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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The availability of sex without having to get married--less incentive to get a good job, attract a wife so as to be able to have sex

Premarital sex means I didn’t get a good job ... no, you’re full of crap here.

PP who posted that the availability of premarital sex gives men less incentive to get a good job. This is not my theory, I was simply reporting what different social scientists have put forth as explanations. This one comes from "Cheap Sex" by Mark Regnerus. My personal view with regard to this particular theory is that there is a 3rd factor causing both the decline in male employment and the rise of premarital sex. As society becomes more permissive, premarital sex becomes more the norm and some men choose to become slackers. The social pressure that would have prevented both in the past is no longer as strong.

High earning man here and I totally agree with this as a potential theory. I don't think women can fathom how motivated men, especially young men are by sex. If women prized teachers and garbage men as much as doctor's and hedge fund managers, men would flock to the former instead of the latter.

Hence the problem men inflict upon themselves. Not valuing what's actually important in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The availability of sex without having to get married--less incentive to get a good job, attract a wife so as to be able to have sex

Premarital sex means I didn’t get a good job ... no, you’re full of crap here.

PP who posted that the availability of premarital sex gives men less incentive to get a good job. This is not my theory, I was simply reporting what different social scientists have put forth as explanations. This one comes from "Cheap Sex" by Mark Regnerus. My personal view with regard to this particular theory is that there is a 3rd factor causing both the decline in male employment and the rise of premarital sex. As society becomes more permissive, premarital sex becomes more the norm and some men choose to become slackers. The social pressure that would have prevented both in the past is no longer as strong.

High earning man here and I totally agree with this as a potential theory. I don't think women can fathom how motivated men, especially young men are by sex. If women prized teachers and garbage men as much as doctor's and hedge fund managers, men would flock to the former instead of the latter.

Hence the problem men inflict upon themselves. Not valuing what's actually important in life.

Procreation is fairly important, without it we probably wouldn't still be here!

[Anonymous]

There is no shortage of economically attractive men if you are an economically attractive woman who operates in their orbit and gets to meet those kind of men frequently. In my late 20’s after I got my MBA and a good job I met plenty of those guys. Meeting an economically attractive man was not the reason I got my MBA but it was a nice bonus.

[Anonymous]

High earning man here and I totally agree with this as a potential theory. I don't think women can fathom how motivated men, especially young men are by sex. If women prized teachers and garbage men as much as doctor's and hedge fund managers, men would flock to the former instead of the latter.

Hence the problem men inflict upon themselves. Not valuing what's actually important in life.

Women valuing a man for his wallet is what is messed up. If you’d rather be single in life than in a relationship with an employed, hard-working, non-millionaire, that’s not men’s self-inflicted injury of any sort. That’s women able to afford to grow old alone with cats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Outside a small slice of the elite, most single mothers survive on cross-subsidies from married taxpayers and taxpayers without children. The idea that there are huge numbers of women raising these kids successfully, not in poverty, and "on their own" (inc. their own dime) is really a myth.

This is so very true. This board skews heavily UMC- yes many women in this cohort can be successful single moms. I know several! But the vast, vast majority of single moms really struggle and end up relying on social programs to fill in the gaps. This idea of “successful single mom, I don’t need a man” really only works for educated UMC women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The availability of sex without having to get married--less incentive to get a good job, attract a wife so as to be able to have sex

Premarital sex means I didn’t get a good job ... no, you’re full of crap here.

PP who posted that the availability of premarital sex gives men less incentive to get a good job. This is not my theory, I was simply reporting what different social scientists have put forth as explanations. This one comes from "Cheap Sex" by Mark Regnerus. My personal view with regard to this particular theory is that there is a 3rd factor causing both the decline in male employment and the rise of premarital sex. As society becomes more permissive, premarital sex becomes more the norm and some men choose to become slackers. The social pressure that would have prevented both in the past is no longer as strong.

High earning man here and I totally agree with this as a potential theory. I don't think women can fathom how motivated men, especially young men are by sex. If women prized teachers and garbage men as much as doctor's and hedge fund managers, men would flock to the former instead of the latter.

Hence the problem men inflict upon themselves. Not valuing what's actually important in life.

How do you come up with that? It’s women who value men for their money/earning power. It is amazing how you deflect everything away from women. Do you feel women who are only interested in high earning men are a victim of men?

Also doctors and hedge fund managers usually come from money. Hedge fund managers have to have connection and run in the right circles. Doctors spend a really long time in school and training which requires access to money or loans. The men(and women) driving trash trucks usually had to support themselves right out of high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The availability of sex without having to get married--less incentive to get a good job, attract a wife so as to be able to have sex

Premarital sex means I didn’t get a good job ... no, you’re full of crap here.

PP who posted that the availability of premarital sex gives men less incentive to get a good job. This is not my theory, I was simply reporting what different social scientists have put forth as explanations. This one comes from "Cheap Sex" by Mark Regnerus. My personal view with regard to this particular theory is that there is a 3rd factor causing both the decline in male employment and the rise of premarital sex. As society becomes more permissive, premarital sex becomes more the norm and some men choose to become slackers. The social pressure that would have prevented both in the past is no longer as strong.

High earning man here and I totally agree with this as a potential theory. I don't think women can fathom how motivated men, especially young men are by sex. If women prized teachers and garbage men as much as doctor's and hedge fund managers, men would flock to the former instead of the latter.

Hence the problem men inflict upon themselves. Not valuing what's actually important in life.

Procreation is fairly important, without it we probably wouldn't still be here!

Come on, we’re talking about sex for pleasure, not to have babies. Most guys would love to have sex with no risk of pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is there has always been a shortage, but now women don’t need to rely on a man to survive. Easier to work than be married to a loser.

Yes women don't need a man to survive or even raise a child.

But studies have shown the benefits to the child from a loving and involved relationship with his/her father.

Aren't there recent studies that show that children (boys and girls) raised by single dads do better in life than children raised by single moms?

[Anonymous]

Hahahaha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/09/09/marriage-rate-study-economically-unattractive-mxp-vpx.hln


This story discusses a Cornell study that says the reason that US marriage rates are at an all time low is because there is a shortage of economically attractive men. They are labeling economically unattractive as lacking a bachelors degree or making less than $40,000 a year. Apparently women are reluctant to "marry down" so are remaining single instead. Assuming this study is valid, why do you think there is such a shortage of men who are "economically attractive" to women?

Because some women think they are deserving of a Kardashian existence -- too much reality television.

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.

Because maybe he does something he loves that make him less money than you. Maybe he's a great, fun, supportive guy who would make a fantastic father to your potential kids. Maybe you make good money, but you're not nearly as hot as you think you are and you don't get a lot of attention from wealthier fun, handsome guys. There are plenty of reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is there has always been a shortage, but now women don’t need to rely on a man to survive. Easier to work than be married to a loser.

Yes women don't need a man to survive or even raise a child.

But studies have shown the benefits to the child from a loving and involved relationship with his/her father.

Aren't there recent studies that show that children (boys and girls) raised by single dads do better in life than children raised by single moms?

Single dad here. I definitely taught my kid how to fix everything with duct tape.

[Anonymous]

Successful, single UMC mom here. My ability to earn meant I didn't have to accept my spouse's bad behavior (underemployed, extra marital friendships, lack of interest in childcare, unequal effort at home, excessive drinking, lack of financial control). I did try (therapy, etc) for years but he would not step up. I weighed the pros and cons and sadly decided that I couldn't endure him anymore.

I'd rather be married to the man I *thought* I was marrying who was functional but, once I had kids, the stakes became too high for me to tolerate his bad behavior, and my earning ability meant I didn't have to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is there has always been a shortage, but now women don’t need to rely on a man to survive. Easier to work than be married to a loser.

Yes women don't need a man to survive or even raise a child.

But studies have shown the benefits to the child from a loving and involved relationship with his/her father.

Aren't there recent studies that show that children (boys and girls) raised by single dads do better in life than children raised by single moms?

Isn't single dads still a tiny, tiny slice of the population? Usually courts side with moms or with joint custody, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no shortage of economically attractive men if you are an economically attractive woman who operates in their orbit and gets to meet those kind of men frequently. In my late 20’s after I got my MBA and a good job I met plenty of those guys. Meeting an economically attractive man was not the reason I got my MBA but it was a nice bonus.

Man here - I agree with this. When I started my career out of business school my network was generally made up of people similar to me - reasonably well educated, career oriented people. It was a pretty narrow field but when you are working long hours you can't cast a very wide social net. The bad news is that I didn't meet a ton of people working in the arts, sciences, non-profit world, or the trades and I'm sure that that diversity would have been good for me then and even now.

[Anonymous]

Low earning men and men without college degrees GENERALLY (not always) come from backgrounds that take a dim view of gender equality.

A union between a well compensated, educated woman and a less upwardly mobile man is doomed because she isn't the "right kind of woman."