# 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

That number surprised me. Anyway, here is a rant on how it is supposedly bad:

Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”
“Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com. “They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”

According to “projections based on census data, when today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share (25%) is likely to have never been married,” Pew Research noted in a 2014 study documenting the decline of marriage in the U.S.

Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

I'm one of them...........

That's all.


I'm definitly not ready for it.


----------



## Lollapalooza (Nov 26, 2016)

I thought this is your thread for Valentine's Event and my first thought was: "Why didn't I figure this headline myself?"


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

AAADD Cocoon said:


> I'm one of them...........
> 
> That's all.
> 
> ...


I felt as if the author was calling me out too. lol. I am unmarried and immature.


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I felt as if the author was calling me out too. lol. I am unmarried and immature.


Well, I would say I am mature but childlike, though, there are some immature aspects in me, definitly not fully grown up, but always been very mature as a child.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

@JaniceShawCrouse

who's that chick in your avi, Fear?


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

double post


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

People die later in their lives now too.


----------



## titanII (Jan 11, 2017)

Damned gen Ys and Zs...

"It's very, very depressing" I know that I am depressed about this situation...


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Aeneas321 said:


> @*Janice*ShawCrouse
> 
> who's that chick in your avi, Fear?


Alexa Grasso. A mid level mma fighter. Well actually competes at the highest level and has only one loss, but she will never be champion. She's got pixie ears too, which I like.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

I see. She's very attractive. Is she as arrogant and annoying as another certain skilled female fighter you probably know?


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

The premise they set forth is one no one in this era really would accept. But 50 years ago, questioning the premise would have gotten you ostracized. Weird how time flows.


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> People die later in their lives now too.


When it's my turn?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Aeneas321 said:


> I see. She's very attractive. Is she as arrogant and annoying as certain skilled female fighter you probably know?



Fuck no. Does she look as annoying as Rousey? lol. If she had Rousey's attitude she would not be my avatar. I do not like that woman. One of the biggest frauds in sports history. They put her on a cover of a boxing magazine. I can box better than her and I have never even boxed before.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Does she look as annoying as Rousey?


Well, looks _can_ be decieving!



> Fuck no.


Ah, good.


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That number surprised me. Anyway, here is a rant on how it is supposedly bad:
> 
> Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”
> “Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
> ...


The thing is 2 marriages out of 3 ends up with a divorce, the majority of the divorce are initiate by women, in majority of the divorce case, it's the women who have children custody plus the maintenance allowance payed by men. 
So seriously which sane men want to marry nowadays :laughing:


----------



## titanII (Jan 11, 2017)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Alexa Grasso. A mid level mma fighter. Well actually competes at the highest level and has only one loss, but she will never be champion. She's got pixie ears too, which I like.


Holy pixie ears Batman!

Bottom gif looks like chick's faces when I walk into a room haha!


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

AAADD Cocoon said:


> When it's my turn?


Hard to see the future is.


----------



## Wolf (Mar 20, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That number surprised me. Anyway, here is a rant on how it is supposedly bad:
> 
> Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”
> “Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
> ...


Honestly, the fact that less and less people are getting married is not a depressing one. It's a good thing that young people aren't just buying into the lifestyle template that society handed their parents which was later passed down to them. We've all seen what happens when two people rush into marriage for the wrong reasons. Divorce, unhappiness, sexless relationships, and pain are common side-effects, and in my opinion, are worse to cope with than singlehood. 

The author is essentially attacking men and claiming that they need to step up to the plate and fulfill their gender roles. I guarantee that the article would not have been published if this was turned the other way around (towards women). What the author fails to mention is that a lot of young women also aren't necessarily interested in getting married, much like their male peers. She goes on to imply that the only way for a girl to have a shot at marriage in our society is to be "promiscuous" and hookup with tons of guys, which is simply not the case. 

Marriage doesn't always equate to happiness. If never getting married is going to lead someone to a lifetime of depression then they probably don't have a healthy understanding of what marriage actually is, they should be looking for fulfillment outside of another person / a relationship.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

I don't see waiting until later to get married as a negative. Wanting to get your shit together before committing to someone seems smart to me.


----------



## Ermenegildo (Feb 25, 2014)

Most women want children, most men want women. The more the better.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Wolf said:


> Honestly, the fact that less and less people are getting married is not a depressing one. It's a good thing that young people aren't just buying into the lifestyle template that society handed their parents which was later passed down to them. We've all seen what happens when two people rush into marriage for the wrong reasons. Divorce, unhappiness, sexless relationships, and pain are common side-effects, and in my opinion, are worse to cope with than singlehood.
> 
> The author is essentially attacking men and claiming that they need to step up to the plate and fulfill their gender roles. I guarantee that the article would not have been published if this was turned the other way around (towards women). What the author fails to mention is that a lot of young women also aren't necessarily interested in getting married, much like their male peers. She goes on to imply that the only way for a girl to have a shot at marriage in our society is to be "promiscuous" and hookup with tons of guys, which is simply not the case.
> 
> Marriage doesn't always equate to happiness. If never getting married is going to lead someone to a lifetime of depression then they probably don't have a healthy understanding of what marriage actually is, they should be looking for fulfillment outside of another person / a relationship.


The article was also turned towards women.


----------



## Azure Dreamer (May 26, 2016)

Men suffer a lot of the financial burden and hardships if divorce occurs. They typically don't get custody or less time with children, often have to suffer alimony or other financial hardships. As a single person it can be easier to hired by a company as well. There is very little logical/fiscal benefit to being married as it is.

That said you need to look at the demographics when talking divorce it's actually much lower than the stated 50%. Education, ethnicity, location, age play big factors. (Those that are both over 25 and college educated less than 20% are divorced 15/20 years later).


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

What are the stats for men post age 30? Of course most men under 25 aren't married... it doesn't say much until you get post 30, IMO, because the average age for marriage is higher than in the past.
The average age for marriage has crept up to about 30 (depending on which Western country you are looking at...anywhere from 28-mid 30s). So post 30 is when the numbers may say something significant, otherwise it's just everyone conforming to a new norm. I've seen so many people say (especially men) that they don't want to marry until they're about 30. They view their 20s as a time to "explore" (whatever that means) and build their career, and then they feel they will "finally" settle down and start a family in their 30s. That's the modern ideal we are being fed... Go to college, "experiment", focus on career, and then marry in your late 20s/early 30s, producing spawn shortly thereafter. Perhaps more people going to college has tacked on an extra 4 years to average marrying age, especially since more women go to college now.

As for extended adolescence, I think we can look to the crappy economy that Millennials inherited as at least one reason... Our generation is supposedly doing all the adult stuff later than any generation before, and a lot of it boils down to employment and cost of living. Maybe that will mean we will die later too :laughing: (if obesity doesn't get the better of too many of us).


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

OrangeAppled said:


> What are the stats for men post age 30? Of course most men under 25 aren't married... it doesn't say much until you get post 30, IMO, because the average age for marriage is higher than in the past.
> The average age for marriage has crept up to about 30 (depending on which Western country you are looking at...anywhere from 28-mid 30s). So post 30 is when the numbers may say something significant, otherwise it's just everyone conforming to a new norm. I've seen so many people say (especially men) that they don't want to marry until they're about 30. They view their 20s as a time to "explore" (whatever that means) and build their career, and then they feel they will "finally" settle down and start a family in their 30s. That's the modern ideal we are being fed... Go to college, "experiment", focus on career, and then marry in your late 20s/early 30s, producing spawn shortly thereafter. Perhaps more people going to college has tacked on an extra 4 years to average marrying age, especially since more women go to college now.
> 
> As for extended adolescence, I think we can look to the crappy economy that Millennials inherited as at least one reason... Our generation is supposedly doing all the adult stuff later than any generation before, and a lot of it boils down to employment and cost of living. Maybe that will mean we will die later too :laughing: (if obesity doesn't get the better of too many of us).


I was thinking that too. 30 is a lot different than 20. But still, just like a generation or two ago it was normal to marry that young. And you were supposed to be a man at 18 or something. Fuck that. 

A lot of people live together without getting married too. 


Even among 25- to 29-year-olds, 84% of whom had ever been married in 1960, only 42% were in 2010.

and has dropped since then. All I am saying is if a girl isn't married by 30, there will be pressure applied. By somebody. lol. Usually earlier than 30. A man being single is considered more acceptable by society.


----------



## Glitter Polska (Feb 5, 2017)

For over one hundred years the average age of (first) marriage for both men and women have risen in all Western countries. Americans tend to be on the younger end of the scale compared to Western Europe. There a number of reasons for this, be it scientific, cultural or social and women are just as to blame as men. First, we're living longer and no longer feel the need to speed through life. Related to that, education and career advancement typically take longer, so stability is harder to achieve. It's rather illogical and irresponsible to start a family without a home and a steady paycheck. Furthermore, the whole sexual revolution plays a major factor. I've read stories from nice, religious young men who want to marry, but can't find a woman they would consider wife material who doesn't want to spend all night partying. I'd say women with low-self esteem who have limitless sexual partners are as much to blame for this as any man not wanting to be responsible.

And that quote about millions of young women who dream of wedding day that may never come is so ridiculous to post in a news story, as if men owe them that. What about all the children who dream of being astronauts or rock stars? :dry:


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

Young people don't know how to select their mates, that's why.


----------



## GoodOldDreamer (Sep 8, 2011)

I'm 35 and have never been married, and most likely will never have kids of my own. I don't feel that I'm a burden to society because of either factor. If I end up in a horrible situation where I would need some sort of welfare, it would be much less just for me. If work needs to switch my schedule on the fly or call me in on an off day, I'm more likely to be availabe for it. I also won't be taking days off or messing with others' schedules for sick kids, doctor appointments, etc.

The idea that I or anyone else should get married and/or have kids just to fulfill a woman's daydrem about a wedding or because society wants it is ridiculous. If I ever get married, it will be because I want to. Because I'd feel it would in someway help to fulfill my life. If I would ever have kids, it would be because I want them (or more likely because the woman I would marry would already have them, lol).

Also, it's a bit more than insulting that I or anyone else isn't getting married because we're not mature enough, lol. I've owned a house, paid for my mother's bills for a time, taken care of my grandparents for a year before they went into professional care, and all sorts of other things. Marriage and kids just aren't a part of my life right now.


----------



## septic tank (Jul 21, 2013)

"why aren't the youngins poppin out babies"


----------



## inDheart (Dec 25, 2016)

found an About the Author: "Janice Shaw Crouse is senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America. She served as an official delegate to the United Nations both in 2002 and 2003, and was a presidential speech writer under the George W. Bush Administration. She writes a weekly column that is carried in the Washington Times, American Spectator, American Thinker, and Townhall. She is the author of Gaining Ground: A Profile of American Women in the Twentieth Century; A Woman’s Path to True Significance; and Children at Risk: The Precarious State of Children’s Well-Being in America."

there's a line in the article referencing "time was, girls set the cultural morays" lol, yes the EELS

other than that this is a lazy article about the author reading an op-ed. interesting ending about feminism somehow both having lost its purpose and making women unhappier

like if you see a problem (i think they want to say the problem is children being raised by single parents) then it would make sense to move to address that problem, and it's funny when other conservative policy positions are inconsistent with doing that, like their typical stances on
- contraception
- abortion (why carry a child to term that you can't raise/research suggests you would be "bad" at raising?)
- government funding of women's health resources

crouse's actual contribution is not empirical

still thinking about what this means for me on a personal level, but i wouldn't say i feel a compulsion to be dating from any direction


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

Marriage for a man in a western country in 2017 is a really bad deal.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

The world has over 7 billion people, I would of thought the decline in marriage and population growth was a positive.

In addition, men and women have grown to dislike each other through feminists and misogynist and quite honestly lets be frank, if women were born without vaginas and guys were born without penises, do you seriously think men would gravitate towards women and vice versa?

Nature's way of adding to population growth is purely through sexual desire and attraction, we've gone and invented methods of contraception to counter act that and now that both men and women are both career driven with laws to utter screw the richer party over in a divorce settlement its no wonder noone is getting married in this age and time.


----------



## ECM (Apr 8, 2015)

I think it's a mixture of how life is different today. People are getting married later cause financial stuff, lots of money struggles in the modern world for young people. Also a lot of people don't see the point in marriage at all a lot of the time since traditionally marriage was put in place to unlock sex with the partner, to bring up kids and of course is about being monogamous. 

Today people just have sex as well as have kids without marriage and also tend to like to keep their options open. In addition to that, people today take longer to mature. In general marriage it's self is being considered more and more outdated and meaningless as time goes on as each generation comes along as marriage doesn't actually "offer" or "mean" anything anymore (with the exception of the romantic sentiment). In the past a couple would not live together until married. Today people are already living "married lives" without going through the whole vows ordeal and costly functions. And with high divorce rates people would rather just live monogamously but also have the easy way out of things go wrong. 

People forget marriage was initially a religiously instituted practice where not only one could gain lawful/moral permission for sex, but to also gain the right to "live with" their loved one under the same roof once married. Additionally one could only divorce due to adultery, which of course in modern times all of the aforementioned people already do without being married as it's socially accepted by the majority, all the more so with religions going into decline. Different society today.


----------



## Wiz (Apr 8, 2014)

I love the idea of getting married and having children. I don't like the idea of me being expected to fit every hollywood stereotype of what it means to be a man while I'm simultaneously expected to blindly "do whatever the woman wants", like the 2017 "equality" narrative suggests.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Wiz said:


> I love the idea of getting married and having children. I don't like the idea of me being expected to fit every hollywood stereotype of what it means to be a man while I'm simultaneously expected to blindly "do whatever the woman wants", like the 2017 "equality" narrative suggests.


----------



## Zoquaro (Oct 23, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That number surprised me. Anyway, here is a rant on how it is supposedly bad:
> 
> Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”
> “Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
> ...


I personally think this says more about the commentator than other men. It suggests that men can _only_ be responsible by being a father or a husband. Right. Interesting mindset there indeed.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”
> “Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
> The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com. “They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

I guess that stupid bitch has a daughter who complains because no one wants to marry her so that she can stay in a perpetual state of self-insufficiency. lol


my bad, they're a very good christian activists family where everyone is married and have kids.

And here's her good ESTJ daughter. So she must be afraid for her grand-daughters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charmaine_Yoest


----------



## inDheart (Dec 25, 2016)

turned this over in my head for a while, not sure where the "having kids" motivation comes from other than above (parents want grandkids)

you can get tax breaks for it but the money you get back doesn't even close to recoup the costs of raising a child


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

Good.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

#TeamGMB never takes a loss

Stay single and you'll never ever lose gentlemen #getmarriedbrehs


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

What? You mean the poor little snowflakes out there might never realize their dreams of a perfect little fairy tale family? 

Hold on, I swear I have a tiny violin around here somewhere. If I try really hard, I just might be able to extract a tear...

Now, just blame men (like usual) and get over it, buttercup.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

I have a girlfriend but won't marry her

my ex girlfriend wanted to marry me but I didn't want to get married

marriage is just silly, fam

I would if it made sense, though.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That number surprised me. Anyway, here is a rant on how it is supposedly bad:
> 
> Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”
> “Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
> ...


39 and still single (and happy about it).

I'm the younger in my family, also a caretaker. My background pushed me before my time to take care of others and to be in charge of many situations that shouldn't be my concern at that age. Suddenly I was like a father figure with lots of experience in several fields, specially being independent (and dependable), building a capacity for fast assertive responses towards many situations. This was good! and raised my value as a partner having nice compliments and offers. But anything that makes you an old soul has it's problems. Most of women my age seemed incomplete, we tried in several cases but couldn't respond the way I needed to. Sure I was used to that but when it concerns to marriage I don't want someone to take care of in such way, it's about partners, sharing, being near each other in capacities. Was about to get married twice, and I saw the red flags.

It's like the movie with Matthew McConaughey where they like sports and women think they are forever adolescents, where then, the movie shows they are dependable, adults, and he is actually taking care of a child, while the other guy owns his house, etc (can't remember the third guy).

Many people put labels to what they don't know or don't understand. And many wrongfully attack single older men because they are single, even saying "they are afraid of commitment", well... sometimes you don't do things for fear, other times because you are sure of what you do and don't do. The thing is, it's difficult for people to understand it. 

There is a joke in my country: "*The number one reason people get married is: because they are stupid* enough to do it", and other reasons include: yes, being in love and ready. Remember, many scenarios in diff countries/culture might push men (and sure, women too) to feel stupid or USED when getting married according to their local standards. And in many ways, in some cultures/traditions, it sure is that way, being used.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Sovereign said:


> * Now, just blame men (like usual) and get over it,* buttercup.


Exactly, that's the usual stuff.

Had a few situations where we were talking about future, and yes I was cautious. Suddenly in each case the women started to push me and put pressure. Sure I didn't like it. At the end I got upset and asked her to "let's try this". They were pushing me to marriage so I created situations were we traveled and also shared at my home. They failed to show they can do many things!!! and one got upset "it's not a competition!" sure it's not, but I can do all those things, that doesn't mean I will do everything for you...

Sure, if I push someone to take me swimming... at least I should know how to. The thing is many are not ready for what they ask, and in silly ways they blame the other party for not engaging. And they blame men. I happen to know a few men (yes, FEW, not many men) who are like a husband-type-of-guy and have great experience doing family stuff, and they all remain single, why? because... because.

It's like going to war, you get training and then you get back to the average civil life... it's like you don't fit, you can only get along with people with the same training (or above than you). You might want to try to lower the bar but in nature it's not about this, it's about people raising their level to meet new standards, not about lowering capacities (see the words, standards and capacities, not just standards). And as many have pointed out (and there is research about this) most women are a financial disaster.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

I would really like to preface here I do not entirely in anyway think it is a bad thing at all people are waiting until older ages to get married. In many ways I stand more on the wait platform. 

I think some of it can just be associated with modern culture putting more emphasis on education/career first. As well as obviously off springs of many now divorced generations being more cautious. As well as the level of sexual freedom without marriage on the table. 

All that said I do think there could be a level of immaturity attached with it. Yeah current generations are largely codependent on their parents longer. (Good grief health insurance until one is 26, for fucks sake). Skiddish about responsibility in a lot of manners which in previous generations did not so much apply. All and all I think it is good it is not such a forced culture to have to marry. But yeah there is a level of immaturity which comes with shirking on previous traditions. Maybe possible a naiveness on commitment, duty, responsibility previous generations felt.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

It is fundamentally hilarious and obviously gynocentric that the article speaks about men as only the failures and the consequences as only born by females. Stop reading trash.

Men need more power to feel empowered by society. They have lost too much and are now verifiably by any standard second class citizens and they damn well know it. 

The idealism is going to come down crashing hard unless these real truths are dealt with systematically: 

1) Men should have equal protection under the law. 
2) Men's goals should be addressed and assisted by society just like women's. Don't get me wrong. This IS NOT easy. It's nowhere near as easy as dealing with women's issues (and yes, I am serious).
3) Overpopulation needs to be addressed so that everyone alive can have their own space and a good space. 
4) Declining personal morality WILL ABSOLUTELY CAUSE male violence. Just keep ignoring it and see what happens ...

We all should want a better more moral and peaceful world for everyone that is alive. This takes massive effort. If the system supports and pushes marriage and proper population controls that means divorce and single parent phenomenons have to be lessened. They are symptoms of the lack of wisdom used to arrive at them.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So from my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you

A pretty woman makes her husband look small
And very often causes his downfall
As soon as he marries her then she starts
To do the things that will break his heart

But if you make an ugly woman your wife
You'll be happy for the rest of your life
An ugly woman cooks meals on time
And she'll always give you peace of mind

Don't let your friends say you have no taste
Go ahead and marry anyway
Though her face is ugly, her eyes don't match
Take it from me, she's a better catch


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

I's not only men who postpones or doesn't want to get married. Nowadays more and more people are educated and want to have more time to explore and do more with their lives, as well as think better before committing. We don't rush to marry and have kids which is great.

The author said that it's immaturity that leads to not wanting to commit. Maybe in some cases, but isn't it a sign of maturity to acknowledge how big deal it is and actually postponing or opting out of it in case we don't feel ready?

People should opt for what makes them happiest. Marriage and kids or not. Complying blindly is actually sign of lack of maturity and assertivity. Growing up, acknowledging what we really want and pursuing it instead is maturity.

Also, owning a home is not cheap nowadays, even if you do it with someone else. Having babies is even more expensive. And how is society facilitating it when it makes it so complicated nowadays? If both men and women work full-time, lacks parental leave benefits and even the grandparents are working since retirement age is high, who is going to take care of the babies?

It's only responsible that people carefully considers or even opt out if they don't feel ready to do such things. Marrying just because you're told to or having babies just because are recipes for disasters.

Andwith such bad divorce conditions towards men in some countries? Not a surprise that many would think better before getting the deal, which is good. Here in my countries things are much more fair and equal, but it shocks me how bad it can be for men in other places.


----------



## Mirkwood (Jul 16, 2014)

That is not only happening in USA but many places..

Your pretty much more deviant if you do get married younger in a way.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

AriesLilith said:


> The author said that it's immaturity that leads to not wanting to commit. Maybe in some cases, but isn't it a sign of maturity to acknowledge how big deal it is and actually postponing or opting out of it in case we don't feel ready?


True.

*Regarding maturity: *it's needed when you are about to get married, right before and after. But it's a game of words, just like needing a raincoat when it's raining, but you can actually do both without... getting married and going out in the rain without a raincoat. There is nothing to stop you. In fact, being immature can speed up the process.


----------



## fieryelf (Mar 28, 2016)

Considering half of marriage end in a divorce I'd say they made the right choice. You don't need to be married to be in a relationship anyway, and marriage is, for the most part a religious tradition. And religious I'm not...

I've never been in a relationship but I can say for sure I don't ever intend on getting married. 

Biiiiiig waste of money for something that doesn't make my life better or worse in the long run. I'll gladly stay with the girl of my life for the rest of my days when I find her and getting married won't make her stay with me longer than if I'm not married if I end up getting dumped.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That number surprised me. Anyway, here is a rant on how it is supposedly bad:
> 
> Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”
> “Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
> ...


because most of us is too busy trying to get our careers started. you know the stuff that doesn't take responsibility. =l

Also the 70% figure is misleading as a lot of people are also opting for common law instead of traditional marriages. 

As the society progress, it is much hard to have a decent paying job with just a high school education. Many people opt for going to college and some even opting for post graduate degrees. This is extremely time consuming but it is essential part of being a "good" husband. This also means that people in their 20s to 25 are not looking to marry or settle down. 

I do agree that when a person marry that they take on a different set of responsibility, and achieve a new level of maturity, however this is not to say they are not responsible to begin with. Though I must say, it is rarer among the unmarried males.


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”
> “Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
> The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com. “They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”
> 
> ...


I feel like writing a rant back: "You know, you might be right that fewer people are taking up the responsibilities of raising households, but hey, how is society as a whole promoting/encouraging social responsibility with their hollywood garbage, love (delusion) magazines, and non-existent welfare and education support for newly-weds? Responsibilities go both ways, y'know?"


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com. “They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”


i.e. "They're not understanding how important it is to perpetuate what I think should be the norm based on my unquestioning attachment to tradition!"

Because that's all women think about, right? Their pretty marriage ceremony and popping out babies later on.

I hate people.


----------



## DualGnosis (Apr 6, 2013)

70% of American men unmarried? That's awesome! The other 30% are probably gonna be divorced within a decade, so they'll probably join us soon.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)




----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

I do actually think this is somewhat alarming, but not for the reasons desperately pushed in the article. Depending on if they plan to marry in their 40's, this all does seem like either ill socialized behavior or irresponsible behavior, or both. Moreso, I think I am worried about a theme of endless adolescence that is manifesting more and more these days.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

70% of men are not married. And how many of them are in a committed relationship? How many have children? How many are living on their own?
Marriage doesn't mean maturity or sense of duty or responsibility or whatever. It means you're promising to share your life, your finances and possibily your sexual activities with just one person - but... oh, hi divorce, nice to see you. And nice to see you too, prenup. And cheating. And married people without children.
I like how children are a sign of responsibility, when they often come from irresponsible lack of birth control <3


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

Cast said:


> I like how children are a sign of responsibility, when they often come from irresponsible lack of birth control <3


Lol exactly. The pop culture of hollywood not only encourages lack of social responsibility, but discourages responsible parenting and child bearing even in established families. Apparently Crouse doesn't see that.


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

Sounds like nonsense and media pressure. Cultures don't need strong family's they need strong people. The pairing of a male and female only happens when they're bumped into each other by society. And if they want to get married it happens. This pressure is only going to force people to enjoy each others company, leaving unhappy people, and weak people. So this article for me does the opposite to encourage marriage, if that's what it's agenda implies. It's also creating a community of people that need not be created. 

I doubt those men are living at home. Probably living in apartments with friends they enjoy being with, working a steady job, going out at the weekends, and having fun. 

The statistic is not a bad thing nor a good thing. It's a fact somebody posted with some added emotional juice to either pressure people into doing something, scare them, or somehow say that "they're running out of time". 

Reading the article also puts me off marriage even more. It's oh so tacky and typical, but if it happens it happens. I'll happily be one of those guys I just described until it does.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Shiver said:


> i.e. "They're not understanding how important it is to perpetuate what I think should be the norm based on my unquestioning attachment to tradition!"
> 
> Because that's all women think about, right? Their pretty marriage ceremony and popping out babies later on.
> 
> I hate people.



Weddings are often a vulgar display of power. I would never want people making such a fuss over me. These people are getting married and now I am summoned to witness it and I owe them money. It is like getting a traffic ticket. I like that analogy. Getting a wedding invitation in the mail is like getting a traffic or court summons in the mail. lol. 

Like, who the fuck are you? Make me come to this farce why you all pat each other on the back. Makes me sick. lol.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Ahhh, I see now that the book stems from a religious point of view. Against "casual" sex, against same sex marriage, against raising children out of wedlock. It all makes sense now.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Often when threads about marriage appears there seems to be some strong negative perceptions about it. Of how a paper does not define a relationship, how people are doing it just to comform and how they'd probably end up divorced and so on.
It's as if as a response to society pressuring people to marry, an opposite kind of pressure is generated as result. Marrying or not people probably find ways to criticize other people's options.

Thing is, if I make a sandwich to my husband, am I auto,atically comforming to traditional sexist gender expectations? Our relationship has always been on equal terms, but just because I did something usually perceived as part of society's general expectations, doesn't mean I was comforming to these ideals. It could mean that I just wanted to treat my husband something. Next time he might be making me food too.

Same as marriage. Yes, it is something society expects from people. And yes, a paper won't help your relationship if it was never there. But people need to put all the biases aside, whether for or against marriage, and actually take a better, more objective analysis about this option when they are making life plans together with someone. Ironically, echoing "paper doesn't define our love" also seems like comforming, just to the other side.

People take careful considerations about living together. Joint decisions. Buying a home. Buying a car. Having kids. Marriage, whatever symbolism we attach to it, is only about legal rights and duties. Not religion, not any lovey dovey fuzzy symbolism. Pure legal implications. But it is there, as an extra option that couples can opt for. Just as people get the civil union rights, but with extra stuffs.

People don't need to get married to be separated. Thought marriage makes it harder indeed. But then so do getting a home together and so do having kids together makes it harder. But the point is, whatever perception one has about marriage, people should objectively analyse and learn about the legal implications before opting in or out of it. Yes, a paper does not define your love but it might define your right to inherit stuffs or make medical decisions. You might have ways to opt for parts of these rights, marriage is more of a one big package.

But for example, here in Portugal if you are in civil union (not sure how it's called in english, but it's the status you automatically get after living a few years with your partner) then if you buy a house with your partner and your partner dies, his half of the house might go to his family and not you.

*Resumidely, what I wanted to say is, however we perceive marriage, we should objectively look at the legal implications of it to make an informed decision, instead of just opting in because society told us so or opting out because comforming is uncool. It's all about available options and what each couples gets.*


----------



## Nick5 (Jan 21, 2017)

I'm 25 and the people I know are mostly 23-26. Hook-up culture is not that strong anymore (<10% of people?), they're either in a fairly stable relationship or they're not getting any. When it comes to marriage, children or owning a home together, that's pretty rare, but they're mostly students or recent grads, so those sorts of things seem rather risky at that stage of their lives. 

The article said it's not about the "Great Recession". Well not exactly, but there's still economic factors that have been in play since before 2008. Since women are no longer financially reliant on men, but the economic situation for young adults means they only feel ready for kids and buying a house in their 30s-40s, and the job markets expect frequent relocation, especially early in your career, I can see how many people would not want to get married in their 20s. I think this is much more economic than cultural.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@FearAndTrembling

I'm going to say that most men ages 20-34 aren't in the slightest ready for marriage, so this statistic is probably a good thing. I didn't get married til I was almost 29 and I wasn't ready. I got divorced at 44 and I STILL wasn't ready.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Nick5 said:


> I'm 25 and the people I know are mostly 23-26. Hook-up culture is not that strong anymore (<10% of people?), they're either in a fairly stable relationship or they're not getting any. When it comes to marriage, children or owning a home together, that's pretty rare, but they're mostly students or recent grads, so those sorts of things seem rather risky at that stage of their lives.
> 
> The article said it's not about the "Great Recession". Well not exactly, but there's still economic factors that have been in play since before 2008. Since women are no longer financially reliant on men, but the economic situation for young adults means they only feel ready for kids and buying a house in their 30s-40s, and the job markets expect frequent relocation, especially early in your career, I can see how many people would not want to get married in their 20s. I think this is much more economic than cultural.



That is true, but one income could usually support a family in those days. It is harder to afford living by yourself at those ages with your own income these days. I see many marriages as business relationships. It is too big to fail. lol.


----------



## Nick5 (Jan 21, 2017)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That is true, but one income could usually support a family in those days. It is harder to afford living by yourself at those ages with your own income these days. I see many marriages as business relationships. It is too big to fail. lol.


Well I guess it depends on your income and what kind of lifestyle you want to live. If you want to buy a house, definitely in many cities here in Canada, that's going to be extremely difficult as a single person. But if you're renting, you don't need to get married, just sign a short-term lease and split the bill with your girlfriend. Or have room-mates if you're single. Even renting a 1 bedroom apartment as a bachelor is manageable in most areas if you earn a bit above minimum wage.


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

@Nick5 Hey I'm just a random passing stranger but lemme compliment you because you have quite an agreeable face.

Anyways, saw this earlier and reminded me of this thread:


----------



## Zeta Neprok (Jul 27, 2010)

I don't see anything wrong with this. Who cares if people get married or not? Who cares if they're in a relationship? Being single is pretty awesome.


----------



## TheGhostAgent (Dec 10, 2015)

And? I don't get the supposed "crisis". Depressing how? It sounds like a projection of the author's own values onto everyone else. Failure to find the fairy tale wedding for women and men's failure to "man up" and achieving fatherhood. Wow, I didn't know we were still stuck in the 60's. I also noticed the jab at "feminism" and "women's sexual liberation". I mean, god forbid people choose a different career or life path diverging from their parent's. The whole article is fluff.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Booohooo young people don't want to do what the previous generations did, boohooo they are not "mature" or "adult". Pffft.


----------



## lavendersnow (Jan 13, 2016)

Whaaaaat.

I am beyond surprised. I always find I'm surrounded by people who are all in relationships - married, dating etc. I wonder why. Although maybe it's my specific age group...or weird luck.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

I want to be married, but man has it been some battle to find the right woman, Jesus tap dancing christ.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)




----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

series0 said:


> It is fundamentally hilarious and obviously gynocentric that the article speaks about men as only the failures and the consequences as only born by females. Stop reading trash.
> 
> Men need more power to feel empowered by society. They have lost too much and are now verifiably by any standard second class citizens and they damn well know it.
> 
> ...


Nice. I have lived enough and had my share on relationships to learn and see how people can loose control of their emotions, me? no, not me, I was educated differently with a lot of pressure and taking the role of the father figure in my family at young age so that was never an option to me. My point here is I experienced enough trouble by the lack of control of the other person, I learned "a lot of people are not safe ground" but it can take too long to discover it. Oh yes the life of a man can be turned into a hell on a bad relationship, and ending the relationship doesn't mean ending the hell inside of it.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

series0 said:


> It is fundamentally hilarious and obviously gynocentric that the article speaks about men as only the failures and the consequences as only born by females. Stop reading trash.
> 
> Men need more power to feel empowered by society. They have lost too much and are now verifiably by any standard second class citizens and they damn well know it.
> 
> ...


Can you explain the decline part of 4? I realize there's an obvious anecdotal answer to why we might differ on this (You've lived longer), but I am not under the impression that people used to have better personal morality then today. Looking at violence statistics it seems that at least in most of the world people are doing a better job at avoiding it (With the interesting exception of Russia and the banal exception of the Middle East). 

I ask in part because tend towards thinking the exact opposite metaphor - that our understanding of ethics as a society is in it's diapers, an infant that has not yet being able to gain its own sense of being outside of it's previous umbilical connection to cosmological justifications.


----------



## Another Lost Cause (Oct 6, 2015)

I've never married although I've come close a few times. Also, being married is not a sign of maturity. I've known plenty of immature idiots who were married.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Tropes said:


> Can you explain the decline part of 4? I realize there's an obvious anecdotal answer to why we might differ on this (You've lived longer), but I am not under the impression that people used to have better personal morality then today. Looking at violence statistics it seems that at least in most of the world people are doing a better job at avoiding it (With the interesting exception of Russia and the banal exception of the Middle East).
> 
> I ask in part because tend towards thinking the exact opposite metaphor - that our understanding of ethics as a society is in it's diapers, an infant that has not yet being able to gain its own sense of being outside of it's previous umbilical connection to cosmological justifications.


Personal morality in the sense that I am discussing is the curious case of lost/missing/ or repressed anger.

The most prevalent virtue force in the world is connection, that is fear-based like/love connection with groups, like society/culture, religion, nation, and ethnic groups. Connection plans and organizes and is comfortable with stratification/separation. This is enneatype 6 hard at work. The stereotypes in play on average here are right wing, male, acceptance of fear, denial of desire, and in general an emphasis on order over chaos. The end political aim seems to be Fascism.

The second most prevalent virtue force in the world is unity, that is anger-based compassion for all of mankind. It is a borderless, boundless feeling idealistic and lazy, self-numbing. Compassion opens up and is comfortable with any and all expression. This is enneatype 9 hard at work. The stereotypes in play on average here are left wing, female, acceptance of desire, denial of fear, and in general an emphasis on chaos over order. The end political aim seems to be Communism.

Within this limited cycle of humanity, a more aware and recent cycle, mankind seems to vaguely fluctuate between just these two poles, only these two virtue sets. That is because the mainstream is much more prevalent than other virtue sets. A society of tiny size and relative isolation MIGHT flourish for some time in the past with say the enneatype 4 virtue, but due to the prevalence of the mainstream amid individuals all groups (nations/cultures) will tend to be mainstream (6,9,3 in order). 

When societies shift into 3 mode they become conquerors and takeover vast sections of the world. It has happened many times. The 3 unabashedly takes and 'wins' but when the dust settles, so far, it's still the two other main virtue sets fighting for control within that frame. All other virtues are so far in history still suborned to the 6-9 polarization with bouts of 3 empire-building expressed in war and economy.

Because technology has made us better able to provide for the masses cheaply, the quality of life has improved. That is the only reason. As wealth is increasingly focused at the top and control with it, 'normal' people are only given enough to slightly improve their situation and numb them down to the real truth. The real truth will always be the relative power of one person to another. In that sense we are alarmingly more immoral than we have ever been. The power ratio from peasant to king in the Middle Ages was far less than it is now from one of us to a 1%er. Morality includes the more of balance or equality and the total moral picture is about the balance therefore. Your moral score is essentially your lowest score. We are failing equity enneatype 1 big time.

The result is that amid this so-called prosperity we have 6-9 political combat. The 3s just bide their time and take when the rest are not looking. It is to the 3s advantage to have the 6 and 9 arguing the 'serious' stuff. So they pay and pay a lot (Soros/Mercer) to pit the flocks against each other. 

----

So to address your question directly. 

Male stereotype virtue, order, and fear-based is the foundation of a building society. It separates and defines limits. It says within each institution, government, religion, community, and family; these are the laws, this is the rule. Because of the unknown nature of the other we could be made UNSTABLE. Type 6 is glue. They forge bonds that keep us together and chaos at bay. People are foolish not to understand the quintessentially bonding power of type 6. Connection is the goal after all. But it comes at a cost. That group becomes the identity and the identity associated with 'good'. This is the immoral going too far of the type 6, where morality becomes immoral. Yet and still, part of it is true. If you provoke a fear reaction from the men, from the order, from the group identity; there will be organized deadly war.

Female stereotype virtue, chaos, and anger-based is the seed with which to destroy society. It destroys separation by underscoring unity with the unknown. It denies its own foundation and in order to seek new frontiers and keep the stable from becoming dead, seeks seed elsewhere by its very feminine nature. Type 9 is open and diplomatic. They operate at the borders of the stable group provided by the male aspect of order. They reach out and maintain freshness within the society by intentionally intermixing with others. People are foolish not to understand the instinctually open and other-including nature of the type 9. Unity is the goal after all. But it comes at a cost. The identity of the origin group is threatened and the egress is seen as betrayal, unloyal, and indeed foolish. To the unity seekers, perversely, the OTHER is seen as 'good' and their own group's fear is cast poorly as 'evil'. This is the immoral going too far of the type 9, where morality becomes immoral. Yet and still, part of it is true. If you provoke anger from women, from unity-seekers, against chaos(freedom/openness), they loose their tempers and there will be a flash of mad anger.

----

Further drill down:

The right wing is sensible and pragmatic and they want to keep their identity. The left wing is caring and idealistic and they want to join with all of mankind. 

So the right wing becomes caring to group and disgusted with OTHERs. This hatred is their failing and yet it is rooted in morality. The left wing becomes disdainful of group and impatient to get with OTHERs. This impatience is their failing and yet it is rooted in morality.

What is the result of the FAILINGS?

The right wing secretly hates and plans and gets ready to destroy the other and the parts of its own group that too eagerly embrace the other. They detest the foolishness of embracing the other too quickly. This seed allows them to vilify the other and de-humanize the other. All manner of evil is swept into the situation.

The left wing secrets hates their own group for denying unity and in impatience muddies their lives with all manner of foolishness involved with the other outside groups. They detest the fear and order of the right and disregard the dangerous capability of pragmatism. Their anger makes them incapable of thought in that sense. They deny the doom they provoke. In standing in anger they begin to fall victim to desire and sex and food and exposure are all increased.

The patterns are well understood now, but not completely. The result is K-selected (right wing) and r-selected(left wing) cultures. In terms of society itself there is little contest. The K-selected method is far better. The r-selected method only ensures that your society will fail and be overcome by a stronger male-oriented K-selected or at least more violent group. Order WILL be re-established.

So, what is the problem? Why is the r-selection and ultimately female stereotyped goal set a problem? It is because life and what is good flourishes amid perfectly balanced order and chaos. Like it or not, order will balance itself with chaos over time. Order relaxes. But chaos is far too slow to order itself. And in the process it destroys everything. Like runaway living vines it creeps into every corner and breaks everything up. 

All wisdom is restraint. Order is self-restraining except when it has to deal with fear reactions to chaos. Do not cause those reactions or keep them in balance and all is well. How is this done? The left MUST restrain themselves first. They must slow down and stop unity-seeking too fast. Or there will be war. The self-indulgence of the left with personal sex, unity over decency, unity with everything, is not something the fearful identity of the right can handle yet. Some small percentage to make progress, ok. But chaos grows too fast. And then what? War is what. Bloody destruction of the chaos element until fear is cleansed amid horror. Keep pushing, keep stressing female chaos, and you get, male violence. 

This is WHY Muslim women are forced to wear hijabs. Foolishness thinks that men are anger based. Nope. It is fear of not being a man that is the issue. The brooding capability organized against the world and waiting. But the weak spot is to the female. And if she in anger occupies her space and shows unity to some, some others will fear. And then organization is released in violence. This IS the core dynamic of life itself. 

Until we agree that this is what is happening and take steps to address male and 6 over-expression of fear and female and 9 over-expression of unity, we will repeat the same follies on every level of reality, in bars, in faiths, and in nations. It really is that simple. The virtues MUST be balanced. Equality MUST be addressed, honestly, etymologically, truthfully, and in a moral balance.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)




----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


>


how is that relevant?


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> how is that relevant?




One reason men don't get married. Would you want to marry an escort?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> One reason men don't get married. Would you want to marry an escort?


Given how few women become escorts, it's probably not statistically relevant.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> Given how few women become escorts, it's probably not statistically relevant.



How do you know how many women have done this?
I imagine you don't think this is as common as it is: 15% Of Women Have Slept With Their Bosses -- And 37% Of Them Got Promoted For It - Business Insider

I think the number of women that would fully admit to selling themselves for money is a tiny fraction of the number who actually have.



And like I said, that's merely one reason.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> How do you know how many women have done this?
> I imagine you don't think this is as common as it is: 15% Of Women Have Slept With Their Bosses -- And 37% Of Them Got Promoted For It - Business Insider
> 
> I think the number of women that would fully admit to selling themselves for money is a tiny fraction of the number who actually have.
> ...


You were the one who linked a video in an attempt to make an argument of how women being escorts is a reason that men don't marry so why don't you back it up with evidence first?

While I don't condone sleeping with the boss (unless there are genuine feelings), it's still not the same as being an escort.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> You were the one who linked a video in an attempt to make an argument of how women being escorts is a reason that men don't marry so why don't you back it up with evidence first?
> 
> While I don't condone sleeping with the boss (unless there are genuine feelings), it's still not the same as being an escort.



I didn't say it was the same. I mentioned that because most people don't realize how common it is. And that's just women trying to get a promotion. There is no way to gauge how many women sell themselves for money because the vast majority would never admit to it. I'm not saying most women have done it, but I imagine enough have that a man will end up dating one or two in their lifetime if they have an active dating life. I'd hate to be the guy that marries one of those women.


And as I've said multiple times already: That's just ONE reason to avoid getting married.




But this brings up a question: Why so serious?
Are you upset for a specific reason? Or is it simply just because you're female and feel I'm attacking women in some way?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> I didn't say it was the same. I mentioned that because most people don't realize how common it is. And that's just women trying to get a promotion. There is no way to gauge how many women sell themselves for money because the vast majority would never admit to it. I'm not saying most women have done it, but I imagine enough have that a man will end up dating one or two in their lifetime if they have an active dating life. I'd hate to be the guy that marries one of those women.
> 
> 
> And as I've said multiple times already: That's just ONE reason to avoid getting married.
> ...


A simple googling finds that escorts and prostitutes in USA are estimated to 1-2 millions. So about 1% of the population. And that includes all ages, so even less at this specific age gap. 

As for what you linked, 15% is not THAT common, and it's still greatly different than selling yourself to thousands of men as a stable (secret) job. This study doesn't even seem to differentiate if the affair was actually with the goal of being promoted or was just a fling. 

I don't particularly feel upset. I mostly find it ludicrous.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> I don't particularly feel upset. I mostly find it ludicrous.




Why?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> Why?


I just explained it in the same post.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Cheveyo said:


> Why?


lol why so serious? is this what you ask everything you say something wrong and get owned? 

maybe next time be serious so you don't make ridiculous comments that people can shred to pieces?


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

I think his point was that many women sell themselves for sex in more unofficial ways. For instance there are 2.5 million women on Seeking Arrangement and that's just one of many "sugar baby" websites.

Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?" Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> I just explained it in the same post.



Explain it further.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> Explain it further.


I find it ludicrous to say that one of the reasons men of these ages don't get married is because they date women who are escorts. That this job is so prevalent that men find it a reason to not marry frequently enough that it has an important social impact.

If you have actual evidence of that though, do present it.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> I find it ludicrous to say that one of the reasons men of these ages don't get married is because they date women who are escorts. That this job is so prevalent that men find it a reason to not marry frequently enough that it has an important social impact.
> 
> If you have actual evidence of that though, do present it.




I never claimed the job was prevalent. I simply said it was one reason.
Why risk it? Why bother if there's a chance?

And, as I said, it's simply one reason. There are countless others to add on top of it.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> I never claimed the job was prevalent. I simply said it was one reason.
> Why risk it? Why bother if there's a chance?
> 
> And, as I said, it's simply one reason. There are countless others to add on top of it.


Seems like nothing of value was added to the topic then, since the premise of it was to discuss the social changes that affect marriage rate in these ages.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> Seems like nothing of value was added to the topic then, since the premise of it was to discuss the social changes that affect marriage rate in these ages.



The premise of this thread was simply to discuss the fact that men aren't getting married.
Which is what I did.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

But realistically speaking what percent of women do you think would sleep with a guy for say $1000? Alot more than a few percent methinks.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

SolonsWarning said:


> But realistically speaking what percent of women do you think would sleep with a guy for say $1000? Alot more than a few percent methinks.


A thousand? That's just a months rent. It doesn't take that long to earn a thousand dollars without having to sleep with someone you wouldn't have otherwise. For a woman to go for that cheap, I expect she'd have to be in some dire straits or have already set a low bar.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Is there a meaningful, practical distinction between marrying somebody who used to be an escort and somebody who just used to be really promiscuous?


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

BearRun said:


> A thousand? That's just a months rent. It doesn't take that long to earn a thousand dollars without having to sleep with someone you wouldn't have otherwise. For a woman to go for that cheap, I expect she'd have to be in some dire straits or have already set a low bar.


It takes 100+ hours of work to make $1000 on minimum wage and 30 min of spreading your legs to make it as I described. That's well more than a prostitute makes.



BlackDog said:


> Is there a meaningful, practical distinction between marrying somebody who used to be an escort and somebody who just used to be really promiscuous?


At least the escort has some business sense? I'd probably prefer a girl who got paid to one who just did it for free.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> Is there a meaningful, practical distinction between marrying somebody who used to be an escort and somebody who just used to be really promiscuous?



I imagine a man who wouldn't marry one, wouldn't marry the other. And a man who didn't care about a woman being an escort wouldn't care about her being promiscuous.

Though, I have met guys that view selling themselves as worse, and would rather date a slut than an escort.


You also have to take into consideration that the women who become escorts probably don't view it the same as simply sleeping around.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

SolonsWarning said:


> It takes 100+ hours of work to make $1000 on minimum wage and 30 min of spreading your legs to make it as I described. That's well more than a prostitute makes.


Those 30 minutes sound a lot wore than 100% hours of work to me. Sounds like prostitutes are pretty desperate at those rates. 

Would you sleep with someone you found repulsive for $1000? I imagine a lot of guys who think it's an easy trade off would find it more difficult in practice. Most people don't like brushing shoulders with strangers let alone screwing them.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

BearRun said:


> Those 30 minutes sound a lot wore than 100% hours of work to me. Sounds like prostitutes are pretty desperate at those rates.
> 
> Would you sleep with someone you found repulsive for $1000? I imagine a lot of guys who think it's an easy trade off would find it more difficult in practice. Most people don't like brushing shoulders with strangers let alone screwing them.



Escorts choose their clients. Prostitutes don't. There's a difference.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

BearRun said:


> Sounds like prostitutes are pretty desperate at those rates.


LOL, only the cream of the crop escort could ever make that much. $100 would be more realistic.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> I imagine a man who wouldn't marry one, wouldn't marry the other. And a man who didn't care about a woman being an escort wouldn't care about her being promiscuous.
> 
> Though, I have met guys that view selling themselves as worse, and would rather date a slut than an escort.
> 
> ...


I feel intuitively that getting paid for it is worse but from a purely practical perspective I don't know why. I wouldn't knowingly
marry a man who was either though.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

And what's the "number" to be very promiscuous these days? It's not uncommon on firms like this to find people well over 20 sexual partners or even far more. In today's day and age when sex is so freely obtainable a person has to actively turn it down to keep themselves in the single digits even as a man and I'd imagine first women it's almost a constant struggle to fend off the horny male offers of sex.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

SolonsWarning said:


> At least the escort has some business sense? I'd probably prefer a girl who got paid to one who just did it for free.


Women like and need sex just as much as men do, but it would be easier for a woman to find paying customers than a man. I think it's more offensive to women on some primal level to have to pay for sex. It strips her of her power or something.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> I feel intuitively that getting paid for it is worse but from a purely practical perspective I don't know why. I wouldn't knowingly
> marry a man who was either though.



It's strange, isn't it?
The escort at least is intelligent enough to get paid for giving it away. And this feels like it's ingrained in us, since there isn't a culture I can think of that would view it as a positive thing.


Maybe it's because women control sex, and so selling it on top of that seems a bit much?
That doesn't really cover your view, though. So there's got to be something else there.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

BlackDog said:


> Women like and need sex just as much as men do, but it would be easier for a woman to find paying customers than a man. I think it's more offensive to women on some primal level to have to pay for sex. It strips her of her power or something.


I think most men feel like they're paying for it either way whether explicitly or implicitly. It's an oft quoted aphorism among men that "free" sex costs the most of all.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Women like and need sex just as much as men do, but it would be easier for a woman to find paying customers than a man. I think it's more offensive to women on some primal level to have to pay for sex. It strips her of her power or something.


Nah, women pay men for sex all the time. That's the whole point of being a pimp, you get paid from women having sex and give them but a fraction of what they earned as renumeration. The service provided by the pimp is protection, transportation, and clientele. He is in effect the capitalist who controls the means of production and the women are the labourers hired to man the production facility. In any such capitalist relation, the worker must either kick up a percentage of the profits that ensue from the retail and wholesale of the commodity, in exchange for the right to use the facility necessary to produce the commodity; or, much more commonly, they are hired by the capitalist to work the facility and produce on his behalf. Marx 101 over here, you haven't been reading your Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844!

Incidentally, Too $hort might be the only capitalist I like! What a fascinating thing, the study of the trade of pimping. Pimpology - where Short Dog & Karl Marx; Paris 1844 & East Oakland 1990 collide. 






This transaction may not be what you envisioned but I insist it's relevant because a woman can pay a man the bulk of the take in exchange for the right to have sex with a third man who foots the bill in its entirety.

_Shakib is love, Shakib is life_


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Cheveyo said:


> Escorts choose their clients. Prostitutes don't. There's a difference.


Wait what. Really, is this the defining difference?


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Jamaia said:


> Wait what. Really, is this the defining difference?



As far as I can tell.
A prostitute has a pimp, she goes out and takes all comers.
An escort is her own pimp, and chooses her customers.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> It's strange, isn't it?
> The escort at least is intelligent enough to get paid for giving it away. And this feels like it's ingrained in us, since there isn't a culture I can think of that would view it as a positive thing.
> 
> Maybe it's because women control sex, and so selling it on top of that seems a bit much?
> That doesn't really cover your view, though. So there's got to be something else there.


I think often the idea of "giving it away" is predicated on the concept of sex as an economic exchange. The woman trades sex for what she "really" wants, some kind of commitment or resources presumably. I think this is flawed though. Yes, sex _can_ be used in this way but in most cases it isn't. I enjoy and want sex probably just as much as most men do. Nothing is being taken from me when I do it, I'm getting exactly what I want. 

But sex, like anything else, has consequences and therefore people ought to exercise restraint. There are practical as well as moral reasons why I wouldn't want to sleep around and why I wouldn't want to marry someone who does. 

Why is payment for sex bad? I don't know. Maybe because it carries with it an implication that the woman (or man, but especially woman) would have found the person sexually undesirable if it weren't for the financial compensation. This might offend an unconscious understanding that we have of women's biological imperative to have sex with the most desirable genetic mate possible due to her limited capacity for reproduction. Women are very valuable to society, so perhaps a woman who sells sex for personal gain is seen as squandering her fertility or reproductive potential. 

That is another way to look at the phrase "giving it away", I suppose. She's not giving away _sex_, she's giving away her fertility. Less important in the modern world than it was in years past, but unfortunately our bodies don't know what year it is. 

Maybe. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Cheveyo said:


> As far as I can tell.
> A prostitute has a pimp, she goes out and takes all comers.
> An escort is her own pimp, and chooses her customers.


Oh. I thought prostitute just means has sex for money (explicit deal), and the situation varies. She might not have a pimp. I thought escort was a like a paid girlfriend/date who may or may not end up having sex with her client.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

Jamaia said:


> Wait what. Really, is this the defining difference?


Yes, there's a big difference. Higher class escorts request references, a background check and credit check. Escorts are much more like a legitimate business.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

Cheveyo said:


> As far as I can tell.
> A prostitute has a pimp, she goes out and takes all comers.
> An escort is her own pimp, and chooses her customers.


Escorts are upmarket. Well they're not really, I mean shit, pussy is pussy whether you pay $550 an hour or $60 for 30 minutes.

Escorts are for men who have fetishes that can't be readily fulfilled at brothels. Gloryholes and upskirt fetishes, I imagine. Some "escorts" on Instagram get paid 25 stacks plus an all expenses paid trip to the United Arab Emirates by wealthy Saudi princes and billionaires. They then conduct competitions with each other to see who can take the biggest shit on the woman. That's their fetish; when you got so much money that 25 stacks to you is like 25 cents to a normal person, you're going to tire of sex very quickly on account of how much of it you can buy. Consequently, the objective becomes to get as depraved as possible.

So there's your answer: escorts are for idiots who overpay for something they could get for a tenth of the cost, or they are for the filthy rich to indulge in the most sordid, deviant, and disgusting sexual fetishes. Prostitutes have honour and dignity. Escorts get showered in the shit of a dozen rich Arabs.

I ain't making this up either, just Google "Instagram model Dubai" and see for yourself










_Shakib is love, Shakib is life_


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@BlackDog I think payment for sex is viewed as bad for the same reason the service providers who charge $$$ would hate for someone to come to their market and only charge $ for the same service.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Taj Badalandabad said:


> Escorts are upmarket. Well they're not really, I mean shit, pussy is pussy whether you pay $550 an hour or $60 for 30 minutes.


This is such a gross word. I wish we could call it something else.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Jamaia said:


> @*BlackDog* I think payment for sex is viewed as bad for the same reason the service providers who charge $$$ would hate for someone to come to their market and only charge $ for the same service.


The prostitute is the one charging less? I suppose in some ways they are. I think this theory works better though for why society hates sluts.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> I think often the idea of "giving it away" is predicated on the concept of sex as an economic exchange. The woman trades sex for what she "really" wants, some kind of commitment or resources presumably. I think this is flawed though. Yes, sex _can_ be used in this way but in most cases it isn't. I enjoy and want sex probably just as much as most men do. Nothing is being taken from me when I do it, I'm getting exactly what I want.
> 
> But sex, like anything else, has consequences and therefore people ought to exercise restraint. There are practical as well as moral reasons why I wouldn't want to sleep around and why I wouldn't want to marry someone who does.
> 
> ...


The issue is, would people marry and have kids at a younger age if they don't have one night stands? or is it because our society have changed that people are marrying later that people are having more one night stands or pay to plays to fill that gap?


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

SolonsWarning said:


> You're a weirdo.


Well I had to excel at something eventually.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Peter said:


> The industrial revolution resulted in the beginnings of feminism which resulted in women being allowed to study. Then as technological inovation continued, many manual jobs that women did (like laundry) started to be taken over by machines. Which meant most women could study. And that resulted in women joining the work force.
> 
> If you add to that that couples only really have a need for 1 or 2 children because infant and child mortality is near 0, there is no need anymore to have children as young as possible.
> 
> The OP quoted from that article something like: "Oh all those poor girls won't have their wedding day anymore,... bla bla bla". That's why I mentioned religion because that's just religion talking. Women today are emancipated and they´re have many more interests than being used to breed 8 children. It is absolutely respectless to feel sorry for young women in the way that that article suggests.


Yes but. Marriage does not imply anything of housewifery or breeding. The three are not interconnected. I had a grandmother who actually got married, got a university degree, worked all her life and also had the 8 kids. I don't think she ever did much laundry. I never got married, almost have a university degree (trying not to laugh at the almost), have 3 kids (hopefully will stop before reaching 8) and kinda work kinda housewife. The laundry piles are ridiculous. Yes it's ridiculous to feel sorry for someone not getting their princess wedding (throw the damn party yourself and wear the frilly dress if it's your lifelong dream), but my point was marriage could still be useful as a financial arrangement. People could be hoping they'd find someone to marry them at young age so they could get all the amazing financial benefits of being *married*. But apparently there aren't many benefits, because people aren't doing that. If something needs to be done about marriage rates then maybe look into what people get out of being married.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Jamaia said:


> Yes but. Marriage does not imply anything of housewifery or breeding. The three are not interconnected. I had a grandmother who actually got married, got a university degree, worked all her life and also had the 8 kids. I don't think she ever did much laundry. I never got married, almost have a university degree (trying not to laugh at the almost), have 3 kids (hopefully will stop before reaching 8) and kinda work kinda housewife. The laundry piles are ridiculous. Yes it's ridiculous to feel sorry for someone not getting their princess wedding (throw the damn party yourself and wear the frilly dress if it's your lifelong dream), but my point was marriage could still be useful as a financial arrangement. People could be hoping they'd find someone to marry them at young age so they could get all the amazing financial benefits of being *married*. But apparently there aren't many benefits, because people aren't doing that. If something needs to be done about marriage rates then maybe look into what people get out of being married.


You don't know what laundry was like before washing machines. :smile:

This video explains how machines have liberated women.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

SolonsWarning said:


> You're a weirdo.


Really? A girl is normal only if she imagines being married and have lots of kids and taking care of them?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Peter said:


> You don't know what laundry was like before washing machines. :smile:
> 
> This video explains how machines have liberated women.


Nice video, but I do know :smile:. My point about my grandmother was that _she_ didn't do much laundry in her life even if she lived well into adulthood before even seeing a washing machine. Plus, laundry may not be physically demanding anymore, but with the crazy "I'll change clothes 5 times a day and wash each item after one use" routine the time it takes isn't necessarily that much less. Oh the piles, nay mountains, of cotton! If you iron and stuff. I don't. I hardly even fold the clean clothes away. 

What were we talking about again, oh yes marriage! ... Can't tie this back in... Well I'll just repeat that marriage does not have to be affiliated with household work, children or religion. It is primarily a financial arrangement where the couple agrees to financially support one another and in case of divorce or death things are done a certain way, but it is not as popular anymore because it's not a good deal to... someone. The article suggests women would desperately want to get married, not sure if that's true, but men do not. If that statement was true then it would mean that in particular to men marriage is not a beneficial arrangement. Pros do not outweigh the cons and/or there's no incentive to get married. Simple as that.

* Part of the diminishing pros is that if they're atheists or just lose with their morals, they don't think it'll particularly hurt them to have sex or even children outside of the holy matrimony. True. Part of it may also be that they sell washing machines for men too, so a man does not need a wife to do his laundry. What is left is the financial reality, which could be rearranged if we want more people to get married.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Jamaia said:


> * Part of the diminishing pros is that if they're atheists or just lose with their morals, they don't think it'll particularly hurt them to have sex or even children outside of the holy matrimony. True. Part of it may also be that they sell washing machines for men too, so a man does not need a wife to do his laundry. What is left is the financial reality, which could be rearranged if we want more people to get married.


Talk about prejudice,.. wauw.

Atheism, lose with their morals,... You are someone who believes that morals come from your religious beliefs. That somehow the reason that humans have morals is because of a god.

If you do live in that fantasy world then I don't want to enter in that discussion. If I completely misunderstood you, feel free to expain. (But no religous BS please.)


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Peter said:


> Talk about prejudice,.. wauw.
> 
> Atheism, lose with their morals,... You are someone who believes that morals come from your religious beliefs. That somehow the reason that humans have morals is because of a god.
> 
> If you do live in that fantasy world then I don't want to enter in that discussion. If I completely misunderstood you, feel free to expain. (But no religous BS please.)


Ha, awesome! I was agreeing with you! "...if they are atheists or (if they are non-atheists and) just lose with their morals, then they don't think it'll..." Does that explain enough? I'm using the word atheist loosely too, not just referring to fundamentalists.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Jamaia said:


> Ha, awesome! I was agreeing with you! "...if they are atheists or (if they are non-atheists and) just lose with their morals, then they don't think it'll..." Does that explain enough? I'm using the word atheist loosely too, not just referring to fundamentalists.


I had the impression what you agreed with my conclusions, but I totally dislike your idea that atheists don't have moral standards. In fact, I think atheists tend to have better morals because they don't have a "god" to justify bad actions. I never heard of an atheist going like: "In the name of..... nothing".

And also, morals are in no way related to the subject of this thread. People mary later and have kids later because there is no need to have kids at a very young age. In the past people had kids in their thirties too, but then it was the 5th, 6th, 7th or nth kid. Now people have kids in their thirties, and it's the first or second and last kid.

Don't use morals to explain this phenomenon. It's got nothing to do with it.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Peter said:


> I had the impression what you agreed with my conclusions, but I totally dislike your idea that atheists don't have moral standards. In fact, I think atheists tend to have better morals because they don't have a "god" to justify bad actions. I never heard of an atheist going like: "In the name of..... nothing".
> 
> And also, morals are in no way related to the subject of this thread. People mary later and have kids later because there is no need to have kids at a very young age. In the past people had kids in their thirties too, but then it was the 5th, 6th, 7th or nth kid. Now people have kids in their thirties, and it's the first or second and last kid.
> 
> Don't use morals to explain this phenomenon. It's got nothing to do with it.


Yeah no. There's an OR in between, so I am saying:

Reasons to get married have diminished
in part because:

more people are atheists
OR 
more people have lose morals

=> less people concern themselves with fornication or bastards. 


Note the OR. It means that *if* either the first part *OR* the second part is true,* then *the => follows. 

Of course it is related to the subject of this thread. The subject of the thread is: people are not getting married either at all or at later age than before.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

So where's the percentage of married women between ages 20-34? What age of men are _they_ marrying? Do women suddenly outnumber men or something?


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

perpetuallyreticent said:


> So where's the percentage of married women between ages 20-34? What age of men are _they_ marrying? Do women suddenly outnumber men or something?


Yes, women do outnumber men, but not in this age cohort.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

SolonsWarning said:


> Yes, women do outnumber men, but not in this age cohort.


Yeah I realize now I didn't word that right. 

Outnumber men enough for these statistics to actually mean anything, I meant.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Probliss (Aug 22, 2015)

I just think marriage is an expensive relationship in which upon unexpected break-up I may lose all of my earnings, assets, and most likely rights to my children. Doesn't seem like a good idea to me when divorce rates are on the rise and something like 70% of them are initiated by women.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

BearRun said:


> Well I had to excel at something eventually.


This is so much funnier in Georgia's voice.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Jamaia said:


> Reasons to get married have diminished
> in part because:
> 
> more people are atheists
> ...


Marriage exist in religions, there your statement is valid (regarding atheists), as an atheist would rarely agree on getting married by the church (but some do it anyway to please their partner, is that wrong?). But marriage exists outside religion: in civil law. Example: people in my country get married by lawyers/attorneys and in the church, here is a double marriage (by the way the mayor can also perform the legal-civil ceremony).

Other than that, what's said above is a wrong premise and logic. Let's expand this a bit more. In regions like mine (latin america) people regardless of their beliefs can get married on just one of those. Some get married only by the church because they could avoid legal issues, some get married only by civil law because they don't agree/believe or share the religious beliefs. 

The statement above only fits religious beliefs. 




Probliss said:


> I just think marriage is an expensive relationship in which upon unexpected break-up I may lose all of my earnings, assets, and most likely rights to my children. Doesn't seem like a good idea to me when divorce rates are on the rise and something like 70% of them are initiated by women.


100% agree.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

changos said:


> Marriage exist in religions, there your statement is valid (regarding atheists), as an atheist would rarely agree on getting married by the church (but some do it anyway to please their partner, is that wrong?). But marriage exists outside religion: in civil law. Example: people in my country get married by lawyers/attorneys and in the church, here is a double marriage (by the way the mayor can also perform the legal-civil ceremony).
> 
> Other than that, what's said above is a wrong premise and logic. Let's expand this a bit more. In regions like mine (latin america) people regardless of their beliefs can get married on just one of those. Some get married only by the church because they could avoid legal issues, some get married only by civil law because they don't agree/believe or share the religious beliefs.
> 
> The statement above only fits religious beliefs.


I don't understand, could you explain in more detail how it's wrong premise and logic? 

More people (in the Western world) these days do not believe in God (may or may not belong to a religious group) (this is a statistical fact), and more of the people that do believe and do belong to a religious group do not believe they'll go to hell for having sex outside of marriage. All these people have way less incentive (because they're having sex!) to get married than past generations did and they're influencing people around them. Past generations still felt a bit bad for not waiting with sex until they're married like their religion tells them to and they were aware of the social stigma of child born out of wedlock. So they had more incentive to get married! 

???

(I'm not one to stick with my opinion if I see it is wrong, but I'm not seeing it wrong in this case.)

And then I continued that people could still get married, but they don't because for one of them at least the pros of getting married are gone and cons are heavy.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

Cheveyo said:


> This is so much funnier in Georgia's voice.


Georgia?


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Jamaia said:


> I don't understand, could you explain in more detail how it's wrong premise and logic?
> 
> More people (in the Western world) these days do not believe in God (may or may not belong to a religious group) (this is a statistical fact), and more of the people that do believe and do belong to a religious group do not believe they'll go to hell for having sex outside of marriage. All these people have way less incentive (because they're having sex!) to get married than past generations did and they're influencing people around them. Past generations still felt a bit bad for not waiting with sex until they're married like their religion tells them to and they were aware of the social stigma of child born out of wedlock. So they had more incentive to get married!
> 
> ...


Or the logic is flawed (I guess that's the term) or you used the wrong words, that's it.

Marriage exist inside religion and outside of them, so there is marriage believing in God and also if you don't believe in God. Marriage is a religious institution, *and also a civil contract*. Marriage is documented in many countries as a civil contract to protect the well being of the couple, their possessions, their rights and mostly in the benefit of the children (*God is not even mentioned in civil law*, it shouldn't, there is no need for this), civil marriage and religious marriage are totally independent acts and institutions.

Morals? really? morals can exist and be diverse believing in God or not.


*What really makes sense in this context is*: 

Less people get married because:

- Less people believe in people
- Less people believe in the potential wife/husband
- Less people believe in society, civil law and religion to be FAIR on both partners on the long term, because when trouble occurs, society, civil law and the family of your partner can become unrealistic on specific rights and thus, religion, civil law and your family partner (and perhaps your own) can turn their back on you, or turn against you

OR 
more people have lose morals


The second statement I believe is quite fine, a lot of people who are believers and live inside a religion can lack morals (but hey, they still get married) the problem is the effect of their actions.


See, the biggest failure of believers is the negative impact they have on society. Despite statistics in specific countries showing more believers (I'm not talking about more atheists, I'm talking about places where you have more believers) things aren't far from perfect, also far from "better", and also, many believers won't even get married among themselves.


I don't get it. People who don't believe in God having a better fit on the model of "good person and morals" seems to defy the logic of believers, who most times will think "good" only exists inside the real of God. I'm not preaching here, but remember the Bible has examples of men who were chosen by God for important missions and they didn't even believe in God. The quality of people can be whatever regardless of.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

I will post it out of the reply:

We can discuss people or their morals, on how because of so many examples in life failed then others lack confidence on getting married, why? because yes globally getting married (examples) don't actually encourage us. But outside discussing people or their ideas, we can discuss reality, law, rights, consequences.

Society is not exactly "free", both civil law and religion on your area can make your life difficult. So if you get married, even if you are committed and 200% believe in what you are doing, have morals, are loyal, faithful, etc. *That doesn't guarantee you that your partner can make your life a living hell*. Leaving? the law on your country/state can still make your life a living hell. Religion? will surely make your life a living hell because most religions are not built on dissolving a marriage.

If your partner sucks, religion will not protect you (really) instead it can try to force you to stay "because of love, kindness and charity", actually if your partner sucks and you want to leave (or you just NEED to leave), suddenly in the eyes or religion you are worse than your partner because you suppose to stay. In many countries religion and their leaders push people even if such leaders don't ever get married, to me: countries where religious leaders do get married MIGHT make more sense, but not exactly the case.

*So, trouble in marriage? what happens with civil law and religion? *So you are a good person? that is in most cases irrelevant because in civil law it all depends who convinces the judges, also, civil law is in most cases in favor of the women. What about religion? this is a fact regardless of what people believe: you can be a good person but when trouble comes, it all depends on who _*believes in YOU not what do you believe*_. So you can be a good person and have everyone against you because you look bad to them, specially if you are a man (lets be realistic, in present time it just doesn't looks promising).

So, marriage is all about two loving souls blah blah blah, ok I'm not being disrespectful just saying "_and all of that_". So much for two souls right? because if things go bad, is not about two souls, is about everyone against you. Looks to me as if marriage now is not exactly build to solve problems, but lacking civil structure so it can become a favorite tool for the opportunistic.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

I will add a sad memory of my past that I believe reflects why many don't believe or want to get married.


Had a very religious GF and we yes, were on a relationship and discussing a very important matter, she wasn't cooperating, I insisted, and yes, kindly. Suddenly when I grabbed her arm GENTLY and told her "_please listen_" she raised her voice and said "*oh no!! let go you are hurting me!!!!*". I wasn't hurting her, not even close. My heart just got broken for that attitude, we were on a restaurant and suddenly everyone was looking at me as if I was a murderer. What she did was wrong, despite her strong religious beliefs. I just stood there while everyone was looking at me and there was even one guy who showed to be ready to engage on a fight because he thought I was doing something wrong.

Got up and out. She followed me, outside she tried to kiss me insisting on us getting inside again, I refused. She insisted: let's go inside, kiss me so everyone sees that we love each other. What the fuck????


My point here is not her lack of morals, lack of logic and that she actually was playing me doing something very wrong. I'm talking how society can turn against you even if you did nothing wrong. The same can happen inside a marriage. Society is so fucked up, you can place a couple inside a car and have the man crying and people will have very diff thoughts and reactions than looking the woman crying: most times people think is the man who just did something wrong to her. It can be as simple as the dog just died.


So, really, it's not easy to believe in marriage when it just became so dangerous.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

I'm not the best to explain complex concepts, but it's been a while since *this thread makes me think about social rituals (and this includes religion)*. There are many laws in diff countries making marriage a difficult thing if the relationship goes the wrong way. Suddenly two people become one against the public. It's not about discussing and solving, it's about "telling someone to punish the other person" pure guilt everywhere.

But mostly marriage is based more and more on wrong concepts and traits to choose your partner. It's more and more important if the person is pretty (rather than handy), more important if such person makes money (rather on what this person does with the money) lifestyle is more important than long term goals (HUMAN terms, no materialistic) and very rarely involves real life abilities of what both can do in a home. Surprisingly even if you can prove this in realistic terms, people can say "no I don't live that way". Again, while I have the concept very clear it's easy for me to explain it talking, and not in a foreign language.


----------



## JoetheBull (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm not married because I never learned how to date back in my teens (I have asked many out and all said no) and never went to real college due money and I tried to go to a technical school (turned out it was a diploma mill). Usually we nerd/geek/loser/otaku/or what ever term I would fall under, usually only have late high school and college to find a possible mate. After that chances drop from 10% to .00000416%. Unless we are rich. Then maybe 10 %.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@Peter I don't think you're reading much of what I've written. I know perfectly well that people can have sex outside of marriage. _That is the point_, less need to get married when your sex life and social life is not dependent on it. I do think people would be faster to marry if it was not so. People having children at older age is not only a good thing, it has significant impact on the individuals and society as whole, not only for the better imo. People also have children outside of marriage. If you'd read my posts you would've noticed I have no problem with that. There's very little need to be married if sex, children, social status, and a lot of financial/legal details are the same anyway. Of these the financial details of the arrangement would be easiest to control (maybe the only thing that can be controlled?). Nowadays it's a very specific situation where marriage is a compelling option, therefore less people get married.




changos said:


> That's another discussion, I'm interested but it's too long and not quite clear, why? people can get married due to a wide variety of reasons, even if they can't list them (not everyone is fully aware of why they do the things they do). People get married also due to needs, fear, or because "everybody is doing it".---
> *I will try to say it in a different way: *There are lots of reasons for people to get married, and there are lots of reasons why people don't want to live alone, die alone, work forever, feel like class "B" people, increase their market value, bee seen as prizes, etc. I can go on on listing those other reasons, but they have nothing to do (directly) on wanting to get married. Beyond sex status and money, a lot of people in specific countries, see marriage as a way out their home (because they don't leave home at 18 or 21).


I entered this conversation saying that the financial reality of marriage could be changed to make it more beneficial for people. And "why?", if you look at the thread title and OP it seems like the conversation is about why more people don't get married at all or get married late in life compared to the past. 

If people are doing something less it can only be for two reasons or a mixture of these two: either they can't, or they don't want to. It doesn't seem like there's a third party preventing people from marrying, so it probably has something to do with the couple deciding whether they want to get married or not. Maybe both of them don't want to, or maybe one wants the other doesn't, so the one not wanting becomes a "can't" for the other. You can make up a bunch of entirely individual reasons which make the general situation impossible to analyze, but that doesn't change the fact that people are either motivated to do something or not. Their motivation depends on the circumstances they're in and the circumstances their decision puts them. It doesn't matter if they are aware of the reasons or not.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Jamaia said:


> * #1. the financial reality of marriage could be changed to make it more beneficial for people.* And "why?", if you look at the thread title and OP it seems like the conversation is about why more people don't get married at all or get married late in life compared to the past.
> 
> * #2. If people are doing something less it can only be for two reasons or a mixture of these two: either they can't, or they don't want to.
> *
> ...


#1. Agreed, I think the same. What I would like people to differentiate is opinion being separated from facts. While I agree on your words and have said very similar things (if not the same), I can't understand why in reality when people get married most get into huge debt. Leave aside the cases where one of both is already a financial disaster, it seems we can get used to work in a team but mostly "with specific players" and then takes time to adapt to another. *My personal opinion in this angle goes more into rituals*. In many countries (I know in mine it is like this) people spend absurd amounts of money to get married on things that have nothing to do with their new-family-expenses. I can't say it's religion or society (laws), it's actually rituals and they come in many diff flavors. Anyway it's up to people to accept them or not. 

In my country the amount of people interested on spending on a ceremony BIG money rather than on equipment is absurd, and most (the vast majority) *get married under a lot of debt*.

#2. Yes, I agree but you are missing a point there. People can get into a boat because they want to be there, or they can stay off the boat because they don't want to be there. But also because they don't want to be in the sinking titanic. I don't think: I know, people in the US (and a lot of european countries) leave their home when they become adults. Latin America? not many. And while many still live with their parents many hate it but many things in their situations make it difficult to leave. Some people do things they don't want to because the other option is worse. Perhaps this is alien to you (just like it was to me) it took me years of hearing people confessions to get it.

#3. Exactly, I agree.

#4. Absolutely agree. The amount of reasons why people want to do something is immense. The amount of reasons why people end up avoiding it can also be immense but it's usually tied to things they witnessed, and there we have patterns more easily recognized than pure imagination (because at the end, many of the reasons why people get married or do something, just don't become real, might or not be the case).



I'm a good listener. I can talk but I can also listen. I wasn't prepared for a chapter in my life where having an office in a media company a lot of people came to visit and talk. Many of the things they said being the reasons on why they got married were unsettling and it had a negative impact on me adding doubts on why people do the things they do. I also had a hard time learning from psychologist people can say they do this or that because they want to, but then discovering they just want to be accepted. Sometimes there are reasons under the other reasons.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

changos said:


> #1. Agreed, I think the same. What I would like people to differentiate is opinion being separated from facts. While I agree on your words and have said very similar things (if not the same), I can't understand why in reality when people get married most get into huge debt. Leave aside the cases where one of both is already a financial disaster, it seems we can get used to work in a team but mostly "with specific players" and then takes time to adapt to another. *My personal opinion in this angle goes more into rituals*. In many countries (I know in mine it is like this) people spend absurd amounts of money to get married on things that have nothing to do with their new-family-expenses. I can't say it's religion or society (laws), it's actually rituals and they come in many diff flavors. Anyway it's up to people to accept them or not.
> 
> In my country the amount of people interested on spending on a ceremony BIG money rather than on equipment is absurd, and most (the vast majority) *get married under a lot of debt*.


It sounds like the concept of marriage (as a lifelong relationship which should be beneficial for both to last?) is shadowed by the wedding hype. And such hype could easily make it seem like you're just entering _*a* marriage_, not just sealing your and your partner's relationship, but _*a* marriage_ which to you is an opportunity to benefit as much as you can and the other person is seen as a dispensable prop, essentially, for your benefit. So it's not a partnership at all, it's just selfish people doing their yolo laps. And a wedding is an easy place to start the demanding, it is an opportunity to spend a lot of (possibly someone else's) money on your own image and status, really. 

I think in the 80's when my mother and father got married, the wedding was pretty much organized by my grandparents. I'm sure she picked the dress and had something to say in some details, but it certainly was not a show, "her big day" as they are often seen these days. The couple I think sort of submitted to the older generation, it was more of a show for the bride's parents really. Not the bride's show where every detail is somehow representing the bride and the couple. Of course also some people go the opposite way, very low key, but I think it's really difficult still to not see that too as an image statement. Everything is an image statement these days. 

(And I'm not saying that like I'm so proud of them, haha, no I think particularly my mum might've wanted to go more bridezilla and perhaps would have gone, had it been a few years later. I think their wedding was old-fashioned possibly due to their age and rural background, sort of remnants of a bygone time even, just after a cultural shift. Not that people haven't always concerned themselves with image, but your personal image like a facade and consumerism and spending money, perhaps not as tied together before.) 



> #2. Yes, I agree but you are missing a point there. People can get into a boat because they want to be there, or they can stay off the boat because they don't want to be there. But also because they don't want to be in the sinking titanic. I don't think: I know, people in the US (and a lot of european countries) leave their home when they become adults. Latin America? not many. And while many still live with their parents many hate it but many things in their situations make it difficult to leave. Some people do things they don't want to because the other option is worse. Perhaps this is alien to you (just like it was to me) it took me years of hearing people confessions to get it.


You mean they get married to get out of their parents house? But that is no exception to the rule, they are motivated to get married because they perceive, in their situation, it as the best or only option. Living with your parents is a motivator to get married because marriage promises an increase in status and a more comfortable lifestyle. (And of course such people have an impact on motivations of other people who may still be thinking they marry for love.) For people who already live on their own and have done so for a good decade perhaps, marriage may not hold such a promise so they are relatively less motivated to get married. 



> I'm a good listener. I can talk but I can also listen. I wasn't prepared for a chapter in my life where having an office in a media company a lot of people came to visit and talk. Many of the things they said being the reasons on why they got married were unsettling and it had a negative impact on me adding doubts on why people do the things they do. I also had a hard time learning from psychologist people can say they do this or that because they want to, but then discovering they just want to be accepted. Sometimes there are reasons under the other reasons.


I'm guessing the people at the media company were largely women?


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

Jamaia said:


> I think in the 80's when my mother and father got married, the wedding was pretty much organized by my grandparents. I'm sure she picked the dress and had something to say in some details, but it certainly was not a show, "her big day" as they are often seen these days. The couple I think sort of submitted to the older generation, it was more of a show for the bride's parents really. Not the bride's show where every detail is somehow representing the bride and the couple. Of course also some people go the opposite way, very low key, but I think it's really difficult still to not see that too as an image statement. Everything is an image statement these days.
> 
> (And I'm not saying that like I'm so proud of them, haha, no I think particularly my mum might've wanted to go more bridezilla and perhaps would have gone, had it been a few years later. I think their wedding was old-fashioned possibly due to their age and rural background, sort of remnants of a bygone time even, just after a cultural shift. Not that people haven't always concerned themselves with image, but your personal image like a facade and consumerism and spending money, perhaps not as tied together before.)


My parents had a big, black tie affair, evening wedding in the 90s. No children allowed judging from the pictures, but knowing them, I'd guess they offered babysitting in the hotel. For the record, they weren't getting themselves into debt for this. I'm guessing between their own money (they were in their 30s) and probably some of it was paid for by my grandparents. Looking at the pictures, I think it looked wasteful. Not that they did something outside of their finances. I think they could have had a wedding half as extravagant, that would've looked good and maybe donated the rest of that money to a good cause. 

I don't think it's for us to judge society as whole. If people don't want to get married, whether they feel the laws are unfair or they don't value the institution, it doesn't matter. Societies change and I'm okay with that.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

BearRun said:


> My parents had a big, black tie affair, evening wedding in the 90s. No children allowed judging from the pictures, but knowing them, I'd guess they offered babysitting in the hotel. For the record, they weren't getting themselves into debt for this. I'm guessing between their own money (they were in their 30s) and probably some of it was paid for by my grandparents. Looking at the pictures, I think it looked wasteful. Not that they did something outside of their finances. I think they could have had a wedding half as extravagant, that would've looked good and maybe donated the rest of that money to a good cause.
> 
> I don't think it's for us to judge society as whole. If people don't want to get married, whether they feel the laws are unfair or they don't value the institution, it doesn't matter. Societies change and I'm okay with that.


Yes, things change, but not always for the better. A wedding isn't just about that pomp and circumstance you mention, it's about making a promise to the person you're marrying in front of your loved ones as witnesses (and if your religious in front of God as well). It's not the fancy clothes, flowers and food that make a marriage what it is, it's the vows to bind your life to another persons in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, etc.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

SolonsWarning said:


> Yes, things change, but not always for the better. A wedding isn't just about that pomp and circumstance you mention, it's about making a promise to the person you're marrying in front of your loved ones as witnesses (and if your religious in front of God as well). It's not the fancy clothes, flowers and food that make a marriage what it is, it's the vows to bind your life to another persons in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, etc.


I have no interest in either the pompous ceremony and I'm not drawn to binding myself to anyone. I'm not convinced this change is a bad one.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

BearRun said:


> I have no interest in either the pompous ceremony and I'm not drawn to binding myself to anyone. I'm not convinced this change is a bad one.


Mountains of research shows that children raised by single parents are worse off than those raised in a stable two parent home. It takes 18+ years to raise a child so if you want your child to succeed you better be willing to bind yourself to someone else for a long time.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

SolonsWarning said:


> Mountains of research shows that children raised by single parents are worse off than those raised in a stable two parent home. It takes 18+ years to raise a child so if you want your child to succeed you better be willing to bind yourself to someone else for a long time.


You assume I want kids.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

BearRun said:


> You assume I want kids.


You will.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

SolonsWarning said:


> You will.


Huh? With the amount of grown women I know that didn't want kids, didn't have kids and are happy as is, you're full of shit. The birth rate in Canada is 1.61 per woman. A lot of women, just aren't having kids while some populations are still having kids. First Nations, Inuit and new immigrants still have a high birth rate keeping the Canadian birth rate up. But the rest of Canadian women very often just don't have kids.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Won't quote bit by bit this time due to the extension of the resulting post.

Yes I agree, specially on the wedding being the beginning of the demanding. Now as older guy I see with other close friends situations around, and this is where we see if both are working as a team or if someone finally is dominating the other persons will. I like your wording on this.

There was a priest (now a saint) saying he was concerned... because when he invited people to follow Christ they were just too happy, and instead of him being happy he was... concerned saying "I'm not sure they understand what this is about". I think many face the same scenario on their wedding, but it's culture taking realism away. I think many things reading your words on the 80s wedding. I'm not against people doing what they want because it's their wedding, but people should be realistic (for their own sake). I just reminded religion and the traditional white dress on the ceremony. That's a big irony nowadays regarding what the ceremony represents.

Yes I mean some people still get married wanting to leave their parents house. But I mean something more that I think you are not seeing, and it's more related to language. Motivations are something, options are something else, but wanting to avoid a bullet in the head you can take it in the chest and then hoping to survive. While language allow us to say you have an option, language (in deep) also let us know you didn't have an option: you made a choice. There is a big difference between motivation, options and choices. The last one involves (just in the language) more responsibility. Some people get married with what they call "their option" but in some cases that person was never an option, and to present day it isn't. It was a choice (and that's very different. Even choices involve deep meanings, as "I choose you", being different than, "between a bullet in the head and a bullet in the chest, I choose the bullet in the chest". Such mechanics are very disrespectful.

Yes, the media company had a lot of women. It was terrible because there were lots of double standards. 



Marriage and sharing life choices are naturally based on survival, healthy convenience, cooperation, combining abilities, etc. But many marriages happen in so unhealthy ways... if just one gets sick the whole thing falls apart. There is people getting married without having the most basic skills for life (not to mention to raise children). *You can be rejected at a job position for not knowing the drill or lacking the required abilities, but in real life many people in the same scenario regarding marriage... get married!!!! even if they are worth the same as a brick (but ohhh they are loved).*


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

I see people insisting, on women making money so things should be easier now, or just easy right away. That's a terrible application of logic missing many points.

It doesn't matter if women are making money or men are making money, or both making lots of money. *Marriage involves a lot of stuff that you can't pay someone else to do it*. A flawed logic applied here (regionally) is "ok I don't like children but I do want to have several, ok there is no problem, I can pay someone to take charge". I don't like cooking, hate washing the dishes, hate cleaning the house, ok let's pay someone. This is a problem for both men and women. If you think that shouldn't be a problem because don't have to be in charge of everything well, it's true, but it's not as simple as that, again: marriage involves abilities and duties you just can't pay someone else to do it.

In Finland women are making money so finances shouldn't be that hard. Wrong. The logic is simple from start but not true for the long term. Why? see, here in latin america several women have grown to HATE home duties, in fact home duties have grown to be considered something shameful if you are pursuing status. Just as being a carpenter is not something to wish for instead of being a CEO. *The problem with culture is when people allow to have negative ideas on duties*. Lying and stealing is bad, cleaning a house? cooking? how that can be bad? but if this sounds alien to you don't try to fight it, I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just telling you. Some people even hate to take a bus because it's something only poor people do, they want a CAR!, funny, wealthy countries have buses with people making lots of money in them.

So, it's not that men or women just don't make enough money, it's how some have related working on an office being good, raising children bad (so they won't do it and expect someone else to do it). Driving a car good, taking a bus bad. Cleaning an industrial expensive machine good, cleaning children poop bad. It's not just about money as you can see there are tons of reasons why someone does something (or avoids doing something else). A big problem is thinking money solves everything while you can pay someone to do things for you.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

What I don't understand on religion is the mess it means. We can talk religion but when things get ugly the word is erased and then people say "I believe in God let's not talk religion", meaning a path of denying and changing terms as long as they come out clean, you know the drill, usually those kind of discussions become a waste of time.

What I want to say regarding marriage and religion is... there are many religions and *we can't approach a discussion easily as all being the same*. But sure there are patterns, *most preach being humble*. So why many religious people can preach about marriage to everyone in the style of "you are doing it wrong" but when it comes to real terms, their ceremonies NOW are a contradiction on being humble? marriages-weddings-ceremonies have become a fashion show, spending money and being on the spot.

While many religions are different, many historic clues point on family and friends making the celebration happen. OR the families of the people getting married making the celebration happen and I mean by both preparing the meals, the place. Today? we can't just say the same: they PAY other people to do it. It's become in a way "money solves everything, we don't have to do it just pay for it". Too much effort is placed on what others can see.

Every time I approach this I do it in terms of culture. Because to me it has nothing to do with God, it's about rituals, culture, mutations of something that was meant to be good and help. So, we can spend a lot and get into debt, being humble is not even considered... doing things with our own hands neither... but don't divorce me or you go to hell? please. When it comes to Christianity, Jesus was born on a humble place under humble circumstances and got kings visiting Him. It suppose to be a model, yet today when a baby is born some people can act humble, some give the human-king treatment to the event.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

That age range is a bit daft. Why should a 20-year-old be married? Or even a 25-year-old. That would have made sense in the past when people started working at age 16 or even younger and life expectancy was a lot lower. If you can expect to die when you're 45, you'd better have a few kids by the time you're 18. 
I also read that those marriages where the partners are very young are the ones that are most likely to result in divorce. I don't remember the source of this information, though.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> “Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
> The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com. “They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”


Bleh,this guy needs to stop objectifying young men.
Maybe people need to rethink what they mean by “maturity”. If you’re not interested in sacrificing your life for your children/ the nation etc. that doesn’t mean you’re immature. It means you’ve exercised your human right to make a personal choice.
Institutionalized reproductive coercion.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Bleh,this guy needs to stop objectifying young men.
> Maybe people need to rethink what they mean by “maturity”. If you’re not interested in sacrificing your life for your children/ the nation etc. that doesn’t mean you’re immature. It means you’ve exercised your human right to make a personal choice.
> Institutionalized reproductive coercion.


I've said before that marriage/kids should be like religion. Keep it personal. Don't try to convert others. People who try to get you to have kids or get married should be treated like people who are trying to convert you to Scientology or Islam. Nobody pressures me on those issues. How dare you. I defy you. lol. 

On Facebook, my buddy posted a pic with his gf and one our mutual friend's mother commented, "Put a ring on it!" lol. This shit happens every second of everyday. I bet right now there is somebody being pressured to get married or have kids.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Bleh,this guy needs to stop objectifying young men.
> Maybe people need to rethink what they mean by “maturity”. If you’re not interested in sacrificing your life for your children/ the nation etc. that doesn’t mean you’re immature. It means you’ve exercised your human right to make a personal choice.
> Institutionalized reproductive coercion.


I've said before that marriage/kids should be like religion. Keep it personal. Don't try to convert others. People who try to get you to have kids or get married should be treated like people who are crying to convert you to Scientology or Islam. Nobody pressures me on those issues. How dare you. I defy you. lol. 

On Facebook, my buddy posted a pic with his gf and one our mutual friend's mother commented, "Put a ring on it!" lol. This shit happens every second of everyday. I bet right now there is somebody being pressured to get married or have kids.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

Plumedoux said:


> The thing is 2 marriages out of 3 ends up with a divorce, the majority of the divorce are initiate by women, in majority of the divorce case, it's the women who have children custody plus the maintenance allowance payed by men.
> So seriously which sane men want to marry nowadays :laughing:


In other words, 2/3 of marriages shouldn't have been marriages in the first place.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

A short answer to the topic is: *because we are not as stupid as many would think*.










*Gangs*

They offer you a new family, a true one. Doesn't matter where you come from or your country, gangs promise a new code, loyalty, giving the life one for the other, the ultimate support, whatever you need, shoulder to shoulder, we are one, we are a unit, together till the end, if someone messes with you, we are there for you. A blood bond, a stronger than blood bond. 

The initiation/welcome involves a proof of honor/loyalty, and also in most cases a beat up. You end up pretty damn beaten when you get in. Then all the love begins, all the honey. Everything will be fine as long as your choice/decision/word is diluted and overpowered by theirs, you don't exist, you are a soldier. They will show you love for as long as you do as you are told. When things get ugly you are demanded more loyalty, and if you want to get out: it's a mess, terrible and your life ends up destroyed even if you relocate.

*What??? *You can say whatever you want about this, "_an exaggeration_", go ahead. The truth (reality?) is, things in marriage are beginning to look a lot like this. You are promised a lot but you have to give way more, it's the offer of a new family, loyalty, support, the "I have your back" and if someone messes with you, well you are not alone. A blood stronger than blood. The initiation leaves you all beaten up draining all your money before the party of marriage even begins, then you must do as you are told, demanded more loyalty when things turn ugly, _*and if you ever want to leave, your scenario is pretty much as leaving a gang, your life to pieces*_.

Beyond my own experiences, or what I have seen, I can pretty much invite you to remember many past discussions in this forum where men are mostly absorbed into new families: assimilated, not integrated with his wife. Emotional support? fuck you! you are alone, men don't cry, don't suffer, "man up" they say, pretty much you are left alone with your mirror, and if you try to get help, most families will consider this as betrayal, because you suppose to come to your wife, and sure you are a coward for doing so. And what about the blood bond? stronger than blood bond? one of the words that appears again and again around marriage is "money, expenses". Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong, the truth is both church/religion and civil law are now in several countries a set of tools that work against men, even if you are innocent. 

In my country you can only get arrested under certain circumstances, and unless EVIDENCE or a proper process is opened/placed, well you can go home or end up in home-arrest. Since a few years ago, it only takes one woman saying you hurt her to end up in FUCKING JAIL, no evidence is needed. What-the-fuck. 




Jamaia said:


> God is pretty clear about.


The problem about discussing religious beliefs is it often gets so far from the central point, having the believer placing new and new points that move the attention far and far away, but also placing ideas as facts.

I quote you here because one only reason, *my opinion* regarding God.

So, God is the word that less resonate around marriages, it's defeated in number by money and expenses, church, people, places, flowers, dinner, etc. What I mean is, religion, faith, God, is about love and being HUMBLE. Yet today in modern days those same ceremonies in church doesn't resemble anything to me similar to being humble. It's about shining, attention, music, a party, and also a fucking fashion show.

Women complain about being objectified, well, they also try to preach God when it comes to move people towards marriage, but when it happens, many are dressed for sin, showing way too much skin, it's their day, (their, it's not just one person huh), so. That's my opinion.


In short terms: I had many women talking to me about marriage, church and God. But when it comes to HOW this will happen, I don't see God, I see unneeded expenses, luxury, calling for attention, vanity, a social event. God who sees in the dark and in the hidden places will see your prayer, so why the need for so much noise???

WHAT IF, this woman talking to me about church, religion, GOD insist too much on me getting married by the church because of GOD, and I say yes, as long as she uses a humble dress? why do they react making ugly fucking faces? doesn't make sense to me. The absurd result is having people thinking I'm atheist, and when we talk about history, religion facts, basis, etc I know way more than them, so they think yes I'm the classic atheist who studied the bible a lot... 

But I'm not an atheist, I believe in God, why don't they believe me? why don't they believe me when I talk about being humble according to God's word, while I suppose to believe they believe in God talking about spending money and fancy dresses? Their word against mine, I'm out on those scenarios.


I have nothing to say about God, religion, church, etc. Most ideas are clear: it's about the people.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

And there are other reasons as well: 

because many men don't want to
because many men already have a similar scenario without the noise, why would they want to change this?

And because many do believe the "we are equal" and then, refuse to submit in inequality. Because at this days *depending* on the country where you live, marriage is still the ultimate place for inequality ever.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@changos, I only mentioned God and morals, because I think people who maintain that they believe in God (as understood in Abrahamic religions, as they cover most of the Western world and then some) but who commit the "sin of fornication" have looser morals than people who are the same but who withhold from sex until marriage. That's all. Because I think if you're a believer then your idea of right and wrong should follow that of your religion, and the church's opinion on sex before marriage I think is quite clear. If you are a believer but have sex anyway, then you're explaining something away, for some reason you're not taking the teachings seriously. If you are not a believer, or if you follow a faith where sex is free, then it doesn't matter.

I wonder, since if the situation is that women would like to get married more and men not so much, why not just introduce prenup agreements, if the financial conditions of marriage are the biggest issue. If the biggest issue is emotional hurt then they won't help, obviously.


----------



## GoodOldDreamer (Sep 8, 2011)

_"We are not as stupid as many would think.

...

*Gangs.*"_

:laughing:


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I've said before that marriage/kids should be like religion. Keep it personal. Don't try to convert others. People who try to get you to have kids or get married should be treated like people who are trying to convert you to Scientology or Islam. Nobody pressures me on those issues. How dare you. I defy you. lol.
> 
> On Facebook, my buddy posted a pic with his gf and one our mutual friend's mother commented, "Put a ring on it!" lol. This shit happens every second of everyday. I bet right now there is somebody being pressured to get married or have kids.


Please buy me a 5 carats to show how much you love me. And propose in the Ritz ~ plus instagram everything


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Jamaia said:


> @*changos* , I only mentioned God and morals


You are missing the point on what you think being separated from reality. You can think God = Morals, ok I have nothing against this. Marriage (God) = good, less divorces, or just "less people not believing in God = less marriages", ok I have nothing against this. I disagree, yes. 

The thing is God is not a magical ingredient. In general terms (not talking about you) That's like thinking a fancy-expensive-famous attorney-laywer would mean a better marriage. It doesn't matter who marries people, or who they _believe_ in, is how they behave, marriage is at the end about *just the two*. It doesn't even matter what people promise or agree, it's what they accomplish, it doesn't matter the contract or a prenup (as you bring to attention) Because at the end is the people who won't respect agreements. Marriage is to me like the ultimate mutual contract, if both can't respect that, to me a prenup is just a waste of time and money. We could say "sign this, if you don't make this work you promise to kill yourself" it's not what people sign, at the end of the day that doesn't matter, is the own persons will and commitment.

I have nothing against God or church, it's just their followers contradict themselves way too much and have failed to be an example, so I have nothing to say, it's when they begin go preach that the poor results and contradictions become more evident. Marriage? give me 500 women who (say) believe in God and faithfulness, their church principles etc. And then ask them if they would get marry on a normal, average, sober ceremony, or what about a poor church? no, it has to me specific church, colors, music, etc. Doesn't make sense to me. Those are the kind of thoughts that made people expect a king with a golden sword and failed to recognize Jesus.

Out of curiosity I experienced this and experimented a bit myself on more people, ok you believe in this and that, and would you get married here? YES! and what about there... no? why? is your same God, it's just the church that's not so big and luxurious, no big music, etc. *I say this with all due respect: marriage has become a deformed ritual, twisted by vanity, and a lot of this has happened due to the dreams and wishes of women, yes mostly women. *Men? how many men are thinking about getting married and having photographs of everything and having even their feet nails beautified? As mentioned here, marriage is also a place and a moment where women will measure their strength making the men do what they want to. In fact most women present at weddings have turned the ceremony into a fashion show, to me: what a failure. It even looks to me as the Genesis where they were told how things are suppose to be, but Eve began to tell Adam what to do and actually to only hear what she had to say. Starting a family this way looks tome as a complete disaster.

It's easier for a muslim to be surprised when he hears the catholic principals on their wedding. As easier for the catholic to be surprised on the opposite case, why? it's not because they don't share the same ground, it's because the mind feels more free to see when it's not yours (because we all are trained not to wonder or question anything about our beliefs).



Arnljot said:


> Please buy me a 5 carats to show how much you love me. And propose in the Ritz ~ plus instagram everything


That's exactly what marriages has turned into.

I wonder how many "believers" would get married on a wooden ring, a sober pretty church, no mic or speakers, and a normal average dress, yes pretty intimate, where God is present and not smashed by all the noise and a bunch of people competing on dresses. Oh, sorry, oh yes, marriage is about commitment, God, and love, sure, yes.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

changos said:


> You are missing the point on what you think being separated from reality. You can think God = Morals, ok I have nothing against this. Marriage (God) = good, less divorces, or just "less people not believing in God = less marriages", ok I have nothing against this. I disagree, yes.
> 
> The thing is God is not a magical ingredient. In general terms (not talking about you) That's like thinking a fancy-expensive-famous attorney-laywer would mean a better marriage. It doesn't matter who marries people, or who they _believe_ in, is how they behave, marriage is at the end about *just the two*. It doesn't even matter what people promise or agree, it's what they accomplish, it doesn't matter the contract or a prenup (as you bring to attention) Because at the end is the people who won't respect agreements. Marriage is to me like the ultimate mutual contract, if both can't respect that, to me a prenup is just a waste of time and money. We could say "sign this, if you don't make this work you promise to kill yourself" it's not what people sign, at the end of the day that doesn't matter, is the own persons will and commitment.


Yes I am missing your point. I didn't say anything about lasting relationships or the quality of relationships, I was simply talking about the statistics, the number of people getting married and at what time in their life.

You and other men like yourself, who are not willing to get married under the current conditions, can "afford" not to get married under the current conditions, I believe, because not getting married does not doom you to sexless life anymore. The women who aren't too keen on getting married, such as myself, can afford not to get married, both literally afford since our survival is not dependent on it, but also figuratively because we are not doomed to sexless life or, in case we fail at that, a social disaster. And even having children out of wedlock is not the end of the world. And more than the immediate social consequences, due to us either not believing in God at all or believing in a God that is more tolerant than he used to be, we do not worry that our choices regarding sex and marriage have consequences beyond our life time, such as having to spend an eternity in hell. If we were worried of eternal punishment for ourselves or our children, we would withhold from sex until married or at least get married when pregnant. This is what people used to do.

Whether this is more moral or better life, I don't know, depends on a lot of things. I don't think having gotten married in time would have made my family more moral or better for the children, I don't think anything would be different. I personally do not believe getting married is relevant to our access to the heaven, sustaining long-term relationships is. But I could be underestimating the impact of having planned things in advance like that, sure, but right now I'd say it's more of a test to just choose to stay together. I don't know. All in all I would think some pressure on people to stick with their relationships and keep adjusting to make them work would be better than "you have to leave if you're unhappy" attitude.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Jamaia said:


> You and other men like yourself, who are not willing to get married under the current conditions, can "afford" not to get married under the current conditions


Let me try to explain, if you are talking about finances, I have been able to do it, just didn't want to. Why? because every time it's about a mutual agreement people talk about civil law or religion. I can't afford to explain all the cases and "recorded" stories I have faced, but whenever it's time to pay, people talk about God. It's like "Oh I have no means to prove anything, but I will say I believe in God". So, many times I have faced this scenario, the women in the situation talk to me nothing but about good intentions, but there is nothing real to see. I'm very critic on this because I had to be a father figure before my time so I don't believe in words, promises? to many people promises are words, to others who have experienced serious responsibilities, they don't open their mouth just because. So to me, instead of talking about God I ask: can you cook? how are you in this and that in your life? because God is something anyone can say or call.

Many have turned their beliefs into insurance (I think that explains a lot). It's like "oh don't worry Jamaia I can help you, I know the president of Canada, I talk to him every day", but in reality while I know who he is, he doesn't know who I am. In terms of religion many people who talk about God could get God saying "I don't know who you are" you know, in terms of "why do you talk about me if I'm your King but you don't live like my servant".




Jamaia said:


> I believe, because not getting married does not doom you to sexless life anymore.


Marriage, morals, sex, motivations, lifestyle outside marriage, sin. That's a misconception. In most cases the women have been the ones pressuring me to have sex with them, including the virgins who are deep into their church. And marriage-religion-ceremony, they preach virginity but even if they are believers, many are not virgins. "Ok but virginity bla bla" that's it, they preach but start to erase everything they preach when it's about themselves.




Jamaia said:


> If we were worried of eternal punishment for ourselves or our children, we would withhold from sex until married or at least get married when pregnant. This is what people used to do.


True, but morals are not just about sex, it's the same misconception on virginity as if virgin women don't lie or steal. The problem here is guilt, everything here is being approached on consequences, hell, sin. Me? I'm more towards on what's right, fair, just, kind, noble. What kind of love is it when it's just about fear to hell? love is not a "no" it's a "yes".




Jamaia said:


> I don't think anything would be different. I personally do not believe getting married is relevant to our access to the heaven, sustaining long-term relationships is.


I do believe the same as you wrote here. It's not the color of the t-shirt it's how you play with the ball and team work



Jamaia said:


> I don't think anything would be different. I personally do not believe getting married is relevant to our access to the heaven, sustaining long-term relationships is. But I could be underestimating the impact of having planned things in advance like that, sure, but right now I'd say it's more of a test to just choose to stay together. I don't know. All in all I would think some pressure on people to stick with their relationships and keep adjusting to make them work would be better than "you have to leave if you're unhappy" attitude.


Whenever I talk or think about marriage is about wanting to stay, I see the meaning in your words, and what I personally don't understand about people talking in general is "this will happen if you leave", well, then better choose someone else.


I'm running out of words to explain my opinion, marriage is about people, that's why I don't see how prenups, agreements or even the marriage itself (as a ceremony) has anything to do, that never stopped people from failing, being bad, unkind or leaving. But I do have a word on religion: people put pressure but their religion is a failed example of the things they preach, in tons, in numbers, it's like the bible says, they put weights on other people they can't bear.

The problem here is whatever: well, let's get God in here, and then we can say THIS AND THAT is what God asks. And use God as a pressure. That's not good. In all simpleness, if two really love each other, they seek mutual well being. Out of logic, out of love, out of faith, all those paths would come to the same point.



Now, in short, it's evident how many men have explained in short terms their opinion and reasons, being personal. And let's consider how many are trying to push those men to do something based on "what other people said, say and do". There is a lot of meaning behind this.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

changos said:


> Let me try to explain, if you are talking about finances, I have been able to do it, just didn't want to. Why? because every time it's about a mutual agreement people talk about civil law or religion. I can't afford to explain all the cases and "recorded" stories I have faced, but whenever it's time to pay, people talk about God. It's like "Oh I have no means to prove anything, but I will say I believe in God". So, many times I have faced this scenario, the women in the situation talk to me nothing but about good intentions, but there is nothing real to see. I'm very critic on this because I had to be a father figure before my time so I don't believe in words, promises? to many people promises are words, to others who have experienced serious responsibilities, they don't open their mouth just because. So to me, instead of talking about God I ask: can you cook? how are you in this and that in your life? because God is something anyone can say or call.


Among the people I know in my real life I've never had anyone even mention God when talking about marriage, even though almost all got married in a church. People rarely mention God at all except an elderly aunt who is a hc christian and wishes god's blessings. So I can't say I've had people showcase their supposed faith.

The afford was in "" quotation marks, "afford", specifically because I wasn't talking about literal finances, I was talking about surviving through your teenage years and adult life without going insane or loosing your confidence and failing in life due to having no sexual contacts ever due to not being married. If not getting married would put you in that position, most people who resist marriage today would find someone they can marry. That's all. 

I don't know where we disagree.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Jamaia said:


> Among the people I know in my real life I've never had anyone even mention God when talking about marriage, even though almost all got married in a church. People rarely mention God at all except an elderly aunt who is a hc christian and wishes god's blessings. So I can't say I've had people showcase their supposed faith.
> 
> The afford was in "" quotation marks, "afford", specifically because I wasn't talking about literal finances, I was talking about surviving through your teenage years and adult life without going insane or loosing your confidence and failing in life due to having no sexual contacts ever due to not being married. If not getting married would put you in that position, most people who resist marriage today would find someone they can marry. That's all.
> 
> I don't know where we disagree.


Didn't say we disagree, but I do mentioned there are points you are not considering. Very often talking about stats, facts or opinions, people can get what's being said as "my/your" opinion.

What I do see is, when talking about this topics is people saying their reasons, but many refuse to hear, instead hey talk about "this will happen if you do not do as X says". It's also approached avoiding what someone said, instead "what this or that institution says" because it suppose to have more power or impact, people also approach the topic as "good/evil doing" 

When I think the point is being missed... heavily... because when we analyze the original opinions, the vast majority are not saying "I don't want to get married because I want sex with multiple partners", _*instead the original opinions express self preservation*_. I'm remembering now another thread (recent) where it was said how can people live like this, having sex with multipl... Well to me that's off topic, nobody said that, it's being assumed to validate their opinion.

In my case I see stats, hear testimonials on what went wrong, but I'm always very curious on why people refuse to get married now, instead of seeing the many bad things that would suppose to happen. Why? because I'm seeing more and more self preservation on the answers. When this happens, is because the social movement in pro of marriage is missing something, because people are being hurt despite their beliefs.

Bonus: I was born and raised in latin america, under the roof of what we can call "western" culture and beliefs, catholic etc, but I feel very interested on the culture of some tribes, why? culture? me, tribal? no, *I'm more interested on their reasons*, because some tribes don't celebrate marriage the same way, instead they approach it on trying to make sure both know what they are doing in terms of cooking, working, cleaning, raising children (and not business, making money per se, ceremonies). They exchange the couple and not to talk about beliefs, but to work on each other homes for a while and then they get married. To me it's not only more practical, it's more real. I just can't stand people who can't cook but complaining on the food on the ceremony as if they were offended by it's taste and being able to cook something better, I agree they are paying but one can't go that far. Nowadays most people lack the basic abilities needed to live alone or with someone.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

changos said:


> Didn't say we disagree, but I do mentioned there are points you are not considering. Very often talking about stats, facts or opinions, people can get what's being said as "my/your" opinion.
> 
> What I do see is, when talking about this topics is people saying their reasons, but many refuse to hear, instead hey talk about "this will happen if you do not do as X says". It's also approached avoiding what someone said, instead "what this or that institution says" because it suppose to have more power or impact, people also approach the topic as "good/evil doing"
> 
> When I think the point is being missed... heavily... because when we analyze the original opinions, the vast majority are not saying "I don't want to get married because I want sex with multiple partners", _*instead the original opinions express self preservation*_. I'm remembering now another thread (recent) where it was said how can people live like this, having sex with multipl... Well to me that's off topic, nobody said that, it's being assumed to validate their opinion.


These were not my reasons to claim what I claimed. Even having just one sexual partner in your entire life would've been impossible for most people in the past had they not gotten married to that person first. It's not impossible anymore <=> less need to get married. It's not even mentioned in this thread, it's so unordinary these days, outside of strict religious communities.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Jamaia said:


> These were not my reasons to claim what I claimed. Even having just one sexual partner in your entire life would've been impossible for most people in the past had they not gotten married to that person first. It's not impossible anymore <=> less need to get married. It's not even mentioned in this thread, it's so unordinary these days, outside of strict religious communities.


What I'm saying is people can have opinions and express them. And sometimes we can say things that we agree with, or consider a fact but not exactly live by them (because it's not a personal rule for life) it can be just "good", I think explaining my point here would instead of making things clearer, would sound as contrary to your opinion.

Yet, I do insist on personal basis, people saying why they get married, ok, people saying why they don't, ok, but confronting why other people do it instead of sharing might sound different (and in fact in several posts here) sounds as trying to push people to believe as others. To me is more about personal stuff than global beliefs, in fact some religions do agree on having multiple wives and also believe in God, it's not going on over-general terms, it's to me that at the end, it's what people believe in (despite saying they believe in God).

I can say in some sadness, merging into couples many times (in many cases) has turned into making both weaker instead of stronger. From what I'm standing society has changed, if things get more difficult relationships will change (to me it's good at the end) because people will think more and more what they are doing. It's a sad reality many despite their work have nowhere to live, it would be so amazing having integrated this into religious beliefs on "home" instead of "ceremony". It's actually pretty logic, but it's not mentioned with the importance it has. I'm going out of the topic sorry, will leave for a trip just today, that's all I can say. I did enjoyed many things in this thread. See you around.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

I am kind of surprised that a woman is complaining about the decline of marriage. These social changes were enacted in large part to "emancipate" young women from the "tyranny" of marriage and children. 

The average female now has sexual access to thousands upon thousands of males with no strings attached, and many have embraced this opportunity wholeheartedly. Because women control sexual selection in humans, the result is a small proportion of men starting to consolidate all the sexual capital. This trend is particularly pronounced on college campuses - with hookup culture, men are actually having _less_ sex on average than we were even 10 years ago, but a small slice are enjoying a feast of pussy.

I can't see an upside for myself (or most men for that matter) in a hypersexualised culture that discourages attachment. It isn't just women who can benefit from marriage and gender roles, men do as well. Of course it is morally wrong to support anything that might benefit men as a group


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

changos said:


> That's exactly what marriages has turned into.
> 
> I wonder how many "believers" would get married on a wooden ring, a sober pretty church, no mic or speakers, and a normal average dress, yes pretty intimate, where God is present and not smashed by all the noise and a bunch of people competing on dresses. Oh, sorry, oh yes, marriage is about commitment, God, and love, sure, yes.


I feel you. My relatives got madly angry when I told them that we'd have a 2 guests only marriage. With a ceremony later on in order for people to be fed and released into the wild in happiness. My girl doesn't even want a ring she just want the *full* meaning


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Arnljot said:


> I feel you. My relatives got madly angry when I told them that we'd have a 2 guests only marriage. With a ceremony later on in order for people to be fed and released into the wild in happiness. My girl doesn't even want a ring she just want the *full* meaning


Nice. I see two main groups in society:

1. The ones who want the full meaning as you say, sharing life
2. And the ones who keep talking about ceremonies, weddings, parties, church

Too bad #2 thinks #1 is not marriage, too bad for them!!! I'm not religious but sometimes I like to quote the Bible and related things regarding what people say, the mouth talks about what's in your heart... they say, so it is funny to keep hearing those people trying to define what marriage is (for the supposed sake of the rest of humanity).


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Inside Job said:


> I am kind of surprised that a woman is complaining about the decline of marriage. These social changes were enacted in large part to "emancipate" young women from the "tyranny" of marriage and children.
> 
> The average female now has sexual access to thousands upon thousands of males with no strings attached, and many have embraced this opportunity wholeheartedly. Because women control sexual selection in humans, the result is a small proportion of men starting to consolidate all the sexual capital. This trend is particularly pronounced on college campuses - with hookup culture, men are actually having _less_ sex on average than we were even 10 years ago, but a small slice are enjoying a feast of pussy.
> 
> I can't see an upside for myself (or most men for that matter) in a hypersexualised culture that discourages attachment. It isn't just women who can benefit from marriage and gender roles, men do as well. Of course it is morally wrong to support anything that might benefit men as a group


Which female is complaining? They're usually older, 30+ women who complain. You never see a 18-21 year old complaining about it.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

> *70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married*


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

I don't see the point in a guy getting married today. What is there in a marriage that a guy can't have 3 times better by remaining unmarried? It's just better on every conceivable scale.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

mytinyheart said:


> Young people don't know how to select their mates, that's why.


I would enhance your question and split into two. Why we even need have partner? Why we have to form lifelong bond with someone?


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> Why we even need have partner? Why we have to form lifelong bond with someone?


I'd like both Life-long partners and intimate bonds, just not within the context of marriage. Relationships should be a choice, *not *a legal obligation.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Aeneas321 said:


> I'd like both Life-long partners and intimate bonds, just not within the context of marriage. Relationships should be a choice, *not *a legal obligation.


Legal or not, you will receive pressure of your relatives, because you violate tradition of marriage.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> Legal or not, you will receive pressure of your relatives, because you violate tradition of marriage.


lol, not me. everyone around me already knows what I'm about.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Aeneas321 said:


> lol, not me. everyone around me already knows what I'm about.


Well, whatever. I still tend to believe, that they can't easily accept something like that. If not them, then someone who isn't from your relatives may won't like it. Some people are very traditional. Too bad introversion just wants to do otherwise. In the end balance between both may lead to wisdom/maturity.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> Well, whatever. I still tend to believe, that they can't easily accept something like that. If not them, then someone who isn't from your relatives may won't like it. Some people are very traditional. Too bad introversion just wants to do otherwise. In the end balance between both may lead to wisdom/maturity.


What other people want doesn't matter. People need to be mindful and respectful of ideas and customs that differ from their own. Not everyone is going to think like you, and, as long as it doesn't directly negatively affect you, it's ok. And therein is where true wisdom/maturity lies.

secondly, the institution of marriage was formed under circumstances that no longer prevail. to follow customs for custom's sake is backwards, and those who would impose such customs on you are ignorant of their true meaning/value.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Aeneas321 said:


> What other people want doesn't matter. People need to be mindful and respectful of ideas and customs that differ from their own. Not everyone is going to think like you, and, as long as it doesn't directly negatively affect you, it's ok. And therein is where true wisdom/maturity lies.


What other people want matters a lot. Communicational skills are value and adaptability is too. 



Aeneas321 said:


> secondly, the institution of marriage was formed under circumstances that no longer prevail. To follow customs for custom's sake is backwards, and those who would impose such customs on you are ignorant of their true meaning/value.


It's just different attitude, may be backwards, but feelings aren't logic.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> What other people want matters a lot.


Not in my personal/private life they don't.



The red spirit said:


> Communicational skills are value and adaptability is too.


They end the communication when they believe they can impose their arbitrary values on me.



The red spirit said:


> It's just different attitude, may be backwards, but feelings aren't logic.


Then fire for the fire.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Also, by marrying against your own desires you further perpetuate something you know is wrong onto future generations. Sometimes it's good to take a stand for what you know is right even if it does hurt your reputation a bit.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Aeneas321 said:


> Which female is complaining? They're usually older, 30+ women who complain. You never see a 18-21 year old complaining about it.


I didn't specify age, and you're really making my point for me. The relative ability of men and women to find a partner for long-term relationships is highly dependent on age. The typical woman aged 18-21 is in her sexual prime - she's also probably on a college campus surrounded by lots of horny guys, so can basically choose whomever she wishes. The most marriage-minded women (those who believe it's morally important to commit and who thus spurn casual sex) will generally marry their first or second boyfriend around this age and drop out of the dating pool. However most young people don't have strong moral convictions that make them commit. As such, commitment is dependent on (1.) your perception, accurate or not, of how many options you have (and for women, this declines steadily after age 21), and (2.) how satisfied you are with your current relationship status, whether that's single, casual or FWB.

So yes, your leverage over women will increase as time goes on, but in a way this is a bittersweet pill for men for swallow - the quality of the women left to date will go down over time as well. After all, beyond a certain age single women (and men) are probably still single for a good reason - maybe they have unreasonably high standards, commitment phobia, are too career-oriented, obese, or have such negative views about the opposite sex that nobody will fuck them.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Inside Job said:


> So yes, your leverage over women will increase as time goes on, but in a way this is a bittersweet pill for men for swallow - the quality of the women left to date will go down over time as well. After all, beyond a certain age single women (and men) are probably still single for a good reason - maybe they have unreasonably high standards, commitment phobia, are too career-oriented, obese, or have such negative views about the opposite sex that nobody will fuck them.


For the older guys who want marriage, just keep hitting the lower age range until you hit a gem, that's all.

Get a car, your own place, money to spare. I don't see how he can lose unless he just completely sucks.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Aeneas321 said:


> For guys who want marriage, just keep hitting the lower age range until you hit a gem, that's all.


My second girlfriend was 18, an ISFP, a virgin and extremely idealistic, if naive, about love. While it might feel nice to be receiving the attentions of a young girl who is absolutely devoted to you (I was the center of her life), there are challenges as well. You are a bit like a Daddy figure; you can't expect to be understood or get your emotional needs met by someone so young. She was still figuring herself out, and had no idea about the practical ins and outs of what's required to make a relationship work. She was so caught up in her own flurry of lovey feelings that she never listened to me and ignored my needs. She wasn't able to understand my style of subtle, mysterious, hidden double meanings in communication either, and needed things spelt out directly for her, which meant I couldn't flirt with her, I couldn't joke around and play with her. I could trigger her just by teasing about periods and PMS, everything was so damn serious.

Basically we were highly compatible in the sense that our values and priorities were very complimentary. But we had no sexual chemistry and no emotional connection. It would have been a loveless marriage from my perspective. She felt totally understood by me, but I wasn't getting anything back. My point is that a lot of high school girls (universities are responsible for a lot of our problems) are quite keen to "fall in love"; they get attached very quickly, and if you are an "older guy", like mid 20s, you are also a huge status symbol which they can show off to their friends. But relationships with them are not easy...

I think 22 - 24 is the ideal age to get married as a woman. Maybe about five years older for men, 27 - 29.


----------



## Index (May 17, 2017)

Great! I hope even less people in future feel pressured to marry just because others do it.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Index said:


> Great! I hope even less people in future feel pressured to marry just because others do it.


That makes no sense since apparently no else is. It would actually be the opposite; marrying because they don't care if it isn't cool anymore.



The red spirit said:


> What other people want matters a lot. Communicational skills are value and adaptability is too.


Yeah, no one thinks my single 60+ hobo-looking, Pot-headed, Red Piller Father is cool.
..except for his Hobo-lookin-Pot-head-trashy garage band members who live with him.

And they are not living with him because they totally have, like, a million other places to be.


----------



## Index (May 17, 2017)

Fumetsu said:


> That makes no sense since apparently no else is. It would actually be the opposite; marrying because they don't care if it isn't cool anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey now, I didn't say that I expect or hope /nobody/ to get married, just less people. There will still be an overwhelming number who do and continue to set norms for people to conform too.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That number surprised me. Anyway, here is a rant on how it is supposedly bad:
> 
> Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says




Only if your nation's future is dependant upon the population buying into the totally artifical and created concept of nuclear families, getting married and producing children according to arbitrary standards. I realise that the US is somewhat fanatical about this whole getting married and having kids thing as being 'the thing' to do in life, but even so. It reads entirely nonsensical to someone who hasn't been raised with that kind of indoctrinated ideology. What is this? The war on single people now?


----------



## Winter Queen (May 16, 2017)

Why does everyone need to be married? The world is overpopulated enough without everyone needing a mini-me running around.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Winter Queen said:


> Why does everyone need to be married? The world is overpopulated enough without everyone needing a mini-me running around.


Although I won't get married, I wouldn't mind a mini-me, or seven.


----------



## Winter Queen (May 16, 2017)

Aeneas321 said:


> Although I won't get married, I wouldn't mind a mini-me, or seven.


Seven? That will be expensive.

I'm not against marriage or children, but the pressure to do it considering the population problem is absurd.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Winter Queen said:


> Seven? That will be expensive.
> 
> I'm not against marriage or children, but the pressure to do it considering the population problem is absurd.


to be honest, i think the population thing is a bit overly exaggerated. i don't think the solution is for people to stop having kids.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Winter Queen said:


> Why does everyone need to be married? The world is overpopulated enough without everyone needing a mini-me running around.


I agree very strongly. If you REALLY need more than one kid, adopt one of the millions in foster homes.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Fumetsu said:


> Yeah, no one thinks my single 60+ hobo-looking, Pot-headed, Red Piller Father is cool.
> ..except for his Hobo-lookin-Pot-head-trashy garage band members who live with him.
> 
> And they are not living with him because they totally have, like, a million other places to be.


I think you will be able to figure out what I meant yourself. Your example just doesn't work.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Winter Queen said:


> Seven? That will be expensive.
> 
> I'm not against marriage or children, but the pressure to do it considering the population problem is absurd.


There is no "population problem" unless you live in Africa. It is propaganda, pure propaganda, designed to scare you into not having children. Don't believe me? Here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...e.svg/1200px-Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg.png

All the countries in blue are _not having enough_ children to sustain their existing population. This is a very serious situation directly responsible for problems such as an aging workforce, shrinking tax base and loss of productivity/innovation, as well as vulnerability to being overwhelmed by mass migration. So the facts are that we need _more_ babies, not less. You have been lied to.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> I think you will be able to figure out what I meant yourself. Your example just doesn't work.


*Shrug* I was being facetious.. I thought that was obvious.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Fumetsu said:


> *Shrug* I was being facetious.. I thought that was obvious.


You know ISFPs are serious sometimes too. Actually whole quadra has some problems with getting jokes.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> You know ISFPs are serious sometimes too. Actually whole quadra has some problems with getting jokes.


Heh, I know. To this day my husband can never tell when I am being sarcastic or facetious, which is most of the time.


----------



## Winter Queen (May 16, 2017)

Inside Job said:


> There is no "population problem" unless you live in Africa. It is propaganda, pure propaganda, designed to scare you into not having children. Don't believe me? Here:
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...e.svg/1200px-Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg.png
> 
> All the countries in blue are _not having enough_ children to sustain their existing population. This is a very serious situation directly responsible for problems such as an aging workforce, shrinking tax base and loss of productivity/innovation, as well as vulnerability to being overwhelmed by mass migration. So the facts are that we need _more_ babies, not less. You have been lied to.


Mass migration is happening and has already happened in Europe and North America. It just means there will be less white people on average, not less people altogether.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Winter Queen said:


> Mass migration is happening and has already happened in Europe and North America. It just means there will be less white people on average, not less people altogether.



MORE people as they tend have much larger families. Combine that with being in a wasteful, consumer country where every baby takes up 4x the resources as any other country and yeah, it's not good. Kind of an enormous step backward.

And my apologizes but if I don't say it my grammar OCD will destroy me: FEWER people.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Winter Queen said:


> Mass migration is happening and has already happened in Europe and North America. It just means there will be less white people on average, not less people altogether.


You do not have the right to live wherever you like. Millions of people from Africa trying to enter Europe will be enough to start a war. Actions have consequences.

And oh look, now we're talking about politics again XD


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Aeneas321 said:


> I don't see the point in a guy getting married today. What is there in a marriage that a guy can't have 3 times better by remaining unmarried? It's just better on every conceivable scale.


Heirs and assigns, should he manage to avoid divorce. (Reasoning, circular; see also circular reasoning.)


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Inside Job said:


> There is no "population problem" unless you live in Africa. It is propaganda, pure propaganda, designed to scare you into not having children. Don't believe me? Here:
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...e.svg/1200px-Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg.png
> 
> All the countries in blue are _not having enough_ children to sustain their existing population. This is a very serious situation directly responsible for problems such as an aging workforce, shrinking tax base and loss of productivity/innovation, as well as vulnerability to being overwhelmed by mass migration. So the facts are that we need _more_ babies, not less. You have been lied to.


Hence the haste to import foreign masses, to "prop up" the Ponzi retirement schemes (never mind that too many of the imports are net consumers of social services and tax dollars, aside from the loss of societal comity, let alone any _jihadistic_ leanings); note, too the rush to offshore and outsource as much production as possible outside of the US, the better to replace an aging workforce (aging consumers) ... but starting from the Third World, the monetary pump must be primed for a long time before they are fit to spend as much as the average US consumer; not to mention the "sucker's bet" by which certain Third World countries (OK, China and India) insisted on the intellectual property in addition to the physical plant, the better to create knock-offs and jumpstart their own domestic industry to compete with the off-shored Western companies...


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Inside Job said:


> There is no "population problem" unless you live in Africa. It is propaganda, pure propaganda, designed to scare you into not having children. Don't believe me? Here:
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...e.svg/1200px-Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg.png
> 
> All the countries in blue are _not having enough_ children to sustain their existing population. This is a very serious situation directly responsible for problems such as an aging workforce, shrinking tax base and loss of productivity/innovation, as well as vulnerability to being overwhelmed by mass migration. So the facts are that we need _more_ babies, not less. You have been lied to.


Don't you know that for every Western baby that is born, 5 African children die of starvation every year. Stop killing the 3rd world children, Job!


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Aeneas321 said:


> Don't you know that for every Western baby that is born, 5 African children die of starvation every year. Stop killing the 3rd world children, Job!


If the bleeding hearts were as passionate, empathetic and determined to support their own partners and families as they were some random on the other side of the world, a lot of the problems we see in society would disappear overnight. But I have noticed a tendency for preachy, self-righteous people to be truly fucked up. The preaching is their mask, their way of compensating for this. They seek to drag you and I down into their mediocre, bitter world. Pretty sad.

So much of what's wrong in the world is due to misplaced (and not entirely sincere) empathy. People are too busy virtue-signalling their tolerance for diversity to focus on self-actualization and create a meaningful, close, intimate loving relationship with another human being. The "peace and kindness" nonsense is so fake and superficial, I truly despise the people who fuel it.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

Inside Job said:


> But I have noticed a tendency for preachy, self-righteous people to be truly fucked up. The preaching is their mask, their way of compensating for this. They seek to drag you and I down into their mediocre, bitter world. Pretty sad.


I know right!? They're just a bunch of cucks that want to give you AIDS.

At least that's what @Cheveyo told me.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

DudeGuy said:


> I know right!? They're just a bunch of cucks that want to give you AIDS.
> 
> At least that's what Cheveyo told me.




Dude, learn to take a hint. You and I could never work.

He's Just Not That Into You (2009) - IMDb


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

Cheveyo said:


> Dude, learn to take a hint. You and I could never work.
> 
> He's Just Not That Into You (2009) - IMDb


You're right, I'm single, It just wouldn't work out.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Aeneas321 said:


> Don't you know that for every Western baby that is born, 5 African children die of starvation every year. Stop killing the 3rd world children, Job!



Your statement *appears* to reflect a shallow, factually incorrect mindset.

They're doing a splendid job of killing each other, and apparently have been doing so for time immemorial.

Stanford's Paul Ehrlich came out with a book called _The Population Bomb_, in 1970. I remember the words on the cover:
"While you are reading these words, four people will have starved to death, most of them children."

In this book, this is Ehrlich's _best case_ scenario:_

America, in *1974*, stops food aid to India, Egypt, and some other countries which it considers beyond hope. There's food rationing in the United States. The pope approves birth control and abortion. Famines and food riots sweep Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Arab world, plus plagues and warfare. Russia has a lot of internal problems. What's left of the world sets a global population goal of 2 billion for year 2025 and 1.5 billion for 2100.

_Food rationing in the US? The United States cutting off food aid to India and Egypt? Famines sweeping Asia (which, you know, includes China, the 2nd largest economy in the world now), Latin America, and the Arab World?

Well, he got plagues right (AIDS, Ebola, bird flu) but those aren't food related.

He got Russia's problems right (but that was Reagan's doing).

He got the warfare right, but I bet he didn't think it'd be the US kicking Saddam Hussein's ass on a global scale; and I bet he wouldn't have approved of the estimated 500,000 - 800,000 Rwandans killed by other Rwandans (often by machete!) whilst the UN and President "tolerant, liberal" BJ Clinton sat idly by.

And Pope Francis hasn't yet approved birth control and abortion, even if he's talking about letting divorcees and those living in fornication take Communion.

But there are two other problems.

One is, there have been widespread famines independent of the US or the West. Go look up Wikipedia, or Infogalactic, on "Famines in China" and see the massive famines in the 1800s and 1900s, before Americans started driving SUVs and stuff.

And the other, is that the US has been for a long time, not only a net exporter of gobs of food to the world, but the developer of technology to make farming more productive and plants higher yielding. Norman Borlaug ("The Green Revolution") got a NOBEL PRIZE 
for his contributions to agriculture, estimated to have fed 1 BILLION people.

What left-wing propaganda mills are you getting your information from, anyway?


----------



## Jeffrei (Aug 23, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That number surprised me. Anyway, here is a rant on how it is supposedly bad:
> 
> Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”
> “Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
> ...


I'm sorry, but freaking screw society! Society could rot in a cold dark cell in the bottom of the river and I wouldn't care at all.

Society condemns me to "learning" for the majority of my youth, society makes it near impossible for me to get a start in life until around 23/24... heck society says I can sign up to go kill people and risk my own life at 18 but I have to wait several years before I can rent a car, book a hotel, buy alcohol, or even be taken seriously by investors and the business world. Society has bigger problems than me waiting to get married as a result of its freakin screw ups! Ever thought that maybe it is society's fault that so many young men aren't married? I say if society is in jeopardy because I won't get married at a young age but it is completely fine with all of the other things it has going on then it can go suck on a nuclear warhead.


----------



## Winter Queen (May 16, 2017)

Inside Job said:


> You do not have the right to live wherever you like. Millions of people from Africa trying to enter Europe will be enough to start a war. Actions have consequences.
> 
> And oh look, now we're talking about politics again XD


I wasn't even talking politics, but just stating, free from opinion, what I foresee given the situation on the ground and the current political climate. Immigration without assimilation definitely leads to a number of problems, as Europe is learning the hard way.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

*It takes a man to live
It takes a woman to make him compromise*
Lyrics. Song: Flowers in your hair (by The Lumineers).

I was dating this woman, who said didn't want to get married and didn't believe in marriage (I don't but I do believe in sharing life, *so that's back to the original meaning of marriage, not this social construct *of making your guest happy and spending lots of money etc). We had a relationship and then she wanted to get married etc. and honestly she fucked up.

Let's be fucking honest, we men can love a woman, but most times, like almost the majority... we wait, is women who want to rush things into marriage. It is not often or common (yes let's fucking face it) that a man starts talking "_let's get married let's get married_" so while we take our time there is something for women to be done so we don't change our mind, some people call this -convincing- others call it -keep the flame alive-. See, when a man is telling you that he loves you, is not a matter of roses, a ceremony, a party, is about being with you (don't create a discussion about how some people lie, let's stay with the line of the topic).


So, long story short, sometimes people don't want to get married, and sometimes there are lots of people who want to, and believe in it, and believe in love, relationships and marriage, but they face fucked up situations so they... we learn to wait some more and not to fall in the blah blah of superficial stuff, we want the real deal. Anyway, at the end when I ended the relationship I was talking about she hated me, hated me intensively but time went by, until she realized she... she fucked up everything, then she placed those lines (the lyrics) on many places, as a sign of accepting her failure to keep me convinced that living with her was a good idea.

See, is not just about convincing women, you have to work some too, we men are not here to do what you want when you want to, at the end we men just as you women will do things when we feel and think is ok, otherwise... don't be so happy about those men who submit to the social constructs.



Something more... I've seen posts (serious posts) about separating the social constructs, the law, the benefits, etc and deal with it, WAIT. The social construct matters for people to AVOID marriage, why? because as long as theres lots of stupid people, they think what "most people do" is the normal way of life, so they try to impose that on you forgetting marriage is personal, marriage is about you two, *in short: forgetting the most important basic stuff about marriage, that you both decide, not everyone else*.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

This statistic is very misleading. 

It fails to account that most people are MARRYING later in life. Therefore if you include 20-25 year-olds into this stats, who have almost 0% of people marrying, it will skew the data significantly. 

Studies showed that majority of the people do eventually get married, so this Post is nothing but hot air.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Cheveyo said:


> Dude, learn to take a hint. You and I could never work.
> 
> He's Just Not That Into You (2009) - IMDb


That article was just too funny. ;D


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Jonneh said:


> I'm sorry, but freaking screw society! Society could rot in a cold dark cell in the bottom of the river and I wouldn't care at all.
> 
> Society condemns me to "learning" for the majority of my youth, society makes it near impossible for me to get a start in life until around 23/24... heck society says I can sign up to go kill people and risk my own life at 18 but I have to wait several years before I can rent a car, book a hotel, buy alcohol, or even be taken seriously by investors and the business world. Society has bigger problems than me waiting to get married as a result of its freakin screw ups! Ever thought that maybe it is society's fault that so many young men aren't married? I say if society is in jeopardy because I won't get married at a young age but it is completely fine with all of the other things it has going on then it can go suck on a nuclear warhead.


It's almost like society is made up in part by adults who are older and wiser than you. 

roud:


----------



## Jeffrei (Aug 23, 2016)

BlackDog said:


> It's almost like society is made up in part by adults who are older and wiser than you.
> 
> roud:


Almost. The only thing that's different is the wisdom. ;D


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Jonneh said:


> Almost. The only thing that's different is the wisdom. ;D


I don't mean to poke fun, your post just made me smile. How immortal is the distaste of youth for lessons and social norms. More than two thousand years after the invention of paper and parents are still dragging children back to their books. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if Athenian children were using sharpened blades to give themselves mohawks and lamenting their inability to own property.

The scariest part is when your parents and teachers and all their oppressive rules start to make sense.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Did not mean that last comment nearly as patronizing as it sounded, by the way. Just doesn't seem like very long ago I felt the same way and it's funny to me now. My dad always told me I was gonna change my mind about these things and at some point he was right. Wouldn't tell him that though.


----------



## Jeffrei (Aug 23, 2016)

BlackDog said:


> I don't mean to poke fun, your post just made me smile. How immortal is the distaste of youth for lessons and social norms. More than two thousand years after the invention of paper and parents are still dragging children back to their books. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if Athenian children were using sharpened blades to give themselves mohawks and lamenting their inability to own property.
> 
> The scariest part is when your parents and teachers and all their oppressive rules start to make sense.


Really? I have trouble seeing a 40-50% divorce rate telling young people we need to get married young making sense. Especially given that most young people can't even rent a hotel. That would make for an awkward honeymoon. Young people aren't even done with college until most of their early twenties are gone. Those of us that wish to actually take college seriously are going to have one heck of a time finding affordable housing, supporting a family, and maintaining a reasonable GPA. Plus weddings aren't free, marriage licenses are a thing, and (ironically enough) society frowns on young marriages (I'd know. My brother did it). The fact that they are shaking in their boots because I want to wait until I have a stable job and a place of my own is crazy. 

I'm not giving myself a strange hairdo, and I'm not suggesting anything unreasonable like throwing my life away in pursuit of youthful desires. I'm saying society should get its crap together before worrying about my personal choice to wait till I feel ready.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

BlackDog said:


> My dad always told me I was gonna change my mind about these things and at some point he was right. Wouldn't tell him that though.


I am feeling bad for your dad. Tell him!


----------



## septic tank (Jul 21, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> I don't mean to poke fun, your post just made me smile. How immortal is the distaste of youth for lessons and social norms.


Sure, some youth try to reject every social norm out there just to be trendy.

But to say that every social norm and rule currently in place is valid is incorrect. We should be critical of the social norms and rules in place. 

A lot of what @Jonneh specifically stated weren't trivial complaints about hair styles and fashion. They were about serious matters older people often take for granted, like renting a car or hotel room. My boyfriend couldn't arrange a student loan payment plan by himself because he was under 21. I remember when I couldn't get my own debit card from the bank because I was under 18.

I feel like most of these age limits are simply put in place because of the stereotype that young people are irresponsible. I'm fortunate where I had a family to help back me up, but what if there was a young person who knew no one older than her, and couldn't access these resources because of these age barriers?

No, not every young person is complaining about spiking their mohawk and how much they hate work. And yes we have problems, the most serious being student loan debt. (Where are the parents stopping their children from incurring tens of thousands of dollars of debt for a liberal arts degree anyways?)



To me, the adults I see are teenagers pretending to be what they think an adult is. If you took away everyone's age and appearance, could you even tell who are the adults?

I've wondered for a while if most of the stereotypical problems of my generation--materialism, narcissism, emotional irrationality--aren't only problems with my generation, but with everyone. It's a societal issue more than the new generation issue. Older generations project these problems on to us and try to fix us, to avoid fixing these problems within themselves. They do this because it's easier to fix another person's problems instead of your own.

I don't buy older generations being any wiser than people my age. There's no greater force in humanity than its own stupidity, and age doesn't prevent stupidity. Neither does race, sex, political affiliation, or any other way you can dice up people. Most people are just stupid, my own age group included.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Sundae said:


> I'd like both Life-long partners and intimate bonds, just not within the context of marriage. Relationships should be a choice, *not *a legal obligation.


If you left it entirely up to people, very few of them would actually put work into their relationships and ensure they last. Way less than half of people would actually form lifelong partnerships. Most people would basically just serially date their entire lives, which is an awful way to raise children.

It's good to have marriage in place to encourage people to work on their relationships rather than just abandon them after they've squeezed all the fun out. After all, it's all about raising the next generation right.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Dante Scioli said:


> If you left it entirely up to people, very few of them would actually put work into their relationships and ensure they last.
> Way less than half of people would actually form lifelong partnerships. Most people would basically just serially date their entire lives, which is an awful way to raise children.
> 
> It's good to have marriage in place to encourage people to work on their relationships rather than just abandon them after they've squeezed all the fun out. After all, it's all about raising the next generation right.


no, i think modern culture is backwards and on the verge of collapse, if not already on the floor. if you need a third party to tell u what to do in a relationship u probably won't have it work out anyway is my opinion. in ancient cultures people were proud of their families and proud of the communities they helped build. that sense of honor and pride is lost in modern western society due to a barrage of bad politics and economic instability over the course of time resulting in the serial daters we see today. people had self-control, self-discipline, and some sort of life orientation. the existential nihilism is pervaded throughout modern culture has destroyed all that. I'm happy to be single and not take part in most of what's happening today. i can maintain my sanity and self-worth

anyway, i would never be attracted to someone who didn't want it as seriously as i do unless they were constantly prodded by some sort of external force.


----------



## Chime (Apr 20, 2017)

I'm among that 70% of unmarried men.
I have no desire to every get married.

I've got quite a few reasons why as well.

I saw my parents go through a divorce and my dad had to pay child support for 4 kids to a woman who was very emotionally abusive to those children and very irrational with her money and spending. It was such a toxic environment I left and went to live with my dad. While living under his care he was still paying child support to my mother despite taking care of me from 14-18... Only 3 or those months did I live at my mothers house. Also they got divorced when I was 14. So, the idea of taking care of a kid and paying someone else to take care of the same kid is kinda screwy to me. 

I saw my uncle get a divorce and have to pay child support and spousal support. After his kids had grown up and he was no longer paying spousal support he had remarried by that time. His 2nd wife got a divorce and he was paying spousal support for 2 women, and child support for a kid that he was taking care of anyway. She was still living with him after the divorce and he was still paying her.

I've seen a lot of people get divorced and the guy usually doesn't get custody of his children and has to pay spousal support and child support. I've never once seen or heard of anyone women I know paying for child support or spousal support or losing their house and car in a divorce.


It feels like a trap. Like there is nothing to gain from it and everything to lose. I don't care for it.


I also don't want kids because I've seen things like my younger brother has not seen his son in 5 years and he's paying child support. He very much wants to see his son and keeps having to jump through hoops in court to try to arrange it so he can see his son and it's stressing him out. He's got depression and anxiety and this just makes it worse and worse for him. The mother of his child let's whoever she happens to be dating at the moment hang out around my nephew and occasionally goes out to dinner with my father, and it seems it's only cause he's going to pay for the meal. But she doesn't let the kids father who wants to see him go and see him ever. He's missing his son growing up and he very much wants to be there. And who knows what she's telling that kid about him while he's getting older about his father. 



I don't want children and I don't want to get married. 
I have been in too many situations where people misunderstand my intentions and make a negative assumption about me and just run with it to care to give someone that much control and power over my life. 

To consider having a child with someone I'd have to be with them for a good 5+ years and really trust them. Even then I don't feel like it would be enough for me to be comfortable putting myself in a situation where I can get screwed out of my money and never get to see my kid. 

Marriage?! screw that. There is no benefit for me, just a bunch of negatives.


----------



## typethisperson (Feb 4, 2017)

good grief, really? i want to go back to the 70s where men would pop the question in your early 20s and the music was great.


----------



## typethisperson (Feb 4, 2017)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> People die later in their lives now too.


lol yep forever seemed like a fortnight in the past.


----------

