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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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 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.

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.