OK. But, are you sure about that? According to Doc in Cleveland (who is evidently a psychologist; you can find him and his thread in the members list), the numbers of men coming in to see him because their wives are fucking other men, and they're having psych problems with being cuckolds... and the numbers of men who want their wives to fuck other men, and they assume that's weird, so they're having psych problems... has been increasing steadily and dramatically in recent years.
I hardly consider an anonymous "psychologist" from Cleveland posting his "findings" in a relatively small forum as empirical proof of any kind that a cuckold revolution is upon us. While Cleveland may rock, the Doc's opinions have failed to convince me in the least that the times they are a changing. Talk to 100 women and 100 men and see how many really want an "open" marriage or a cuck lifestyle. Like all sexual lifestyles, it may be out in the open more but I don't think that equates to more people are living that lifestyle. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of "swingers" that I've known in my life and I have lived in some larger cities. Outside of me, I know of not a single cuckold or someone professing to the cuckold lifestyle.
Marriage is, in large part, an economic phenomenon (as I mentioned). If you google, say, "economics of marriage" and/or other permutations of this phrase, you'll find a lot of info on it.
Marriage is in large part an emotional phenomenon. People often get married-and divorced-based on their emotions. They are in love, they are not in love. Economics play a role in the decision as to when to get married or may play a role in the stability of a marriage but it is hardly the reason people get married or stay married.
You're overestimating the "social responsibility" of young men during the "wild 60's and 70's" (I was one of them), and I'm strongly suspicious of sweeping generalizations like "society is more irresponsible now than 30 or 40 years ago" (that's viewing the past through rose-colored glasses).
No I'm not. Consider me a child of the late 70s and early 80s. What happened to most of the hippies from the 60s and 70s? They became the yuppies of the 80s and 90s. "The Big Chill" generation found responsibility and became part of society. You know how many shit jobs that I worked in my life on my way to adulthood? In those days, you did what you had to do to pay the bills and survive. You had dreams for how you wanted life to be but you dealt with the realities of life. Given my wife's age, I am surrounded by early 20 somethings. They have no concept of hard work and responsibility. They don't even have patience. They expect life to be like a cell phone call or the internet-everything has to be instant-instant gratification.
Suppose a man gets a woman pregnant (it happens...), but he can't marry and support her and their child because he can't get a job, even a job he'd rather not have, because it's been outsourced to some other country where labor is cheaper.
I heard the same arguments when Carter was president (remember double digit inflation and interest rates) and when Reagan was president and this country lost MILLIONS of good paying jobs. Every day, I drive by McDonalds, Wendys, grocery stores, and on and on and every day I see "Help Wanted" signs in those places. Those jobs were good enough for me to work to get me through college and graduate school but, what, they're not good enough for a guy who has knocked up a woman and made a child? Sorry, again, if it was my child, I would take any job that I had to in order to take care of that child. Personally, I would love to spend the money that I make, now, on fun things, but, I married a woman with 2 children. I took on that responsibility. Diapers, food, clothes, toys, pre-schools-they all cost money. You do what you have to do to pay the bills.
Millions of Americans — young, old, and in between — are in that situation now, and not voluntarily, as you must know.
Yes, true. Those that are truly trying to find work and can't-my heart goes out to them. I know how hard life can be. I supported myself and, partially, my family, when I was in college. During the 1980s-when Reagan had busted the unions, when no one would hire anyone for more than 30 hours a week because the employer didn't want to pay health insurance.
To be married and raise children with a job that pays minimal wages, you have to have a job
To make children and have unprotected sex when you don't have a job is not only foolish, it's irresponsible. How about being careful and prudent?
Among those who aren't paying child support (it isn't all unmarried and divorced fathers), are they not paying because they don't want to, or because they don't have the money? Child support is expensive... very expensive. In reality, it's mother support because it's unmarried single mothers who raise children when the father(s) are not there.
See above. Don't fuck around and then you don't have to worry about babies and child support. It is very expensive to raise children-if you don't have a job, don't have unprotected sex. Birth control is cheap and readily available.
I don't know who you mean here by "you," but I don't think it's "me." When I got a woman pregnant it was my wife. She and I raised our son together.
These kinds of statements are juvenile. You know that I wasn't referring to you so why waste time commenting on it. If you don't know who I was referring to, reread my post.
Good... I encourage you to continue voting for Democrats. One of the primary reasons for the disastrous Republican sweep of the U.S. 2010 midterm elections (as I understand it) was, the vast numbers of young people who turned out to elect Barak Obama in 2008 didn't bother to vote.
I could never vote for a Republican however I have lost a lot of faith in the Democrats. They are no more concerned about the middle class than the Republican or the Tea Baggers (I know it's the Tea Party but those people are way the hell out there).
Let's talk about responsibility some more. A guy, with no job, knocks up a woman and the guy doesn't pay child support. The mother doesn't have enough to take care of the child. Who ends up partially supporting the child? The tax paying public-of which I am a member. People got greedy in the early to mid 2000s when interest rates dropped and they refinanced their homes. They also bought homes they couldn't afford. When the mortgage companies and banks went bust, the people walked away from their homes. Who bailed the people and the mortgage companies and the banks out? The tax paying public. I didn't refinance. I played it safe and made sure my home mortgage was payed on time. I was responsible. Those that weren't well, again, bailed out by people like me.
Yes, he was, and I agree. (Even among the volunteers the Peace Corps accepts... and they screen them carefully... only around 50%, apparently, make it through to the end of their 2-year tenure. Physically, mentally, and psychologically, it isn't easy.)
And, on top of it and most importantly, it is a humanitarian effort. To dedicate yourself to the cause of peace and development is noble indeed. It embodies the spirit of hard work and responsibility that I speak of. Forgive me, but all you need to do is look around you and see that the younger generation is no longer inspired to take on such challenges. They don't even want to support or acknowledge their own children.
But, it was not a "scholarly" argument (whatever that is).
Sure it was. It was something you might read in a sociology text book. Any time marriage is called an "economic phenomenon," I would say that the argument is scholarly. It is something that college professors might argue about. It's not based in the real world or reality.
You are a wise man, Custer, but I disagree with virtually everything you have said in this post.