Posted on 09/03/2017 11:34:00 AM PDT by EdnaMode
Thanks to cheap sex, marriage may be doomed.
The share of Americans ages 25-34 who are married dropped 13 percentage points from 2000 to 2014. A new book by sociologist Mark Regnerus blames this declining rate on how easy it is for men to get off.
Regnerus calls it “cheap sex,” an economic term meant to describe sex that has very little cost in terms of time or emotional investment, giving it little value.
Regnerus bases his ideas, in part, on the work of British social theorist Anthony Giddens, who argued that the pill isolated sex from marriage and children. Add online pornography and dating sites to the mix and you don’t even need relationships.
The result is “two overlapping (but distinctive) markets, one for sex and one for marriage, with a rather large territory in between comprised of significant relationships of varying commitment and duration,” Regnerus writes in “Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy” (Oxford University Press).
In generations past, women generally made men wait until marriage to have sex. To get a wife (and, therefore, sex), men had to be clean and presentable and have a good job. This, Regnerus reasons, gave men all the motivation they needed to become respectable members of society.
Now with porn on-demand and greater reproductive freedom, sex is a commodity available at any time. This has left men with little motivation for marriage, writes Regnerus, who cites demographer Steven Ruggles’ prediction that one of every three people in their 20s will never marry.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I agree, and well said for a Savage Beast :-)
Hey, I dated her in the 1980’s! —— much to my misfortune.
” with a lady friend who paid for her own way.”
What was in it for her?
That seems sort of sad that after all that you went home alone.
Creepy suits you.
Have a nice day.
Relax.
“Again, just because some men find the risks outweigh the rewards doesn’t automatically mean someone is spewing “hate.””
I was thinking about that. If the roles were reversed, and men walked away with all the goodies from marriage (or were at least perceived to), I suspect there would be a lot of women pretty upset about it...while the men could just sit back and call the women ‘whiners’.
That is very true.
Much like liberals demanding everyone support their position, any dissenters are “haters.”
Cheers, have to check out now. Wife calling me for dinner.
I just thought of it when you posted to me. It fits.
Go ahead, I will allow you the last word. I know you need it. I’ve beat you down pretty well without really trying female.
“Creepy suits you.”
Thanx honey...*wink
You’re one gay guy who doesn’t have a sense of humor. Did the Joan Crawford film festival flame out on you?
Women didn’t change. Feminism revealed their true nature.
Too many MGTOWs are fat, beta losers.
Well...some are bitter.
Me, I’m a wise guy Joker with a sad story that pops out occasionally but One
Should be a little circumspect.
Before Roe v. Wade and the Pill, sex before marriage was a social disaster, and many tried to avoid that.
First, since I am often misunderstood when I address to multiple people, this is a general notation not reflecting on anyone in particular. Second, it is addressed to a few postings I found interesting in one form or another.
After having read many postings I am firmly confirmed that my life is a pattern that is generally extince and that much of what has become of relationships is self-destructive and not sustainable.
Many times in the last 42 years I would rather not have been married for the moment but then thought of our children and their children to come and that one promise I made to a young girl who believed I meant it. Instead of being like so many of the day she may have been able to but did not expect to be economically independent but instead she expected to be a wife, mother and partner. I am absolutely certain that over the years she would rather not have been married, to my great disappointment.
While growing up I figured a life such as that of my parents with more good than bad but not without some chronic struggles. I also figured on a life pretty simple just work, long term goals, raising good kids, being decent and earning respect, successful but probably not rich and winding down to patriarchal but quiet end life of reflection and pursuits unrequited and to serve God as best I could in that life. Some things I have succeeded well in and others not so much. Nothing is perfect. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose and often you simmer between the two. I’ve made mistakes, chosen poorly and live with the substandard consequences.
The Book tells both of us, man and woman, what we must do for a happy life and a happy marriage. I tried to live that and look for that in a wife from the time I was a young man and my fancies turned from the thoughts of a child to those of an adult.
The first duties are husband to wife. He is the one of whom the first obligation is expected. If husband does this then wife should do that. NOT the other way around.
Husbands: https://www.openbible.info/topics/husband_duties
Wives: https://www.openbible.info/topics/wifely_duties
Life is simple. You take a job you do the job. If you don’t want to do the job don’t take it. If you decide to shove off you suffer all the consequences. If you choose not to believe God’s word or to live by his instructions the choice is yours. Take whatever consequence comes.
As for society today and the way men are treated. It is bad, the deck is stacked and women are dangerous now. The roles have been confused, reversed and ignored. Much of what our society promotes and considers acceptable is open rebellion with what we are told will be unsuccessful outcomes. Under the circumstances of this day I would probably not be married without taking a leap of faith to find someone who might be equally yoked.
If any young people have read this I’ll add: “Too old soon. Too late smart.” There are many things I wish someone had told me and if they did I wish I had sense enough to listen and wisdom enough to understand.
I think you're right. I live near a University and there are so many stunning looking guys and girls.
But one mile down the street is the big city library and the percentage of overweight young people who come there is pretty high.
My point is that education, upbringing, and the culture you live in make a big difference.
Well done analysis of early Canadian history! I would not have deduced what you did, but your logic makes sense -— and is interesting.
>>Women didn’t change. Feminism revealed their true nature.
I have to disagree with that. Feminists are perpetually angry and dissatisfied. A real woman is less angry and dissatisfied. ;-)
Before Roe v. Wade and the Pill, sex before marriage was a social disaster, and many tried to avoid that.
I'm trying hard to remember (I was so young then) if any adult, my parents included, ever discussed with me the social implications or consequences of those two landmark events: the introduction (to married women and then to the general population) of oral contraception ("The Pill") and of the Roe v. Wade abortion decision.
I was raised Catholic, and all I knew of were the whispered discussions of the mysterious "Pill" found in my mother's "women's magazines" (looking back, the recipes and household tips aside, they were generally full of tripe) and the fact that in the mainstream culture, Catholics were held in contempt because they (officially) did not believe in artificial contraception. No one at church sat down with us kids and discussed it with us, not even in Confirmation class. There were occasional articles in The Catholic Voice diocesan newspaper, which we received, but my parents never talked about it with me.
As for Roe v. Wade, this trickled down to me in the form of "fetus" suddenly entering the media's vocabulary and thereby forming the boundaries of discussion. No one at school (we received sex education in the sixth grade at our public school) talked about what abortion really meant, except in coldly clinical terms, the "termination" of a pregnancy.
There were far-reaching social implications and no one had a clue.
Marrying native women occured more frequently among trappers and frontiersmen from all the settler groups -- English, Scottish, etc. because stalking animals for fur or food was more approximate to the native American ways. They employed Amerindians as trail guides, canoeists and fellow hunters. Makes sense they would meet their sisters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.