Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not convinced that somehow schools, or social media or video games are the culprit. Or that men have become significantly less social, educated or "desirable" over time (probably the opposite). But in terms of the mating game, the acute economic pressure that was on women e.g. in 1950, to find a husband is probably close to gone today (and the social pressure has correspondingly abated as well). So if 30% of men are attractive mates, 40% average, and 30% subpar, and this has remained steady over time, there is really no reason women today would date the bottom 30% or even 50%, whereas 40-50 years ago they would have no other feasible option, and 20-30 years ago the social pressure would have still been fairly intense.

I'm not sure you could unwind this dynamic now or why we would even want to.

The shifting role of men means they need to become relevant, which they are, but they’ve seemed to have lost their way. Men need to see dating and marriage as a partnership and not the traditional way marriage has played out.

Right but then men, at least as a class, actually have to improve. If previously, all the bottom 30% had to offer was a paycheck or basic physical protection to get a mate, obviously that is not necessarily going to cut it anymore. So these guys have to become more pro-social, egalitarian, educated, whatever--which sure, would be great, but seems a bigger endeavor than just cutting video game time or changing some company's recruiting strategy.

All men have to be above average if they want a partner.

All women are not above average. Why do men need to be?

Because women want a man who is better educated and earns more than they do while also doing 50% of everything else.

I’m a woman who wants that. If I can’t find it, I just won’t date or marry. And?

And ... good luck with that, sincerely. On an individual level, people should do what they want. There is nothing wrong with your aspirations. But, if enough women have similar aspirations, there will be some societal downsides that we'll have to cope with one way or another.

Eh, there are societal downsides to women having no options, too.

Fewer people in relationships they don’t want is better for everyone, including society.

Society is seeing the downsides. Increases in mass shootings, the overdose epidemic that killed 100,000 people last year, etc.

Women generally aren't the ones killing themselves and others because they're alone. Maybe they're not getting the fairy tale they were sold as kids, but they're managing.
The hard truth is that men seem to need women, or seem to think they need women, in order to function. They also seem to want women to be a desperate underclass so they'll all have one.
Well, we aren't going backwards. Of course life was easier for men when women had no choice but to live with them. Life was also easier for a select group of people when the majority of other people had ho human rights. But we're better than that now. And society has evolved.
So men have two options. They can work on being the kind of men women want to date/f--k/marry. Or they can complain, drop out of society, complain, and harm themselves and others.
That's it. That's how it is.

Men and women are not two different species. One half is not separate from the other.

The OP is about men and how they are doing poorly. Your post is about women and how they are doing great. Proving the point, unfortunately.

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like women have seen their roles in society shift and have risen to the occasion (with our increased educational and economic opportunities comes the expectation that we'll be equal financial partners in addition to birthing/raising kids). Why can't men rise to the occasion if they want a partner?

Men are traditionally willing to marry in any direction on the economic ladder. Women are traditionally willing to marry up or laterally. Take both of those into account and you have a mismatch that gets exacerbated when women start surpassing men in education

Men need to step up. It's a dog eat dog world. Women don't even require a man to be all that good looking.

It's not really a dog eat dog world for women, plenty of empathy and social support for their problems.

\
Men seem to not want empathy. It's too emasculating. They just want women to lower their standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single motherhood has exploded.

This is...not a good thing.

It’s great. Women are tired of men not being good partners who actually help out around the house.

Yikes...have you seen the outcomes for kids that come from single mother households? They're horrible. Even worse than kids from single father households.

What is your alternative?

Idk...maybe a nuclear family?

An overwhelming number of women clearly disagree. It should be telling that they’d rather raise kids alone than with today’s men. Women have spoken. You cannot force us to marry.

The idea that the average single mom is happy with her situation or planned to raise a kid without a partner is nonsense. Most of them just fell into it because they got pregnant unintentionally and the man didn't stick around.

Single motherhood is, generally speaking, a ticket to poverty and a whole bunch of social pathologies for the kids in the situation. There's a reason why, as you go further up the socio-economic scale, single motherhood becomes more and more rare.

70% of divorces are initiated by women.

Cheaper to keep her.

So, women are fine with lower living standards if it means getting away from an awful man, but men would rather stay in a terrible marriage than give up free babysitters, housekeepers and chefs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like women have seen their roles in society shift and have risen to the occasion (with our increased educational and economic opportunities comes the expectation that we'll be equal financial partners in addition to birthing/raising kids). Why can't men rise to the occasion if they want a partner?

Men are traditionally willing to marry in any direction on the economic ladder. Women are traditionally willing to marry up or laterally. Take both of those into account and you have a mismatch that gets exacerbated when women start surpassing men in education

Men need to step up. It's a dog eat dog world. Women don't even require a man to be all that good looking.

It's not really a dog eat dog world for women, plenty of empathy and social support for their problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not convinced that somehow schools, or social media or video games are the culprit. Or that men have become significantly less social, educated or "desirable" over time (probably the opposite). But in terms of the mating game, the acute economic pressure that was on women e.g. in 1950, to find a husband is probably close to gone today (and the social pressure has correspondingly abated as well). So if 30% of men are attractive mates, 40% average, and 30% subpar, and this has remained steady over time, there is really no reason women today would date the bottom 30% or even 50%, whereas 40-50 years ago they would have no other feasible option, and 20-30 years ago the social pressure would have still been fairly intense.

I'm not sure you could unwind this dynamic now or why we would even want to.

The shifting role of men means they need to become relevant, which they are, but they’ve seemed to have lost their way. Men need to see dating and marriage as a partnership and not the traditional way marriage has played out.

Right but then men, at least as a class, actually have to improve. If previously, all the bottom 30% had to offer was a paycheck or basic physical protection to get a mate, obviously that is not necessarily going to cut it anymore. So these guys have to become more pro-social, egalitarian, educated, whatever--which sure, would be great, but seems a bigger endeavor than just cutting video game time or changing some company's recruiting strategy.

All men have to be above average if they want a partner.

All women are not above average. Why do men need to be?

Because women want a man who is better educated and earns more than they do while also doing 50% of everything else.

I’m a woman who wants that. If I can’t find it, I just won’t date or marry. And?

And ... good luck with that, sincerely. On an individual level, people should do what they want. There is nothing wrong with your aspirations. But, if enough women have similar aspirations, there will be some societal downsides that we'll have to cope with one way or another.

Eh, there are societal downsides to women having no options, too.

Fewer people in relationships they don’t want is better for everyone, including society.

Society is seeing the downsides. Increases in mass shootings, the overdose epidemic that killed 100,000 people last year, etc.

Women generally aren't the ones killing themselves and others because they're alone. Maybe they're not getting the fairy tale they were sold as kids, but they're managing.
The hard truth is that men seem to need women, or seem to think they need women, in order to function. They also seem to want women to be a desperate underclass so they'll all have one.
Well, we aren't going backwards. Of course life was easier for men when women had no choice but to live with them. Life was also easier for a select group of people when the majority of other people had ho human rights. But we're better than that now. And society has evolved.
So men have two options. They can work on being the kind of men women want to date/f--k/marry. Or they can complain, drop out of society, complain, and harm themselves and others.
That's it. That's how it is.

Men (and women) have more than two options. These types of reductive arguments are unhelpful.

I’m not seeing you making any suggestions for addressing the loneliness of young men. So what do you suggest?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not convinced that somehow schools, or social media or video games are the culprit. Or that men have become significantly less social, educated or "desirable" over time (probably the opposite). But in terms of the mating game, the acute economic pressure that was on women e.g. in 1950, to find a husband is probably close to gone today (and the social pressure has correspondingly abated as well). So if 30% of men are attractive mates, 40% average, and 30% subpar, and this has remained steady over time, there is really no reason women today would date the bottom 30% or even 50%, whereas 40-50 years ago they would have no other feasible option, and 20-30 years ago the social pressure would have still been fairly intense.

I'm not sure you could unwind this dynamic now or why we would even want to.

The shifting role of men means they need to become relevant, which they are, but they’ve seemed to have lost their way. Men need to see dating and marriage as a partnership and not the traditional way marriage has played out.

Right but then men, at least as a class, actually have to improve. If previously, all the bottom 30% had to offer was a paycheck or basic physical protection to get a mate, obviously that is not necessarily going to cut it anymore. So these guys have to become more pro-social, egalitarian, educated, whatever--which sure, would be great, but seems a bigger endeavor than just cutting video game time or changing some company's recruiting strategy.

All men have to be above average if they want a partner.

All women are not above average. Why do men need to be?

Because women want a man who is better educated and earns more than they do while also doing 50% of everything else.

I’m a woman who wants that. If I can’t find it, I just won’t date or marry. And?

And ... good luck with that, sincerely. On an individual level, people should do what they want. There is nothing wrong with your aspirations. But, if enough women have similar aspirations, there will be some societal downsides that we'll have to cope with one way or another.

Eh, there are societal downsides to women having no options, too.

Fewer people in relationships they don’t want is better for everyone, including society.

Society is seeing the downsides. Increases in mass shootings, the overdose epidemic that killed 100,000 people last year, etc.

Yes, let’s blame women not the proliferation of guns (no gun control) or big pharma. That should solve these issues.

There are plenty more downsides, but a lot in this thread are too shortsighted to realize how ruinous this path is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not convinced that somehow schools, or social media or video games are the culprit. Or that men have become significantly less social, educated or "desirable" over time (probably the opposite). But in terms of the mating game, the acute economic pressure that was on women e.g. in 1950, to find a husband is probably close to gone today (and the social pressure has correspondingly abated as well). So if 30% of men are attractive mates, 40% average, and 30% subpar, and this has remained steady over time, there is really no reason women today would date the bottom 30% or even 50%, whereas 40-50 years ago they would have no other feasible option, and 20-30 years ago the social pressure would have still been fairly intense.

I'm not sure you could unwind this dynamic now or why we would even want to.

The shifting role of men means they need to become relevant, which they are, but they’ve seemed to have lost their way. Men need to see dating and marriage as a partnership and not the traditional way marriage has played out.

Right but then men, at least as a class, actually have to improve. If previously, all the bottom 30% had to offer was a paycheck or basic physical protection to get a mate, obviously that is not necessarily going to cut it anymore. So these guys have to become more pro-social, egalitarian, educated, whatever--which sure, would be great, but seems a bigger endeavor than just cutting video game time or changing some company's recruiting strategy.

All men have to be above average if they want a partner.

All women are not above average. Why do men need to be?

Because women want a man who is better educated and earns more than they do while also doing 50% of everything else.

I’m a woman who wants that. If I can’t find it, I just won’t date or marry. And?

And ... good luck with that, sincerely. On an individual level, people should do what they want. There is nothing wrong with your aspirations. But, if enough women have similar aspirations, there will be some societal downsides that we'll have to cope with one way or another.

Eh, there are societal downsides to women having no options, too.

Fewer people in relationships they don’t want is better for everyone, including society.

Society is seeing the downsides. Increases in mass shootings, the overdose epidemic that killed 100,000 people last year, etc.

Women generally aren't the ones killing themselves and others because they're alone. Maybe they're not getting the fairy tale they were sold as kids, but they're managing.
The hard truth is that men seem to need women, or seem to think they need women, in order to function. They also seem to want women to be a desperate underclass so they'll all have one.
Well, we aren't going backwards. Of course life was easier for men when women had no choice but to live with them. Life was also easier for a select group of people when the majority of other people had ho human rights. But we're better than that now. And society has evolved.
So men have two options. They can work on being the kind of men women want to date/f--k/marry. Or they can complain, drop out of society, complain, and harm themselves and others.
That's it. That's how it is.

Men (and women) have more than two options. These types of reductive arguments are unhelpful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not convinced that somehow schools, or social media or video games are the culprit. Or that men have become significantly less social, educated or "desirable" over time (probably the opposite). But in terms of the mating game, the acute economic pressure that was on women e.g. in 1950, to find a husband is probably close to gone today (and the social pressure has correspondingly abated as well). So if 30% of men are attractive mates, 40% average, and 30% subpar, and this has remained steady over time, there is really no reason women today would date the bottom 30% or even 50%, whereas 40-50 years ago they would have no other feasible option, and 20-30 years ago the social pressure would have still been fairly intense.

I'm not sure you could unwind this dynamic now or why we would even want to.

The shifting role of men means they need to become relevant, which they are, but they’ve seemed to have lost their way. Men need to see dating and marriage as a partnership and not the traditional way marriage has played out.

Right but then men, at least as a class, actually have to improve. If previously, all the bottom 30% had to offer was a paycheck or basic physical protection to get a mate, obviously that is not necessarily going to cut it anymore. So these guys have to become more pro-social, egalitarian, educated, whatever--which sure, would be great, but seems a bigger endeavor than just cutting video game time or changing some company's recruiting strategy.

All men have to be above average if they want a partner.

All women are not above average. Why do men need to be?

Because women want a man who is better educated and earns more than they do while also doing 50% of everything else.

I’m a woman who wants that. If I can’t find it, I just won’t date or marry. And?

And ... good luck with that, sincerely. On an individual level, people should do what they want. There is nothing wrong with your aspirations. But, if enough women have similar aspirations, there will be some societal downsides that we'll have to cope with one way or another.

Eh, there are societal downsides to women having no options, too.

Fewer people in relationships they don’t want is better for everyone, including society.

Society is seeing the downsides. Increases in mass shootings, the overdose epidemic that killed 100,000 people last year, etc.

Women generally aren't the ones killing themselves and others because they're alone. Maybe they're not getting the fairy tale they were sold as kids, but they're managing.
The hard truth is that men seem to need women, or seem to think they need women, in order to function. They also seem to want women to be a desperate underclass so they'll all have one.
Well, we aren't going backwards. Of course life was easier for men when women had no choice but to live with them. Life was also easier for a select group of people when the majority of other people had ho human rights. But we're better than that now. And society has evolved.
So men have two options. They can work on being the kind of men women want to date/f--k/marry. Or they can complain, drop out of society, complain, and harm themselves and others.
That's it. That's how it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not convinced that somehow schools, or social media or video games are the culprit. Or that men have become significantly less social, educated or "desirable" over time (probably the opposite). But in terms of the mating game, the acute economic pressure that was on women e.g. in 1950, to find a husband is probably close to gone today (and the social pressure has correspondingly abated as well). So if 30% of men are attractive mates, 40% average, and 30% subpar, and this has remained steady over time, there is really no reason women today would date the bottom 30% or even 50%, whereas 40-50 years ago they would have no other feasible option, and 20-30 years ago the social pressure would have still been fairly intense.

I'm not sure you could unwind this dynamic now or why we would even want to.

The shifting role of men means they need to become relevant, which they are, but they’ve seemed to have lost their way. Men need to see dating and marriage as a partnership and not the traditional way marriage has played out.

Right but then men, at least as a class, actually have to improve. If previously, all the bottom 30% had to offer was a paycheck or basic physical protection to get a mate, obviously that is not necessarily going to cut it anymore. So these guys have to become more pro-social, egalitarian, educated, whatever--which sure, would be great, but seems a bigger endeavor than just cutting video game time or changing some company's recruiting strategy.

All men have to be above average if they want a partner.

All women are not above average. Why do men need to be?

Because women want a man who is better educated and earns more than they do while also doing 50% of everything else.

I’m a woman who wants that. If I can’t find it, I just won’t date or marry. And?

And ... good luck with that, sincerely. On an individual level, people should do what they want. There is nothing wrong with your aspirations. But, if enough women have similar aspirations, there will be some societal downsides that we'll have to cope with one way or another.

Eh, there are societal downsides to women having no options, too.

Fewer people in relationships they don’t want is better for everyone, including society.

Society is seeing the downsides. Increases in mass shootings, the overdose epidemic that killed 100,000 people last year, etc.

Yes, let’s blame women not the proliferation of guns (no gun control) or big pharma. That should solve these issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single motherhood has exploded.

This is...not a good thing.

It’s great. Women are tired of men not being good partners who actually help out around the house.

Yikes...have you seen the outcomes for kids that come from single mother households? They're horrible. Even worse than kids from single father households.

What is your alternative?

Idk...maybe a nuclear family?

An overwhelming number of women clearly disagree. It should be telling that they’d rather raise kids alone than with today’s men. Women have spoken. You cannot force us to marry.

The idea that the average single mom is happy with her situation or planned to raise a kid without a partner is nonsense. Most of them just fell into it because they got pregnant unintentionally and the man didn't stick around.

Single motherhood is, generally speaking, a ticket to poverty and a whole bunch of social pathologies for the kids in the situation. There's a reason why, as you go further up the socio-economic scale, single motherhood becomes more and more rare.

70% of divorces are initiated by women.

Cheaper to keep her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single motherhood has exploded.

This is...not a good thing.

It’s great. Women are tired of men not being good partners who actually help out around the house.

Yikes...have you seen the outcomes for kids that come from single mother households? They're horrible. Even worse than kids from single father households.

What is your alternative?

Idk...maybe a nuclear family?

An overwhelming number of women clearly disagree. It should be telling that they’d rather raise kids alone than with today’s men. Women have spoken. You cannot force us to marry.

The idea that the average single mom is happy with her situation or planned to raise a kid without a partner is nonsense. Most of them just fell into it because they got pregnant unintentionally and the man didn't stick around.

Single motherhood is, generally speaking, a ticket to poverty and a whole bunch of social pathologies for the kids in the situation. There's a reason why, as you go further up the socio-economic scale, single motherhood becomes more and more rare.

70% of divorces are initiated by women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not convinced that somehow schools, or social media or video games are the culprit. Or that men have become significantly less social, educated or "desirable" over time (probably the opposite). But in terms of the mating game, the acute economic pressure that was on women e.g. in 1950, to find a husband is probably close to gone today (and the social pressure has correspondingly abated as well). So if 30% of men are attractive mates, 40% average, and 30% subpar, and this has remained steady over time, there is really no reason women today would date the bottom 30% or even 50%, whereas 40-50 years ago they would have no other feasible option, and 20-30 years ago the social pressure would have still been fairly intense.

I'm not sure you could unwind this dynamic now or why we would even want to.

The shifting role of men means they need to become relevant, which they are, but they’ve seemed to have lost their way. Men need to see dating and marriage as a partnership and not the traditional way marriage has played out.

Right but then men, at least as a class, actually have to improve. If previously, all the bottom 30% had to offer was a paycheck or basic physical protection to get a mate, obviously that is not necessarily going to cut it anymore. So these guys have to become more pro-social, egalitarian, educated, whatever--which sure, would be great, but seems a bigger endeavor than just cutting video game time or changing some company's recruiting strategy.

All men have to be above average if they want a partner.

All women are not above average. Why do men need to be?

Because women want a man who is better educated and earns more than they do while also doing 50% of everything else.

I’m a woman who wants that. If I can’t find it, I just won’t date or marry. And?

And ... good luck with that, sincerely. On an individual level, people should do what they want. There is nothing wrong with your aspirations. But, if enough women have similar aspirations, there will be some societal downsides that we'll have to cope with one way or another.

Eh, there are societal downsides to women having no options, too.

Fewer people in relationships they don’t want is better for everyone, including society.

Society is seeing the downsides. Increases in mass shootings, the overdose epidemic that killed 100,000 people last year, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single motherhood has exploded.

This is...not a good thing.

It’s great. Women are tired of men not being good partners who actually help out around the house.

Yikes...have you seen the outcomes for kids that come from single mother households? They're horrible. Even worse than kids from single father households.

What is your alternative?

Idk...maybe a nuclear family?

An overwhelming number of women clearly disagree. It should be telling that they’d rather raise kids alone than with today’s men. Women have spoken. You cannot force us to marry.

The idea that the average single mom is happy with her situation or planned to raise a kid without a partner is nonsense. Most of them just fell into it because they got pregnant unintentionally and the man didn't stick around.

Single motherhood is, generally speaking, a ticket to poverty and a whole bunch of social pathologies for the kids in the situation. There's a reason why, as you go further up the socio-economic scale, single motherhood becomes more and more rare.

I posted upthread about the creeper syndrome. In the instance I described, it was DS who said some girls were telling guys on a campus anonymous forum to step up and make a move. More girls than guys on his campus, not extreme, but there are also LGBT girls/guys. The guys being asked to step up are saying they don’t want to come across as creepy (the most benign form) of expressing interest. Girls are demanding they approach. His college is nationally well respected, urban, and isn’t extreme left or right. No Greek life. No sports housing (D1). They all hangout at the same spots.

The dynamic seems to be that women are much more empowered, confident, accepted, respected, and damn smart. Rightfully so. This is GenZ. Digital native generation in a globally connected world. They’re woke, and that’s ok. They shared an awful lot of sorrow during the pandemic and stepped up to help. My son included. He was born in 2003, happened to be the year of the girls where we lived. He was literally the only boy in the mix of girls. A pre nursery program took him because he was potty trained at 2.6 months. WIN, except it was mostly girls. He’s always had best friends that are girls, and boys eventually. He was born an empath, gorgeous face, teeth, hair, polite, generous, very social, and smart. I digress because he’s short! 5’7…enough said. He is serious with someone now. Still has same girl (friends) from kindergarten. Women have all the power now. Yet, they still chase the ones they rarely get. Guys know this. They’re not sulking behind video games. They’re working hard at a very rigorous college. Platonic friends in his dorm everyday. The majority of guys are not misfits with guns pillaging their villages. Girls are no longer the weaker gender. They know nothing but inclusion. Most are guilty of marijuana use. They navel gaze (that 70s show). This myopic view of the world is so damn damaging, and online toxicity is perpetuated by ADULTS. There is no filter. Civility is lost. None of the kids I know (except one girl) are thinking about marriage or kids. I think that shift may come to fruition. All we can do is skim the dead crud off the top (politically) and give these kids a chance. If this offends anyone, too bad.