Replies

Some of us old people were around in the 60s' and early 70s' when the femanatzis declared that monigemous marrige was prostitution,

It depresses me how much of the evil crap those people sowed has taken root. What is all this business about "Why buy the cow?" if not a description of marriage as prostitution? Do these people really think that, or is that one of those Officially Approved Profound Statements that people use to avoid discussion of these issues?

The "buy the cow" argument is also one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. There was no shortage of pre-marital sex in the 1970's, or the 1960's, and probably not in the 1950's. Certainly not in the 1920's. In spite of that, most people in those generations got married. Nobody talked about men staging a "marriage strike" back then. That the current situation is caused by the free availability of sex is pure BS.

I don't doubt that if you ask 1,000 random young men why they're not married, you're going to hear a lot of "Why should I? I can get laid without it." But that's them dismissing you; that's not a real answer. Men have able to get laid without getting married for millions of years. Marriage is about something else.

One of the "something else's" is children. A man can have no reasonable expectation in this society that he can live in the same house with his children. It is an everyday occurence now that some man hears from The Black Robe that he has just become a visitor in his childrens' lives, by order of the court. What kind of deal is that? Why would anyone knowingly walk into that? Can there be anything more gut-wrenching than to have your children taken away from you? What kind of deal is this "marriage" stuff if that can happen?

The other "something else" is commitment. Half the young people today grew up themselves with divorce. They know there is no such thing as commitment. Those who grew up as boys also know that there is no place in a "family" for an adult male. A "family" is a Mommy and her kids. That's what their family was. That's what all the families around them were. When push comes to shove, they will be treated as disposable because they are men, and they know it. Nobody can convince these guys that everything will be just fine if they find the "right woman." What was their mother, the "wrong" woman? No... it can happen no matter what, and they know it. And they don't want it to happen to them.

These are perfectly human responses to actual events. These young men don't believe in commitment -- they've seen with their own eyes that there's no such thing -- and they don't want to have children if all that's going to happen is that they'll be taken away. Is any of this humanity honored, or even understood? No. What we hear is that they're not getting married because they are immature, or because the only reason men ever got married was for sex. It's just more damned dehumanizing of men, which is the other legacy of those 1960's bitches. That someone might not want to have children, bond with them, love them, and then have them wrenched away because they themselves have the wrong plumbing to suit some jerk in a black robe, just doesn't seem to register with some people.

Listen to this crap. "We can control them with sex. All we have to do is stop giving it away." Talk about dehumanizing the other half of the population.

I got some woman on my case right now because I called her spade a spade when she suggested that women not "give it away for free." What did she have in mind... charging for it? Probably not money.. at least not until the divorce. No, she was talking about trading sex for marriage proposals. Same damned thing: I have this, you want it, I want that, you have it, let's make a deal.

Whatever happened to forming families and raising children? I'm listening to these people talk about arranged marriages in Korea and I'm thinking,... "maybe not such a bad idea. At least they 'get' what it's about."

It seems like half the people on this thread are talking about sex as a form of currency. Trade it for this, trade it for that. If he won't propose, take it away. Talk about cheapening themselves. It reminds me of the old joke... now we're just haggling over the price.

These are perfectly human responses to actual events. These young men don't believe in commitment -- they've seen with their own eyes that there's no such thing -- and they don't want to have children if all that's going to happen is that they'll be taken away. Is any of this humanity honored, or even understood? No. What we hear is that they're not getting married because they are immature, or because the only reason men ever got married was for sex. It's just more damned dehumanizing of men, which is the other legacy of those 1960's bitches. That someone might not want to have children, bond with them, love them, and then have them wrenched away because they themselves have the wrong plumbing to suit some jerk in a black robe, just doesn't seem to register with some people.

Good post. I reread the original article. Then I read some of the responses and I see much of what you see. I went back to the original 600+ post thread and saw it there as well. There were an overwhelming number of supportive responses by men. There were quite a few women that also understood the gyst of the article and were supportive. In fact, as far as I can see, most people seem to understand the motives behind this growing number of men shying away from marriage.

But there were and remain a few who's best response is something akin to "we didn't want them anyways" or "I can do without" or a host of other things including what you have written. Some have taken it to a personal level and some just plain think that anybody that doesn't kiss their butt is some kind of "woman hater" or some other such nonsense.

Myself, I've seen the same things that the guys in this article have seen. The vast majority of divorces I've seen end up with the male getting the short end of the stick. Not all of them, but the vast majority. Is there any wonder that men are becoming less willing to tie that knot?

The "buy the cow" argument is also one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. There was no shortage of pre-marital sex in the 1970's, or the 1960's, and probably not in the 1950's. Certainly not in the 1920's. In spite of that, most people in those generations got married. Nobody talked about men staging a "marriage strike" back then. That the current situation is caused by the free availability of sex is pure BS.

Robert Heinlein made that point in one of the essays in Expanded Universe -- citing the old adage as proof that marriage needed to offer more than a regular sex partner in order to remain a viable institution.

It seems like half the people on this thread are talking about sex as a form of currency

Absolutely, and it's disgusting. Sex is a normal human drive, not a commodity. Both sexes have a sex drive and interest in sex. God made it that way for a reason. He did not make the sex drive glorified in men and deplorable in women.

It is an everyday occurence now that some man hears from The Black Robe that he has just become a visitor in his childrens' lives, by order of the court. What kind of deal is that?

And while he's holding his head in his hands, contemplating the enormity of it all, his ex-wife, clear-eyed to the last and with a pat of butter sitting unmelted on her tongue, has a lawyer read to her the fine print in the Violence Against Women Act......and then drops a dime to the local BATF or FBI office to inform them that her suddenly-ex husband, now under a restraining order as is the rule in contested divorces in Texas and other states, is in felonious possession of a couple of pistols and an old shotgun.

And now her ex is on the road to Leavenworth. Just like Dr. Timothy Emerson, in his case now pending.

Good post. BTTT for old-style matrimony.

"The "buy the cow" argument is also one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. There was no shortage of pre-marital sex in the 1970's, or the 1960's, and probably not in the 1950's. Certainly not in the 1920's. In spite of that, most people in those generations got married. Nobody talked about men staging a "marriage strike" back then. That the current situation is caused by the free availability of sex is pure BS."

It is perhaps dumb to you, but not as dumb to many others. There has always been societal norms in the male and females relationship. In our society, marriage has been the natural relationship between men and women. You are correct in that men and women have had sexual relations without marriage, but where do you suppose that the word, slut, came from? There has always been a stigma on promiscuity. Men have largely gotten away with this and women have rebelled. But, instead of making men adher to a standard, women have simply become just as promiscuous as the men. The idea that this situation does not matter in the relationship between men and women is simply a superficial understanding of this relationship.

Nick, your response is a gem.