids.

They are not getting home and organizing a meal, getting kids ready for tomorrow, fixing things in the house, or planning the weekend, etc.. They’ve been conditioned by their parents or by Tv not to do anything. And they have crappy marriages and relationships with their kids to prove it.

Lol. Yes this pretty much my DH , unless we have something planned. But he has a great relationship with our kids, and we have a good marriage. But I SAH and he makes a lot of money. If I worked too I would be pissed. But I don’t. Works for both of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next sexual revolution will be in our households. Women need to demand equal partners. I’m a millennial and I do feel like my generation was better at picking equal partners. I passed on so many scrubs. I married an equal partner who does chores, cooks and cares for our kids equally.

No scrubs

It's much more likely that the next sexual revolution will be sex tech/dolls/robots that allow men to fulfill AR/VR enhanced sexual needs solo at home. This will further diminish the utility of women and lead to major disruptions in the dating and marriage markets over the next few decades. Ultimately it will be a disaster because what people need most out of long-term relationships is social connection and companionship, but I suspect humanity will have to re-learn that lesson the hard way.

FIFY! I think you mean it will further diminish the utility of men.

Women have had sex toys (vibrators) that simulate the male sexual organs for decades. It's much harder to simulate the sexual organs of women. It's possible that a sufficiently advanced emotionally attuned AI could satisfy the sexual needs of women in this way, but that is many decades away still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next sexual revolution will be in our households. Women need to demand equal partners. I’m a millennial and I do feel like my generation was better at picking equal partners. I passed on so many scrubs. I married an equal partner who does chores, cooks and cares for our kids equally.

No scrubs

It's much more likely that the next sexual revolution will be sex tech/dolls/robots that allow men to fulfill AR/VR enhanced sexual needs solo at home. This will further diminish the utility of women and lead to major disruptions in the dating and marriage markets over the next few decades. Ultimately it will be a disaster because what people need most out of long-term relationships is social connection and companionship, but I suspect humanity will have to re-learn that lesson the hard way.

The utility of men as companions would be diminished too, because women can do the same thing.

Most (not all) women value companionship and commitment more heavily whereas men, especially young men, value physical sex more heavily. The traditional value exchange between most (not all) men and women has been sex for commitment. So in the near term this type of sex tech is likely to have a disproportionate impact. That said in the existential sense I think it will diminish us all as humans because it will lead to further social isolation and disconnection. Eventually we will learn the lessons and adapt, as we always do, and that will lead to much healthier relationships for both men and women.

I think the primary reasons women value male commitment are to raise their kids within a stable relationship (if they want kids), and financial support. As women become more financially independent, neither of these things are a concern. If traditional societal norms don’t exist, men don’t need wives and can have sex robots, and women can use sperm donor to have kids and raise them with family/friend circle or hired help. This will disconnect us all as humans and isn’t ideal, but it requires societal massive cooperation to overcome. The answer is NOT a return to shitty 50’s values when only men worked and held all financial power while wifey stayed at home doing the hard and thankless job of managing all childcare and household chores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next sexual revolution will be in our households. Women need to demand equal partners. I’m a millennial and I do feel like my generation was better at picking equal partners. I passed on so many scrubs. I married an equal partner who does chores, cooks and cares for our kids equally.

No scrubs

It's much more likely that the next sexual revolution will be sex tech/dolls/robots that allow men to fulfill AR/VR enhanced sexual needs solo at home. This will further diminish the utility of women and lead to major disruptions in the dating and marriage markets over the next few decades. Ultimately it will be a disaster because what people need most out of long-term relationships is social connection and companionship, but I suspect humanity will have to re-learn that lesson the hard way.

The utility of men as companions would be diminished too, because women can do the same thing.

Most (not all) women value companionship and commitment more heavily whereas men, especially young men, value physical sex more heavily. The traditional value exchange between most (not all) men and women has been sex for commitment. So in the near term this type of sex tech is likely to have a disproportionate impact. That said in the existential sense I think it will diminish us all as humans because it will lead to further social isolation and disconnection. Eventually we will learn the lessons and adapt, as we always do, and that will lead to much healthier relationships for both men and women.

I think the primary reasons women value male commitment are to raise their kids within a stable relationship (if they want kids), and financial support. As women become more financially independent, neither of these things are a concern. If traditional societal norms don’t exist, men don’t need wives and can have sex robots, and women can use sperm donor to have kids and raise them with family/friend circle or hired help. This will disconnect us all as humans and isn’t ideal, but it requires societal massive cooperation to overcome. The answer is NOT a return to shitty 50’s values when only men worked and held all financial power while wifey stayed at home doing the hard and thankless job of managing all childcare and household chores.

This was my hypothesis once upon a time but if you look at the most "equal" societies on earth - the Scandinavian countries - you see the opposite result. The reality is, for many people, even those with very financially successful careers, a job is just a job. There's a lot of fulfillment that one can derive from being a more involved, present-at-home parent and member of the community, whatever that happens to look like day to day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You're missing the point. Men marry women who make much less money than them all the time and it works out well (look at the PP who SAH and her husband makes 700k and still helps out 50/50 at home). Why should the reverse not work?

Because feminists aren't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many males don’t do a second shift at home come 6pm, 7pm, or 8pm.

They focus on themselves (have a beer, shovel food down, have a rest, read Apple news, watch tv, pass out on the couch), and maybe some short Goof Around time with their young kids.

They are not getting home and organizing a meal, getting kids ready for tomorrow, fixing things in the house, or planning the weekend, etc.. They’ve been conditioned by their parents or by Tv not to do anything. And they have crappy marriages and relationships with their kids to prove it.

That was not my experience either as a child growing up in a 1960s household, or in my adult household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many males don’t do a second shift at home come 6pm, 7pm, or 8pm.

They focus on themselves (have a beer, shovel food down, have a rest, read Apple news, watch tv, pass out on the couch), and maybe some short Goof Around time with their young kids.

They are not getting home and organizing a meal, getting kids ready for tomorrow, fixing things in the house, or planning the weekend, etc.. They’ve been conditioned by their parents or by Tv not to do anything. And they have crappy marriages and relationships with their kids to prove it.

That was not my experience either as a child growing up in a 1960s household, or in my adult household.

DP.. that's great for you, but your anecdotal experience doesn't negate stats that says otherwise. But, I think if more more parents raise their sons to not expect the wives to take on the default parenting, maybe in 50 years our society will change, and you'll see more women willing to marry less financially well off men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Unmarried woman here. I make much more than 100K a year, own my home, and have a degree. I'm not at all uncommon in this area.

Why should I marry a guy who makes less than me? Doesn't own a home? And can't provide me a higher standard of living than I can for myself?

Especially considering the childbearing years and work would effectively halve my own income.

I'm genuinely curious.

Ok, I am going to give you a very practical response which will probably cause an uproar.

It is much easier to raise kids in a two-parent household, unless you have one of your own parents who is willing to effectively form a family with you. Childcare prior to age of 5 is comparable in cost to college; 100K is great for single living in the greater DC area, but once you throw in 20K of childcare expenses post-tax, it becomes less attractive. Competent SAHD is quite a find, especially if you are talking 2+ kids (20K x 2 + tax = 70K salary, plus whatever he may offer with DYI projects and basic cooking).

Your biggest challenge will be making sure his IQ is high enough to produce smart children, since IQ is largely heritable. I would strongly consider men who majored in humanities in a strong college, but just never quite got it together for a high-power job for some reason. In other words, compromise on how much he earns, but not how smart he is. My friend married a librarian with spectacular results; brilliant children, and she is fulfilled at work.

After kids start attending public schools, your SAHD can find little jobs here and there, and then maybe even start full time somewhere. Don't count on any of it, just look at his earnings as a bonus and put them straight into the savings account since he may have a job today and lose it tomorrow.

"real politik" of modern upside-down marriage.

Ha-ha, that’s exactly what I did. Husband has a PhD in humanities and earns five digits income working for a non-profit. But life is good otherwise. One thing to be aware of, pick a guy who is accomplished in his own way (that doesn’t always equal high income) and doesn’t feel resentful of your success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many males don’t do a second shift at home come 6pm, 7pm, or 8pm.

They focus on themselves (have a beer, shovel food down, have a rest, read Apple news, watch tv, pass out on the couch), and maybe some short Goof Around time with their young kids.

They are not getting home and organizing a meal, getting kids ready for tomorrow, fixing things in the house, or planning the weekend, etc.. They’ve been conditioned by their parents or by Tv not to do anything. And they have crappy marriages and relationships with their kids to prove it.

That was not my experience either as a child growing up in a 1960s household, or in my adult household.

DP.. that's great for you, but your anecdotal experience doesn't negate stats that says otherwise. But, I think if more more parents raise their sons to not expect the wives to take on the default parenting, maybe in 50 years our society will change, and you'll see more women willing to marry less financially well off men.

I'm a millennial and I do think we're better at raising our sons to help more. My DH is a full parent, but that's not even the norm amongst millennial men. I'd say 60% of millennial men (more than half) are shirking their duties and still passing off work to their wives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many males don’t do a second shift at home come 6pm, 7pm, or 8pm.

They focus on themselves (have a beer, shovel food down, have a rest, read Apple news, watch tv, pass out on the couch), and maybe some short Goof Around time with their young kids.

They are not getting home and organizing a meal, getting kids ready for tomorrow, fixing things in the house, or planning the weekend, etc.. They’ve been conditioned by their parents or by Tv not to do anything. And they have crappy marriages and relationships with their kids to prove it.

Lol. Yes this pretty much my DH , unless we have something planned. But he has a great relationship with our kids, and we have a good marriage. But I SAH and he makes a lot of money. If I worked too I would be pissed. But I don’t. Works for both of us.

Well my husband is like this and we both work and each make $500k +

It’s a rub. Does he truly not care about anything but himself and work, is he entitled?, a misogynist?, stupid?, a jerk?, mental issues?

[Anonymous]

This was my hypothesis once upon a time but if you look at the most "equal" societies on earth - the Scandinavian countries - you see the opposite result. The reality is, for many people, even those with very financially successful careers, a job is just a job. There's a lot of fulfillment that one can derive from being a more involved, present-at-home parent and member of the community, whatever that happens to look like day to day.

This is a key point and one that gets lost in the battle of the sexes and score-keeping in marriage (of which I can be guilty of too).

On average, when people are free to pursue their desires, the men primarily provide financially and somewhat provide domestically, the women somewhat provide financially and primarily provide domestically. So I totally get the women on here who are rightfully questioning why they want to shack up with a man who isn't primarily providing and who, if he is like his male brethren, isn't going to primarily provide domestically. And even if he did, I have seen very few women maintain attraction to their domiciled SAHDs.

Even in my marriage, I make substantial money and when my SAHM DW went back to work part-time, the resentment kicked into overdrive about what she perceived I wasn't doing around the house. I can only imagine what that would look like if I wasn't making good money, and she was working full time as well.

tl;dr dating is wonderful, marriage is hard.

[Anonymous]

Love is still a human need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're missing the point. Men marry women who make much less money than them all the time and it works out well (look at the PP who SAH and her husband makes 700k and still helps out 50/50 at home). Why should the reverse not work?

Because feminists aren't?

Aren’t what?