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.

I’m picturing a world where women sleep with/get sperm donations from the top 5% of men, while the rest of the guys sit at home furiously masturbating into a sex robot.

On the plus side, it’ll lead to all humans being super geniuses and super good looking.

This is actually one of the predicted outcomes in the medium term. Similarly men could utilize artificial wombs to have children of their own if they wanted. Once we identify the genes responsible for intelligence it's theorized that having a child the natural way (if you can afford to artificially select the DNA) could put that child at a huge disadvantage.

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.

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.

I’m picturing a world where women sleep with/get sperm donations from the top 5% of men, while the rest of the guys sit at home furiously masturbating into a sex robot.

On the plus side, it’ll lead to all humans being super geniuses and super good looking.

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.

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.

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.

Man here, I make money in your range (and I am married so I have no dog in this fight) but this is interesting to me.

The 2% of men earn 300k plus and that number is even smaller for those age 45 and under (not sure your age). So you eliminate 98% of the dating pool, and now you are competing for 2% of men, almost all of whom are married.

While I understand women do more of the second shift stuff, it surprises me women can shrug off the need for companionship so easily (few women I know are satisfied with casual romps). There has to be more to life than bean counting.

You are essentially implying that women should pay for companionship by accepting a greater burden on the second shift. Women are no longer willing to do that. Asking for equality on the second shift isn't "bean-counting," it's asking to be accept as a full and equal human being. When you call it "bean-counting" you imply that women's demands to be unequal are some kind of unreasonable accounting problem over small differences. Women don't see it that way.

FYI, women also have a much broader array of opportunities for "companionship" outside of marriage than you imagine (romps, FWB, long term or medium term relationships outside of marriage) and "casual romps" are the exact type of companionship many want. In fact, many women, especially older women, want to be single into old age because being married implies, both culturally and legally, yet another second shift -- taking care of the man as he ages. I have seen many women over 50 leave, without remorse, long term unmarried relationships when the men fell chronically ill because the women did not view it as their job to be the man's caretaker.

I really agree with the bolded, and I also find it very offputting how systemic overburdening of one partner is so casually minimized as "bean counting" and "nagging."

All studies show that men actually do relatively *less* household work when they are un/underemployed, then when they are employed, as the woman is forced to overcompensate for the reversal of traditional gender roles. Just one of many examples: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/12/housework-men-assert-masculinity. Except for the rare (though hopefully increasingly more common) situation where a Dad actively wants to be a SAHD and takes pride in doing so (and I do know one or two examples), if would be idiocy for a woman to enter into a marriage with a partner who was not willing/able to at least be a roughly equal breadwinner. PP's idea that women have to accept default (lifelong) drudgery in exchange for any companionship is incredibly problematic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This situation also highlights some of the ADVANTAGES that "power couples" have. Two focused parents, two high-end earners, and two strong social networks provides exponential value to the family. Been around a lot of women who earn north of 500K even after stepping back from their careers for a few years when their kids were young. Their husbands all make more. Its the optimal way to proceed and I can see why younger women are pursuing that path - I did and there are too many examples around to miss the value.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

No. I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do. I make $300. If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table. He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution. I want equitable.

Man here, I make money in your range (and I am married so I have no dog in this fight) but this is interesting to me.

The 2% of men earn 300k plus and that number is even smaller for those age 45 and under (not sure your age). So you eliminate 98% of the dating pool, and now you are competing for 2% of men, almost all of whom are married.

While I understand women do more of the second shift stuff, it surprises me women can shrug off the need for companionship so easily (few women I know are satisfied with casual romps). There has to be more to life than bean counting.

DP.. of course companionship is important, but what good is that companionship if just becomes another burden to bear, as in, the woman is the default parent and the primary bread winner. That leads to bitter resentment and frustration on the woman's part. We see that play out on dcum, but I'm pretty sure this is playing out across the country.

I think once you have kids, it changes things. When we were dating, at one point, I was making $200K, and DH was making $120K. That didn't bother me. But once kids arrived, I wanted to take some time off to be with our baby. So, the financial burden fell on DH, who by that time, was making about $180K. But we planned on all this. We saved a lot so that I could be a sahm for a year. But, if DH did not make enough, I would not have been able to take that time off. I'm really thankful that I was in a position to do this. I cherish that time now that DC is 14. I am now back FT, and DH and I make about the same. DH has taken on more of the mental load of parenting. He didn't before, and that was a cause of lots of stress an resentment on my part.

Women have more choices now than ever before. Think about switching positions - if you knew you were going to have to be the default parent AND primary breadwinner, would you take that all on?

The short answer is no. The longer answer is that men and women prioritize different things. At the risk of being universal, the red flag for me would be to marry a woman that was uninterested in the physical part of the relationship, because at that end, what is the point of being together. If she was beautiful and fun to be around but contributed nothing financially that makes zero difference. If she also contributed nothing to domestic aspects, I could see the resentment however.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This situation also highlights some of the ADVANTAGES that "power couples" have. Two focused parents, two high-end earners, and two strong social networks provides exponential value to the family. Been around a lot of women who earn north of 500K even after stepping back from their careers for a few years when their kids were young. Their husbands all make more. Its the optimal way to proceed and I can see why younger women are pursuing that path - I did and there are too many examples around to miss the value.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

No. I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do. I make $300. If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table. He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution. I want equitable.

Have you ever had an actual relationship? Not everything is about money. In fact, once you have enough money, it tends to become a non issue and other things take precedence. That's one of the nicest things about having money - it alleviates all the stress.

Except in this scenario the stress will always be on the female spouse as she’s bringing in the HHI to maintain their SOL.

Which is why she’s being picky before getting locked down.

I don't know why you would assume this. I SAH, my husband makes 700k +, AND he's 50/50 equal partner at home and with kids. He does that because he was raised to believe that's what "good husbands" and "good fathers" do.

Those men definitely exist. I feel like you are probably not giving them a chance though because they don't "make enough" according to you.

But what about the emotional connection though? Companionship? Someone to talk things over with and just laugh with? Someone to have regular sex with?

Yes you can raise a child on your own. But you will miss the joy of sharing it with someone. One of the best parts of having a child ime is hearing them say something cute and funny and then looking over at my husband and seeing him smile and know that we are thinking the exact same thing at the same time because we both love that child in the same way.

What about this don’t you get? You don’t make any income. Of course, you’re happy with just providing companionship. I’m pretty sure if you divorce your tune will change as you fight for alimony and diminished child support.

What we’re saying is that women who KNOW the man they’re dating isn’t making a income high enough for them to not support the household have to be more careful.

Now you're changing your tune. There are women in here point blank saying, if a man can't earn over 100k, he's not worth getting to know. And other people are saying, you ought to rethink that because there is a LOT more to a healthy relationship than money.

The women who said if the man doesn’t earn 100K they think he isn’t worth it were responding to the fact that they THEMSELVES earn 100K+.

Again - they just want a spouse with an income commensurate to their own. That’s all.

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 when a husband earns 700k and has a SAHW he is free of the burden of managing the household. Societal attitudes have not changed so much that when a woman earns 700k, her partner is most likely to do a terrible job as a SAHD and household managing and she finds herself in the position of both being breadwinner and household manager.

Thank you. His SAHW/M does the household account management, cleaning, cooking and/or supervising, childcare, errands, educational currculum oversight and any other little thing the earning spouse can't be bother to do.

Just by dent of taking the role on. 99% a man will NOT do everything a SAHM does even if they have the opportunity to live that life with a spouse who earns the entirety of the HHI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This situation also highlights some of the ADVANTAGES that "power couples" have. Two focused parents, two high-end earners, and two strong social networks provides exponential value to the family. Been around a lot of women who earn north of 500K even after stepping back from their careers for a few years when their kids were young. Their husbands all make more. Its the optimal way to proceed and I can see why younger women are pursuing that path - I did and there are too many examples around to miss the value.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

No. I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do. I make $300. If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table. He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution. I want equitable.

Man here, I make money in your range (and I am married so I have no dog in this fight) but this is interesting to me.

The 2% of men earn 300k plus and that number is even smaller for those age 45 and under (not sure your age). So you eliminate 98% of the dating pool, and now you are competing for 2% of men, almost all of whom are married.

While I understand women do more of the second shift stuff, it surprises me women can shrug off the need for companionship so easily (few women I know are satisfied with casual romps). There has to be more to life than bean counting.

You are essentially implying that women should pay for companionship by accepting a greater burden on the second shift. Women are no longer willing to do that. Asking for equality on the second shift isn't "bean-counting," it's asking to be accept as a full and equal human being. When you call it "bean-counting" you imply that women's demands to be unequal are some kind of unreasonable accounting problem over small differences. Women don't see it that way.

FYI, women also have a much broader array of opportunities for "companionship" outside of marriage than you imagine (romps, FWB, long term or medium term relationships outside of marriage) and "casual romps" are the exact type of companionship many want. In fact, many women, especially older women, want to be single into old age because being married implies, both culturally and legally, yet another second shift -- taking care of the man as he ages. I have seen many women over 50 leave, without remorse, long term unmarried relationships when the men fell chronically ill because the women did not view it as their job to be the man's caretaker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This situation also highlights some of the ADVANTAGES that "power couples" have. Two focused parents, two high-end earners, and two strong social networks provides exponential value to the family. Been around a lot of women who earn north of 500K even after stepping back from their careers for a few years when their kids were young. Their husbands all make more. Its the optimal way to proceed and I can see why younger women are pursuing that path - I did and there are too many examples around to miss the value.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

No. I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do. I make $300. If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table. He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution. I want equitable.

Have you ever had an actual relationship? Not everything is about money. In fact, once you have enough money, it tends to become a non issue and other things take precedence. That's one of the nicest things about having money - it alleviates all the stress.

Except in this scenario the stress will always be on the female spouse as she’s bringing in the HHI to maintain their SOL.

Which is why she’s being picky before getting locked down.

I don't know why you would assume this. I SAH, my husband makes 700k +, AND he's 50/50 equal partner at home and with kids. He does that because he was raised to believe that's what "good husbands" and "good fathers" do.

Those men definitely exist. I feel like you are probably not giving them a chance though because they don't "make enough" according to you.

But what about the emotional connection though? Companionship? Someone to talk things over with and just laugh with? Someone to have regular sex with?

Yes you can raise a child on your own. But you will miss the joy of sharing it with someone. One of the best parts of having a child ime is hearing them say something cute and funny and then looking over at my husband and seeing him smile and know that we are thinking the exact same thing at the same time because we both love that child in the same way.

What about this don’t you get? You don’t make any income. Of course, you’re happy with just providing companionship. I’m pretty sure if you divorce your tune will change as you fight for alimony and diminished child support.

What we’re saying is that women who KNOW the man they’re dating isn’t making a income high enough for them to not support the household have to be more careful.

Now you're changing your tune. There are women in here point blank saying, if a man can't earn over 100k, he's not worth getting to know. And other people are saying, you ought to rethink that because there is a LOT more to a healthy relationship than money.

The women who said if the man doesn’t earn 100K they think he isn’t worth it were responding to the fact that they THEMSELVES earn 100K+.

Again - they just want a spouse with an income commensurate to their own. That’s all.

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 when a husband earns 700k and has a SAHW he is free of the burden of managing the household. Societal attitudes have not changed so much that when a woman earns 700k, her partner is most likely to do a terrible job as a SAHD and household managing and she finds herself in the position of both being breadwinner and household manager.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This situation also highlights some of the ADVANTAGES that "power couples" have. Two focused parents, two high-end earners, and two strong social networks provides exponential value to the family. Been around a lot of women who earn north of 500K even after stepping back from their careers for a few years when their kids were young. Their husbands all make more. Its the optimal way to proceed and I can see why younger women are pursuing that path - I did and there are too many examples around to miss the value.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

No. I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do. I make $300. If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table. He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution. I want equitable.

Have you ever had an actual relationship? Not everything is about money. In fact, once you have enough money, it tends to become a non issue and other things take precedence. That's one of the nicest things about having money - it alleviates all the stress.

Except in this scenario the stress will always be on the female spouse as she’s bringing in the HHI to maintain their SOL.

Which is why she’s being picky before getting locked down.

I don't know why you would assume this. I SAH, my husband makes 700k +, AND he's 50/50 equal partner at home and with kids. He does that because he was raised to believe that's what "good husbands" and "good fathers" do.

Those men definitely exist. I feel like you are probably not giving them a chance though because they don't "make enough" according to you.

But what about the emotional connection though? Companionship? Someone to talk things over with and just laugh with? Someone to have regular sex with?

Yes you can raise a child on your own. But you will miss the joy of sharing it with someone. One of the best parts of having a child ime is hearing them say something cute and funny and then looking over at my husband and seeing him smile and know that we are thinking the exact same thing at the same time because we both love that child in the same way.

What about this don’t you get? You don’t make any income. Of course, you’re happy with just providing companionship. I’m pretty sure if you divorce your tune will change as you fight for alimony and diminished child support.

What we’re saying is that women who KNOW the man they’re dating isn’t making a income high enough for them to not support the household have to be more careful.

Now you're changing your tune. There are women in here point blank saying, if a man can't earn over 100k, he's not worth getting to know. And other people are saying, you ought to rethink that because there is a LOT more to a healthy relationship than money.

The women who said if the man doesn’t earn 100K they think he isn’t worth it were responding to the fact that they THEMSELVES earn 100K+.

Again - they just want a spouse with an income commensurate to their own. That’s all.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This situation also highlights some of the ADVANTAGES that "power couples" have. Two focused parents, two high-end earners, and two strong social networks provides exponential value to the family. Been around a lot of women who earn north of 500K even after stepping back from their careers for a few years when their kids were young. Their husbands all make more. Its the optimal way to proceed and I can see why younger women are pursuing that path - I did and there are too many examples around to miss the value.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

No. I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do. I make $300. If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table. He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution. I want equitable.

Why do you think that you would be the primary hh manager/parent? Are you specifically looking for that sort of arrangement?

The women who I know who have husbands who do their 50% of hh/childcare work prioritized that when they were dating (and yes, over money). In other words, they chose someone with whom they had a compatible vision of family life. Sometimes, it meant two high earners who stepped back once the kids came. Other times, it meant choosing a husband with a profession that already had good work/life balance. Regardless, it meant choosing a man who wanted to do his 50% at home because that's what being a good husband/father meant to him.

Quite frankly, the only women who I know who ended up as default hh manager/parent prioritized money when dating. Oftentimes, their husbands were high earning workaholics who made a lot money and/or had a prestigious job. Despite wanting children, their husbands did not want to step back professionally in order to be full partners at home.

I have dated guys who made less money than I did. It's not really an issue for me if he has a real job. I'd happily date a teacher, cop, fireman, carpenter, plumber, etc. But if he's basically aimless, working part-time or not really working? Hard pass. I don't make enough to support myself, my child AND an able-bodied dude who should be self-supporting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This situation also highlights some of the ADVANTAGES that "power couples" have. Two focused parents, two high-end earners, and two strong social networks provides exponential value to the family. Been around a lot of women who earn north of 500K even after stepping back from their careers for a few years when their kids were young. Their husbands all make more. Its the optimal way to proceed and I can see why younger women are pursuing that path - I did and there are too many examples around to miss the value.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

No. I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do. I make $300. If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table. He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution. I want equitable.

Man here, I make money in your range (and I am married so I have no dog in this fight) but this is interesting to me.

The 2% of men earn 300k plus and that number is even smaller for those age 45 and under (not sure your age). So you eliminate 98% of the dating pool, and now you are competing for 2% of men, almost all of whom are married.

While I understand women do more of the second shift stuff, it surprises me women can shrug off the need for companionship so easily (few women I know are satisfied with casual romps). There has to be more to life than bean counting.

DP.. of course companionship is important, but what good is that companionship if just becomes another burden to bear, as in, the woman is the default parent and the primary bread winner. That leads to bitter resentment and frustration on the woman's part. We see that play out on dcum, but I'm pretty sure this is playing out across the country.

I think once you have kids, it changes things. When we were dating, at one point, I was making $200K, and DH was making $120K. That didn't bother me. But once kids arrived, I wanted to take some time off to be with our baby. So, the financial burden fell on DH, who by that time, was making about $180K. But we planned on all this. We saved a lot so that I could be a sahm for a year. But, if DH did not make enough, I would not have been able to take that time off. I'm really thankful that I was in a position to do this. I cherish that time now that DC is 14. I am now back FT, and DH and I make about the same. DH has taken on more of the mental load of parenting. He didn't before, and that was a cause of lots of stress an resentment on my part.

Women have more choices now than ever before. Think about switching positions - if you knew you were going to have to be the default parent AND primary breadwinner, would you take that all on?