# Why are millennials marrying later and fucking less?



## PT 522 (Apr 22, 2019)

*The statistics I cite are for America. Things are worse or better depending on where you go, but it's a global issue among _developed, first-world_ countries.

For real, it's an issue. You hear about this stuff most commonly in Japan but it's happening everywhere among developed countries that birth rates are stagnating or falling.
Today in America, the average age millennials get married at is about 28 and the birth rate has plateaued at 1.8 children per woman, as opposed to about 20-25 and about 3 through the 60s and 70s. 28, as you'll notice, is bordering on being really fucking late to be having children, which isn't good for anyone involved.

Millennials are less romantic, less committed, and less family-oriented than any generation on record--but studies show that this isn't making anyone any happier. In fact, reported feelings of loneliness and displeasure are at a high (40% among people aged 18-26). Loneliness, it is said, is an epidemic. 
But if you looked outside in the past 20-30 years you'll know that the "American Dream" touted by mainstream [mostly feminist] activists was to be as promiscuous as possible, have tons of cheap sex, travel the world, and settle down later (or never), but the people actually doing this are fucking miserable.

Why is it that young people are en masse "going their own way"? Is it because rates of autism are on the rise? Is it the daddy issues? Is it the internet's fault for making young wo/men into hikikomori? Was sexual liberation not all it's cracked up to be?

If you say "it's because muh economy makes it cost literally one gorillion dolllars per year to raise a child", you're an NPC with an art history degree and don't know shit.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Apr 22, 2019)

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not just gonna settle down with somebody because I feel it's necessary to be married. If I end up finding somebody that I wanna spend the rest of my life with, great, if not, whatever. I don't particularly want kids (and for a variety of reasons I feel I shouldn't have biological kids), and after some lost years I'm really just starting to get my life back on track and don't need to throw a wrench in things.

Basically, it's just not people's top priority anymore, and there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Bassomatic (Apr 22, 2019)

Economic costs are a major factor, I don't see why you discredit it off the bat.

There's a shit ton of reasoning or possible ones, some tin foil hat to other very true ones. Some of them are wonderful, like our lives are longer. If you don't drop dead at fucking 32 years old, you don't need to press out the first youngin at 14.

We know for a fact social media, makes us lonely, society issues are pushing men and women to fear and hate each other because we are different instead of seeing how well salt and pepper work together we see them as polarizing not complimenting. 

Social programs allow people to drop out of society and NEET it up, these people can't really break these bonds and even if they at 3X years old do and listen to Peterson to wash their balls, it's gonna be real bad for them to get anyone of worth. 

Boomers are legit part of the problem, they aren't retiring because those fucking retards are broke. Many younger people are stuck as their boss can't retire so they don't get the corp progression of extra income/wealth/power/status one needs to move on up.

Society wants us to find our selves as if that's the most important thing, travel debt college, explore don't "waste" youth.

There's a ton more factors but I don't think people want me to be on my soap box much longer even though this is DP, but I will close with this it's not just what I listed, but many more things all of the work together to effect it it's reckless to list one problem aside the jews

The biggest scare and sufferers really are women as men can reproduce with more safety in 50s+ while women it gets way worse at 35 and down hill from there, and sadly that' just how the bodies work.


----------



## Just A Butt (Apr 22, 2019)

Children are expensive, loud, annoying, filthy creatures. 

At least that’s my reasoning.


----------



## Runforyourlife (Apr 22, 2019)

A lot of stuff can factor into this. Economic reasons.  Worker longer hours for less pay. New jobs expect years of experience for entry level work like this technically can lead to people getting depressed etc.  

Next hook up culture has all but murdered relationships.  Women that hook up are shown to have a much high rate of divorce. So why would a man marry a ho? Men in hook up culture help create these hoes and when they do finally settle down they have no clue what to do in a relationship cuss they havent really cared about anyone until now.  Roosch like him or hate him actually wrote a good piece on regretting how much time he wasted hooking up and now as a single man at like 40 he is alone and lost. He wasted alot of time chancing women instead of spending time w someone he cared about. 

Social media makes it all to easy to gain attention especially for women. That  need   for likes and notifications is overall whelming. Do you think one man can replace the likes and attention of 1k and up of dudes clicking and commenting on some insta ho.

You could make a big ol list of stuff Feminists culture, death of the family unit (probably the most important one), entertainment, porn etc.


----------



## Eryngium (Apr 22, 2019)

I think getting married today in todays world might not be the best idea, breaks-ups are messy enough as it is.
I don't really see why people wouldn't wan't kids if you are around 25 and have a stable house and income though, but that's just me.


----------



## La Luz Extinguido (Apr 22, 2019)

This is a very good thing, actually.


----------



## A shitty ass clover (Apr 22, 2019)

Mostly Quality over quantity? the problem is that people ask for too much quality.


----------



## John Titor (Apr 22, 2019)

Don't marry and have kids if you're not ready.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Apr 22, 2019)

BigRuler said:


> tl;dr cultural decay and enemy propaganda, the effects of which can be observed in the second and fourth post in this thread


feeling I can live my life how I choose and it's nobody else's goddamn business is enemy propaganda?


----------



## TerribleIdeas™ (Apr 22, 2019)

Divorce and family court raping you after the soon-to-be-ex-wife coaches the kids to claim you molested them is a common enough cliche, and then there's pretty much most of the other reasons that have already been mentioned above.

Hookup culture, the proliferation of trial-by-media/public opinion over allegations, the willingness to go back 30 years to punish people and/or make a quick buck, the cost of kids and one's own education coupled with the low wages offered to fresh graduates, and the abysmal curve on wage increases, it all adds up.


----------



## Mulberry Tree (Apr 22, 2019)

tumblr made it cool to adopt the attitude of "Ewww CROTCHFRUIT!! Look how enlightened I am by being disgusted by a fundamental feature of all known life!"


----------



## SmileyTimeDayCare (Apr 22, 2019)

John Titor said:


> Don't marry and have kids if you're not ready.



Kind of terrible advice to give to a generation that has been boxed into perpetual childhood.


----------



## Bassomatic (Apr 22, 2019)

A shitty ass clover said:


> Mostly Quality over quantity? the problem is that people ask for too much quality.


Tell that to Africa.



ProgKing of the North said:


> feeling I can live my life how I choose and it's nobody else's goddamn business is enemy propaganda?


I assume the post you are replying to is making a stab towards replacement theory and totaliterinism, in indeed such, the jack boot of the state ever creeping does effect those who worry about loss of liberties.

I didn't touch on it on earlier post but indeed we are often bombarded with a fear of violence, world ending etc it makes people whom are stable, future minded rethink kids both to protect the youth a life of suffering, and also if it's nihilistic future feel to enjoy it now, regardless of if you buy into that or not, our western cultures sure love pay tomorrow play today. Both our world economic status and personal spendings seem to show that.


----------



## Recoil (Apr 22, 2019)

Because half of all marriages fail and they've grown up mediating their social interactions through screens.


----------



## Ruin (Apr 22, 2019)

I saw a study recently that 45% of millennials think asking a women out for  a drink is sexual harrassment. How does one make babby out of nowhere? We aren't bacterium that can just split in half.


----------



## Wendy Carter (Apr 22, 2019)

Having a child is a really big investment into something that ultimately may or may not pay off, with way too many years of work. Buying anti-depressants and sedatives, which cause decreased libido and sex drive, just to go through the day, because everything's expensive and employers require years of experience and a bachelor's degree for poorly-paid jobs. Social media and the Internet making people more socially anxious when having a face-to-face conversation. "Listen and believe" mentality, with men being imprisoned for false rape accusations, while the accusers suffer no consequences for their actions, because it is now possible to retract consent at any point in the future (if Todd Haberkorn's case is any evidence), causing a massive turn-off from dating or having sex.

The world is going crazy, and bringing another living being into it means subjecting it to a cruel torture until its death.


----------



## Clop (Apr 22, 2019)

Everyone's standards are Disney'd to hell.

Men want a woman who looks like something that you can have sex with without a paper bag for the next 50 years in a time when obesity is at an all-time high.
Women want a man who makes more money than them when women are expected to hold major positions and earn more than men as "equalizers" to the mythical wage gap.

Nobody has realistic standards thanks to what we're told our standards should be. Hell, most standards that feminist outlets tout are the kinds that turn most women off like sand paper. Men are told by those same rags that everything bad is their fault and marriage's failure will always take them down into the gutter, and then they're expected to hold an erection with all that mental pressure.



Ruin said:


> I saw a study recently that 45% of millennials think asking a women out for  a drink is sexual harrassment. How does one make baby out of nowhere? We aren't bacterium that can just split in half.


Seen the discussion in several countries about how we should start rewarding women for pushing out babies? I think most governments really do think humans work that way; Woman just pushes one out. Man not involved. Plenty of laws saying that a man pays for it, though, for some reason.


----------



## Ido (Apr 22, 2019)

Shit's expensive. Children are a huge money sink, weddings are just flat out scams, College is adult daycare with a hefty price tag, oh and the bills.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 22, 2019)

A shitty ass clover said:


> Mostly Quality over quantity? the problem is that people ask for too much quality.


Considering the people having children are normally those on social welfare programs, I don't think they're that high of a quality.


Bassomatic said:


> Tell that to Africa.
> 
> 
> I assume the post you are replying to is making a stab towards replacement theory and totaliterinism, in indeed such, the jack boot of the state ever creeping does effect those who worry about loss of liberties.
> ...




I have to agree here. Women think that it's now good to have children at age 30+, you know when the risk of a child having down syndrome or retardation is higher.  Which means the poster who made the claim about propoganda is decently correct. Feminist teach women they can have it all and in reality that's not how it works, and leads many of them waiting until they're way past child bearing years and end up as cat ladies. Sure it could be argued men can wait to have children and the economy could entice men to wait until they have more money but it doesn't help illegals steal funding (upwards of 50-150 billion a year) towards them having kids while legal citizens get barely any legal aid in having children which doesn't help things. (A guy made mention of this in a Wal-Mart documentary as well)


Many of these changes don't just occur out of nowhere, and claiming everyone just randomly came to the same conclusion is like expecting water from a stone. So I heavily agree that the propaganda being pushed heavily leads to this end result. Otherwise if it were just fancier living means it's less of a priority then why are people (migrants/etc.) having so many children unless they haven't been influenced by the same propaganda we are in the west.


----------



## LinuxVoid (Apr 22, 2019)

I disagree with people claiming that ((the media)) doesn't want you to have kids. Because, how are ((they)) going to find their supply of white baby blood?
Checkmate atheists


----------



## VIVIIXI (Apr 22, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> feeling I can live my life how I choose and it's nobody else's goddamn business is enemy propaganda?



Naturally.

Not producing children for other peoples personal molochs is heresy and degeneracy, silly.


----------



## PT 522 (Apr 22, 2019)

Bassomatic said:


> Economic costs are a major factor, I don't see why you discredit it off the bat.


Because when people use this argument they tend to way overinflate the issue. I'm not denying that the value of labor is in decline, for example, nor do I deny that children can be expensive (and I think it is a responsible choice not to have kids if you're poor). But, as I said, when people tend to talk about children being expensive they invariably pull something out of their ass like "it costs $500,000 a year to raise kids meanwhile muh federal minimum wage is $7 an hour and can't afford a 2 bedroom apartment anywhere, I hate capitalism." I mainly threw that in there referring to those type of guys. If you understand the basics of economy, then I fully support people making rational financial decisions.


Eryngium said:


> I think getting married today in todays world might not be the best idea, breaks-ups are messy enough as it is.
> I don't really see why people wouldn't wan't kids if you are around 25 and have a stable house and income though, but that's just me.


It's strange and paradoxical because divorces are also on a decline. It's couples that live together, but aren't married, that have the highest rates of splits and abuse. Is it because marriage is very often demonized as "doomed to fail"? I agree though, I can't wrap my head around choosing to wait when all the stars have aligned for you. It's a little weird to me.


Wendy_Carter said:


> Having a child is a really big investment into something that ultimately may or may not pay off, with way too many years of work. Buying anti-depressants and sedatives, which cause decreased libido and sex drive, just to go through the day, because everything's expensive and employers require years of experience and a bachelor's degree for poorly-paid jobs. Social media and the Internet making people more socially anxious when having a face-to-face conversation. "Listen and believe" mentality, with men being imprisoned for false rape accusations, while the accusers suffer no consequences for their actions, because it is now possible to retract consent at any point in the future (if Todd Haberkorn's case is any evidence), causing a massive turn-off from dating or having sex.
> 
> The world is going crazy, and bringing another living being into it means subjecting it to a cruel torture until its death.


Your chances of having a kid grow up into a disappointment lessens the more kids you have... black_man_tapping_head.jpg


----------



## A shitty ass clover (Apr 22, 2019)

Mewtwo_Rain said:


> Considering the people having children are normally those on social welfare programs, I don't think they're that high of a quality.


Those are the ones that fucked up during their teenage years or are overall dumb imo.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 22, 2019)

A shitty ass clover said:


> Those are the ones that fucked up during their teenage years or are overall dumb imo.


Well they're the majority of children I'm seeing now, and the only other children I see currently  seem to be afflicted with laziness (AKA obesity.) Which isn't much better in my honest opinion.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Apr 22, 2019)

I think the real reason is that it just makes so much more sense to settle down later rather than sooner.

Getting married and having a family doesn't just cost a lot of money, it's also a huge responsibility, and it can be a major source of stress and unhappiness if you rush into it without thinking it through first. I have known a lot of people who had children young, and they weren't better off for it. They invariably waste the best years of their life (youth) being tied down to a situation that they weren't psychologically or financially prepared for, only to then be lumbered with the grandchildren when their kids reach adulthood and decide to follow in their footsteps.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think that if you're a man, there's a lot to be said for waiting until you're 50+ before deciding to settle down and have children. Not many men wait that long, but every one I've known who did ended up being so much better off for it. They have way more disposable income than younger fathers, way more spare time, and a much clearer head and far happier home life thanks to decades of planning ahead. They have no regrets, because they got to spend the first half of their life enjoying themselves and traveling the world with few worries and responsibilities. That's the ideal way to plan your life, in my opinion.


----------



## Star Stuff (Apr 22, 2019)

Commitment is dicy and I'm expected to trust someone to not ruin my life when I can barely trust the mailman to deliver my fucking packages on time. I'm making barely enough to keep this ship from sinking and I'm more interested in refining myself as a person in the face of my mortality. People expect me to pick the baby or a lover (potential obstacle) over every potential dream I can reach? C'mon. Nobody would pick that. I'd rather do what I want, while I can. The clock isn't ticking backwards.

Also, I just have a really unreasonable repulsive instinct around children. I can barely stand those in my family for over a day. They're basically expensive and inconsiderate larvae. Hard pass.


----------



## Eryngium (Apr 22, 2019)

Fat Pikachu said:


> It's strange and paradoxical because divorces are also on a decline. It's couples that live together, but aren't married, that have the highest rates of splits and abuse. Is it because marriage is very often demonized as "doomed to fail"?


I would think the lower abuse rate could be caused by the fact they know it will be very difficult to leave so they should try to make less of a hell then it is in bad marriages, with instances that there is abuse in marriage I imagine it's more passive aggressive or beaten wife/husband syndrome, both which are not very likely to come out into the public eye.

For the highest rates of splits that seems a bit obvious, cause it's a lot easier to kick some cheating shank/fuckboi off your porch then go through a bunch of legal shit and lose a bunch of money and time.


----------



## God of Nothing (Apr 22, 2019)

Pretty sure most of them don't want to lose half their shit in a divorce case or have to deal with real world responsibilities. They want to stay young forever and never have to do anything hard but also want to do something of worth. It's sad and amusing to watch the majority of a generation waste away like this. 

The only benefit of this situation is they won't get the opportunity to be awful parents.


----------



## PT 522 (Apr 22, 2019)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think that if you're a man, there's a lot to be said for waiting until you're 50+ before deciding to settle down and have children. Not many men wait that long, but every one I've known who did ended up being so much better off for it. They have way more disposable income than younger fathers, way more spare time, and a much clearer head and far happier home life thanks to decades of planning ahead. They have no regrets, because they got to spend the first half of their life enjoying themselves and traveling the world with few worries and responsibilities. That's the ideal way to plan your life, in my opinion.


But don't you think that women also deserve a chance to plan, travel, enjoy themselves, and waste their money? The thing is biology works against them. Maybe it's not a choice per se, but there's nothing to be done about the entirely biological pressure put on women to have kids before 30. Unless they really want a Downy to look after, in which case child rearing becomes exponentially harder.


Star Stuff said:


> Commitment is dicy and I'm expected to trust someone to not ruin my life when I can barely trust the mailman to deliver my fucking packages on time. I'm making barely enough to keep this ship from sinking and I'm more interested in refining myself as a person in the face of my mortality. People expect me to pick the baby or a lover (potential obstacle) over every potential dream I can reach? C'mon. Nobody would pick that. I'd rather do what I want, while I can. The clock isn't ticking backwards.
> 
> Also, I just have a really unreasonable repulsive instinct around children. I can barely stand those in my family for over a day.


I can understand that, but I think that you're catastrophizing a little. It's entirely possible to achieve your dreams _and_ have a partner. Some would say that taking that journey with someone else is the reason why marriage exists in the first place. But, of course, it's important to take your time while on a love quest as well.


Eryngium said:


> I would think the lower abuse rate could be caused by the fact they know it will be very difficult to leave so they should try to make less of a hell then it is in bad marriages, with instances that there is abuse in marriage I imagine it's more passive aggressive or beaten wife/husband syndrome, both which are not very likely to come out into the public eye.
> 
> For the highest rates of splits that seems a bit obvious, cause it's a lot easier to kick some cheating shank/fuckboi off your porch then go through a bunch of legal shit and lose a bunch of money and time.


I've read somewhere (forgive me if I can't remember where) that the issue is actually backwards, and that couples already "destined" to split move in while couples in a more stable relationship get married, because if you feel the need to move in as a way to "test" your relationship there's already something deeply wrong with it. Food for thot.


----------



## God of Nothing (Apr 22, 2019)

Fat Pikachu said:


> But don't you think that women also deserve a chance to plan, travel, enjoy themselves, and waste their money? The thing is biology works against them. Maybe it's not a choice per se, but there's nothing to be done about the entirely biological pressure put on women to have kids before 30. Unless they really want a Downy or autist to look after, in which case child rearing becomes exponentially harder.
> 
> I can understand that, but I think that you're catastrophizing a little. It's entirely possible to achieve your dreams _and_ have a partner. Some would say that taking that journey with someone else is the reason why marriage exists in the first place. But, of course, it's important to take your time while on a love quest as well.
> 
> I've read somewhere (forgive me if I can't remember where) that the issue is actually backwards, and that couples already "destined" to split move in while couples in a more stable relationship get married, because if you feel the need to move in as a way to "test" your relationship there's already something deeply wrong with it. Food for thot.


Anyone who spends their twenties wasting their life traveling and indulging themselves isn't exactly the most well-adjusted or fulfilled person. A trip or two is fine but Jesus is there little point to them beyond escaping your problems back home nowadays. 

As for that food for thots, it makes sense that a stable couple would marry considering unstable people and unstable couples view marriage as some sort of death sentence.


----------



## Clop (Apr 22, 2019)

God of Nothing said:


> Anyone who spends their twenties wasting their life traveling and indulging themselves isn't exactly the most well-adjusted or fulfilled person.


Made me thunkful on how about 90% of Tinder thots list "travelling" as their "hobby."


----------



## Star Stuff (Apr 22, 2019)

Fat Pikachu said:


> But don't you think that women also deserve a chance to plan, travel, enjoy themselves, and waste their money? The thing is biology works against them. Maybe it's not a choice per se, but there's nothing to be done about the entirely biological pressure put on women to have kids before 30. Unless they really want a Downy or autist to look after, in which case child rearing becomes exponentially harder.
> 
> I can understand that, but I think that you're catastrophizing a little. It's entirely possible to achieve your dreams _and_ have a partner. Some would say that taking that journey with someone else is the reason why marriage exists in the first place. But, of course, it's important to take your time while on a love quest as well.
> 
> I've read somewhere (forgive me if I can't remember where) that the issue is actually backwards, and that couples already "destined" to split move in while couples in a more stable relationship get married, because if you feel the need to move in as a way to "test" your relationship there's already something deeply wrong with it. Food for thot.


I'm completely on board with the idea that finding someone compatible enough that you support each other, if not outright venture together, in those dreams is realistic. The problem is that finding that person is often a lengthy process and a fuckup increases in consequence the more investment you put into that mistake. I'm definitely taking it a bit too cautiously, but only because a faux-pas can have unwanted ramifications. If not financially, then emotionally.

Needless to say, I agree with your last statement most.


----------



## Lord of the Large Pants (Apr 22, 2019)

I think a lot of it is that modern society just doesn't facilitate taking to other people. Not in person, at least. There's a huge loss of local community. People can live in the same place for 10 years and have no idea who their neighbors are. To actually go out and MEET a woman (or man, if that's what you're into) isn't nearly as easy as it used to be. It's also a lot more dangerous. I don't think trying to buy a girl a drink is sexual harassment, but how do I know SHE doesn't think it is?

Online dating, is MASSIVELY tilted against "average" people, both men and women. It's a crapshoot to even get someone to respond, another crapshoot to get a date, another crapshoot that they'll actual show up, and yet another crapshoot that they won't just "ghost" you for any reason or no reason.

Get married? Get married to who?


----------



## Clop (Apr 22, 2019)

Lord of the Large Pants said:


> Online dating, is MASSIVELY tilted against "average" people, both men and women. It's a crapshoot to even get someone to respond, another crapshoot to get a date, another crapshoot that they'll actual show up, and yet another crapshoot that they won't just "ghost" you for any reason or no reason.


Both?
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeau..._rate_80_of_guys_as_worselooking_than_medium/ 
https://theblog.okcupid.com/a-womans-advantage-82d5074dde2d 

I don't know where you're getting both being at a disadvantage but I'd love to visit such a utopia.


----------



## Draza (Apr 22, 2019)

Marriage is a joke.


----------



## QI 541 (Apr 22, 2019)

Previous generations ruined the economy.  Raising children doesn't make any financial sense for most people.
Most millennials are mentally ill and should never be allowed to have children anyways.


----------



## Red Hood (Apr 22, 2019)

Millenials can't afford to move out of their parents' house in their 30's thanks to student debt. Do you want to bang your wife right down the hall from your boomer parents watching NCIS? 

The proliferation of internet porn has some hand (snicker) in it too.


----------



## ZeCommissar (Apr 22, 2019)

Birth control has gotten extremely advanced now. Most women my age are using those implants and a lot go as far to get a IUD. I know my ex had one. This means people can have more sex without worrying about kids, and the ones that do have them are either extremely unlucky, trash with low impulse control, and people from well off families that can afford to have kids before they turn 30.

Although you may be going "if people can have more risk free sex, then why aren't they having it?" Not many people have the desire to anymore.

I said this before: Why settle down when I look good enough to just scroll onto Tinder for EZ puss? Granted I haven't used Tinder for a year, but honestly I just don't have the desire for sex right now. Like if some decent looking chick wanted to fuck then I would be down, but i'm not chasing anyone at the moment.

A long term relationship is the best way to have a stable amount of sex, and those aren't that common anymore. People cheat, they lie, and by god are a lot of people immature about relationships now including myself. Look at millennial's. Do you think they are stable people that have healthy relationships and sex?

I used to hate kids, but I realized why I did was for a selfish immature reason and now I actually love being around the little shits. I still wouldn't consider having my own anytime soon however. (or ever)



The Shadow said:


> Millenials can't afford to move out of their parents' house in their 30's thanks to student debt. Do you want to bang your wife right down the hall from your boomer parents watching NCIS?
> 
> The proliferation of internet porn has some hand (snicker) in it too.



This. A lot of people are still moving out of their parents house at a lot later ages than they used to. I asked some of the Gen X people at my job "how old were you when you moved out?" and most said 18-20. It's taking people now around age 25 or more to move out. You can have sex while your parents are home, but honestly it's shitty sex and its better to have total privacy without worry of being heard/walked in on.

Porn also kills libido if you watch it too much for both men and women. Out of all the bull NoFap spews, I do think they might be on to something about porn.


----------



## Bassomatic (Apr 22, 2019)

The Shadow said:


> Millenials can't afford to move out of their parents' house in their 30's thanks to student debt. Do you want to bang your wife right down the hall from your boomer parents watching NCIS?
> 
> The proliferation of internet porn has some hand (snicker) in it too.


Funny enough you mention that. Back when I was in my teens you had to make due and some parents were cool about "sleep over" SOs, the other night at her dads she made some moves on me... I felt so guilty banging her under pops roof.

Not that it stopped me. 

Porn I think is over inflated on it's dangers and damages to society. While I don't think it's often a good thing and quite bad for kids to see esp before losing virginity, I don't think it's evil or some control tool. I am an econ geek and I have studied it on that aspect, because what else do economists do when not wanting to die or laugh at Chris Chan, the economics of it turn me off more than the concept kinks etc, it's really only a hand ful of people 3% or less paying for it all, so the videos are built around their exact draw.

Also the very real risks of STDs does make people a little less likely to fuck, I dunno I got all the doom and gloom sex ed in public school too that put a condom on before you kiss  shit and I still whored my way thru college. I would have told younger me not to do that now, to be fair. But sexuality (hopefully) is an adult thing and the last part of us to form, because puberty and chance to have sex often delayed by social standings etc.

When your an adult child sex with a real partner can't have the same grasp draw or appeal. With out getting too Freudian, it's a very scary vulnerable time in ways, and jacking off is as safe as it comes. 


Being in the last gen, divorce hit new record amounts, that's part of it, I think personally , children of divorce see it as 3 futures "holy shit I'll never do that" "I can do it better unlike those chuckle fucks" "I will never bond."  You can be not too harshly effected, or abused from it and just choose to anyways. 

Those who don't heal from the split, and want to out do the parents, often pick an unhealthy partner for a lot of reasons, so they are in trouble/risk of splitting. 

Needless to say if bonds are scary to you, you'll be single and those in the first group may live together etc but never legally tie the knot. Personally I don't like the gov being in marriages but well that's the reality, so for many they are married but not, some states have commonlaw not all tho.

Either way I'm rambling, but I think it's still all of the issues, some more than others, in each case of each person/couple.


----------



## Hux (Apr 22, 2019)

SmileyTimeDayCare said:


> Kind of terrible advice to give to a generation that has been boxed into perpetual childhood.


Not necessarily. These people having zero children at all is a million times more preferable than them having kids that are most certainly going to live lives of pain for the sake of the parents getting internet asspats ala Desmond Is Amazing


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Apr 22, 2019)

Fat Pikachu said:


> But don't you think that women also deserve a chance to plan, travel, enjoy themselves, and waste their money? The thing is biology works against them. Maybe it's not a choice per se, but there's nothing to be done about the entirely biological pressure put on women to have kids before 30. Unless they really want a Downy or autist to look after, in which case child rearing becomes exponentially harder.



I think that women generally can do all of those things, they just don't necessarily have the luxury of doing it entirely on their own if they want a family. I sympathize to an extent, but I also think that women have certain advantages that men don't: such as the possibility of finding a partner who will willingly make their dreams a reality for them.

A lot of people today seem to forget that biology forces men and women to approach relationships differently. Women may have the advantage of being able to have access to sex as often as they want (as opposed to men, who generally only have access to sex as often as women want), but this comes with the trade-off of a faster biological clock. The window within which women are most desirable to the opposite sex is also different. While men generally become more attractive as they get older and acquire status, women generally become less attractive as their youth and fertility fades with time. This may seem unfair, but for every burnt out cat lady, there's probably even more frustrated 20-something guys struggling to find a date. It's swings and roundabouts, really.

The main thing to take from this is that men and women mature differently from a reproductive standpoint, which is why the ideal age to settle down and start a family is different for a man than it is for a woman. I think that this is really obvious from both a social and biological perspective, but a lot of people seem to be trapped in the high school sweetheart mentality that a couple should be roughly the same age.


----------



## Ido (Apr 22, 2019)

Pet's are filling the void of not having children, they keep people company and everyone I know calls their pets their babies. I'm sure the companionship they provide has helped cause the interest in kids decline but fuck that pets are the best. IMO the pet trade is going to get a complete overhaul (for the better) long before people go back to popping out kids like they used to. 

You also have to factor in gay acceptance, they can't "exactly" have kids with each other unless they have medical intervention or use surrogates, then there's the trans community and they're literally castrating themselves. while the lgbt shit isn't the biggest demographic it's much more accepted and people aren't being pressured to marry  against the opposite gender to produce heir's anymore. People aren't as in the closet either so there's no reason to pretend to be interested in the opposite gender in the first place if they aren't attracted to that. So I don't feel the blame is totally on the people who can conceive children.


----------



## crocodilian (Apr 22, 2019)

Millennials are incredibly poor compared to their ancestors. They have no assets, liquid or otherwise, and jobs are scarce. Most of the economy is kept chugging along by illegal immigrants (who, not-so-coincidentally, have also eaten up a lot of the available entry-level jobs), all of whom are reproducing far more than the "native" millennials. Those same ancestors who lived more affluent and productive young lives are also projected to use up all the social security, leaving none for the millennials when they're at retiring age. In fact, most millennials can never retire.

So when you have no money, and you're shackled by debt, and your parents have no interest in leaving you anything, and foreign invaders dominate your economy and job market, and there's really no place in modern society for you, most people don't feel very secure in having children.


----------



## Marco Fucko (Apr 22, 2019)

I would definitely like to have a chance to prove myself as a father, but that's personal hubris.

Also I barely trust anybody at all so I would rather hire a woman to have my heir and fuck off, or maybe do cloning if that's available.

I guess the long and short of it is I'm too dysfunctional to raise a kid.


----------



## Black Waltz (Apr 22, 2019)

something about jews and or muslims


----------



## VIVIIXI (Apr 22, 2019)

Disclaimer: Brace for a light dose of woo with a heap of man-o-sphere inspired musing. These are just thoughts.

A few people have brought up divorce as a reason, and I have to say that I can see societal Karma at work here. 

Bear with me.

There is no shortage of complaint about divorce and child custody in the man-o-sphere.
Marriage has become a minefield, and while many get to the other side of it, those who don't can get destroyed. Alimony and parental alienation get mentioned a lot.

Helen Smith once tried to explain to Fox anchors that men aren't marrying because they feel they're getting a raw deal. Tucker Carlson's response was (predictably) "quit whining and man up. It's good enough for me". etc.

This is easy for Carlson and his co-hosts to say. If Carlson got divorced he would probably be able to afford a lawyer who would protect him from the worst of the statistical ass fuckery that goes on in courts. He would likely be able to secure shared custody (if not primary custody) of his children. Hell, even if she took him to the cleaners financially it wouldn't likely leave him particularly boned.

Most workaday men aren't going to come away as unscathed.

Jordan Peterson ragged on the MGTOW, but later apologized for being dismissive, acknowledging the validity of the complaints mentioned above. He then went on to peddle obligation as the meaning of life...

While doing nothing further to actually address the issues he acknowledged.

I'm sure he'll get some takers. Some will succeed. Some will get wood-chippered. Some will watch and decide that it's better to stay home and play Nintendo than to show any sense of obligation to ideologues who do not reciprocate any sense of obligation.

Another guru will come along and play the same tired tune. Another round of men running through the mine field. Fewer this time. And the next.

Diminishing returns for a failure to invest in the well being of ones flock.

I think it's saddest when I hear about veterans coming back to estranged (sometimes but not always cheating) wives who pack up, taking his kids and pay, and leaving him destroyed and suicidal. If those men haven't fulfilled enough social obligation to make you feel like you at least owe them better in the courts, then I don't know what to tell you.

You can shoulda, woulda, prada about women's lib all you want. My opinion is that it's not the biggest deterrent to marriage. The bias in the courts that leave those men over the barrel take the risk of heartache and magnify it exponentially. Why should they create and emotionally invest in children that can just be snatched away from them? So you can feel better about the world because they're making babies to repopulate a society that couldn't be bothered to not screw them over in the event things didn't work out?

tl;dr: A society deserves no more obligation from it's people than it gives to it's people. Rome is burning because it doesn't care when half it's citizens get burned.

God is just.

Karma.


----------



## crocodilian (Apr 22, 2019)

Dink Smallwood said:


> something about jews and or muslims



This too. (((The Federal Reserve))) ruined this country at the government level while the Muslim hordes are ruining it at the public level.


----------



## Reactionary Rhetoric (Apr 22, 2019)

Poor economic circumstances, anti-natal propaganda, destruction of the family unit and social institutions. We're more atomised than ever basically.


----------



## crocodilian (Apr 22, 2019)

VIVIIXI said:


> Disclaimer: Brace for a light dose of woo with a heap of man-o-sphere inspired musing. These are just thoughts.
> 
> A few people have brought up divorce as a reason, and I have to say that I can see societal Karma at work here.
> 
> ...



If you want a tl;dr justification for everything you just mentioned, it's simple: women stimulate the economy more. We watch all the programming, we see all the commercials, we do a majority of the shopping (which we do based on commercials), even if it's for an entire household. It's no secret big business has an incredibly large influence on politics, and big business simply doesn't care if men (who don't buy anything) have no disposable income, legal rights or anything in between.

I don't think this is how things should be, morally or otherwise, especially since most women are fucking retarded. But if you want to actually level things out you have to appeal to big business so they're more obliged to keep you around.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Apr 22, 2019)

crocodilian said:


> This too. (((The Federal Reserve))) ruined this country at the government level while the Muslim hordes are ruining it at the public level.


where the fuck other than Dearborn or possibly the Twin Cities are Muslim hordes even a thing in the US?


----------



## VIVIIXI (Apr 22, 2019)

crocodilian said:


> If you want a tl;dr justification for everything you just mentioned, it's simple: women stimulate the economy more. We watch all the programming, we see all the commercials, we do a majority of the shopping (which we do based on commercials), even if it's for an entire household. It's no secret big business has an incredibly large influence on politics, and big business simply doesn't care if men (who don't buy anything) have no disposable income, legal rights or anything in between.
> 
> I don't think this is how things should be, morally or otherwise, especially since most women are fucking exceptional. But if you want to actually level things out you have to appeal to big business so they're more obliged to keep you around.



That's a provocatively insightful thought.

Thank you!


----------



## Jack Awful (Apr 22, 2019)

Because millennials are a generation of adult children who don't have the intelligence or responsibility to raise a child, and we know it.
The baby boomers were barely qualified themselves and raised millenials to become adult children.


----------



## crocodilian (Apr 22, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> where the fuck other than Dearborn or possibly the Twin Cities are Muslim hordes even a thing in the US?



I mixed the U.S. and Europe without realizing. Neither groups seem to benefit anywhere they live in any case.


----------



## Runforyourlife (Apr 22, 2019)

Ido said:


> Shit's expensive. Children are a huge money sink, weddings are just flat out scams, College is adult daycare with a hefty price tag, oh and the bills.


Yeah kids are pricey but so is forever alone so is a private nurse. Imagine having a hard day at work then coming home and ya lil kid runs in and gives you some goofy drawing of you they made at school. Prob worth all the money they cost for that.


----------



## QWXXP Surprise! (Apr 22, 2019)

Mewtwo_Rain said:


> Considering the people having children are normally those on social welfare programs, I don't think they're that high of a quality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I pretty much agree that if you want to have a biological family, you should try to do that shit early, but women aren't the only ones whose reproductive fitness declines with age, and that seems to be something that keeps coming up in this thread. I think it starts a bit later in men (IIRC between 35-40+ for males) but mens' sperm quality does begin to drop off and as they age, they are more likely to father children with conditions such as dwarfism, lead to miscarriage, or just have sperm that doesn't swim as well as it used to, leading to fertility problems.

Plus being old with a young kid must just suck incredible ass. I'd be pretty bummed out knowing my kid would _long _outlive me and I may not get to live to see some of their important milestones, or get to really enjoy being a grandparent if they ended up having kids themselves.


----------



## Star Stuff (Apr 22, 2019)

Runforyourlife said:


> Yeah kids are pricey but so is forever alone so is a private nurse. Imagine having a hard day at work then coming home and ya lil kid runs in and gives you some goofy drawing of you they made at school. Prob worth all the money they cost for that.


A goofy drawing weighed against all the risks and costs makes me feel otherwise. Also being alone isn't expensive compared to a family. Not even remotely close.


----------



## VIVIIXI (Apr 22, 2019)

QWXXP Surprise! said:


> Plus being old with a young kid must just suck incredible ass. I'd be pretty bummed out knowing my kid would outlive me and I may not get to live to see some of their important milestones.



Most people don't want to outlive their children, but if you really feel that way just shoot the little bastard after he learns how to walk.


----------



## QI 541 (Apr 22, 2019)

crocodilian said:


> Millennials are incredibly poor compared to their ancestors. They have no assets, liquid or otherwise, and jobs are scarce. Most of the economy is kept chugging along by illegal immigrants (who, not-so-coincidentally, have also eaten up a lot of the available entry-level jobs), all of whom are reproducing far more than the "native" millennials. Those same ancestors who lived more affluent and productive young lives are also projected to use up all the social security, leaving none for the millennials when they're at retiring age. In fact, most millennials can never retire.
> 
> So when you have no money, and you're shackled by debt, and your parents have no interest in leaving you anything, and foreign invaders dominate your economy and job market, and there's really no place in modern society for you, most people don't feel very secure in having children.



The greatest irony is that millennials are also the most likely group to be stupid enough to support illegal immigration and destroying their own economy.


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Apr 22, 2019)

Mewtwo_Rain said:


> Considering the people having children are normally those on social welfare programs, I don't think they're that high of a quality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you really think having kids in your 30s is a new thing? How exceptional can you get? What's new is having your first child at 30+, yes, but it was absolutely standard for women in the past to have kids well into their early 40s. The starting at 21, ending at 27 baby-boom child bearing thing is historically abnormal and only exists due to birth control. Have you never even looked at your own family tree?

My uncle's daughter was born when he was 65 (his wife was around 38 ). I think this is terribly irresponsible and unfair to his daughter. Just because men can have kids past 45 doesn't mean they should.


----------



## Ido (Apr 22, 2019)

Runforyourlife said:


> Yeah kids are pricey but so is forever alone so is a private nurse. Imagine having a hard day at work then coming home and ya lil kid runs in and gives you some goofy drawing of you they made at school. Prob worth all the money they cost for that.


I mean little moments are cool and all but that can't take away the dread that is paying for child care/ schooling.


----------



## Tasty Tatty (Apr 22, 2019)

The real reason is because they're boring and awful people. 

I'm not even being sarcastic.


----------



## Vorhtbame (Apr 22, 2019)

So what I'm gathering from this thread, outside of genuinely good reasons like "I've got serious issues that I need to settle first" or "I haven't met a good partner yet":


"I'm afraid of bad things happening to me."
"I would rather spend my limited money on myself."
"Cats.  Many sizes, many colors.  It's easier than dealing with people.  Millions of ugly feminists can't be wrong!"
"I don't do anything if success isn't guaranteed."
"Responsibility sucks.  I can't be bothered. YOLO."
"I'm sure I can wait until my life finally catches up to the goalposts on casters I'm running after."
Are you sure you're Americans?

Lest you accuse me of being "Mad on the Internet" that people aren't breeding, it's not that.  It's the entire attitude of giving up, accepting that this is your lot in life, forgetting that _you are an American, damn it; the world is yours to an unprecedented degree._  You live better and are more sovereign than kings of old, and you see yourself as a serf.

Despite what your parents and your teachers and that aristocrat you voted for last year told you, you're not stupid, you're not hopeless, and you're not helpless.  Maybe things will go sideways on you and maybe they won't, but as much _bitching_ as millennials do, I'm not sure the lives they live now are any better than if something bad happens.  Find out what you need to do to get what you want, and then _do that_; and if you succeed or fail, if you marry or you don't, if you have kids or you don't, at least you didn't _give up on yourself _(though I'll bet some quality soul will find your confidence and good attitude irresistible; energy attracts energy).

God, it breaks my heart to see an entire generation, with so much power and privilege, just quit before you even have a chance to start.


----------



## Disgruntled Pupper (Apr 22, 2019)

For all of you who think men don't have a biological clock and that having kids at a later age is okay, I have some bad news for you. Although we first discovered that age-of-mother is a factor in many diseases and disorders, we've since gone back and looked at age-of-father and found the same link. This might come as a shocker, but it turns out that men are not in fact magical, that their genetic and biological materials decay as they age just like women's do, and it isn't a good idea for either sex to be having kids late in life.


----------



## Ido (Apr 22, 2019)

We're all autistic here anyways so why does it matter if women have babies later? More lolcows and Kiwi Farmers so win win.


----------



## QWXXP Surprise! (Apr 22, 2019)

Ido said:


> We're all autistic here anyways so why does it matter if women have babies later? More lolcows and Kiwi Farmers so win win.



This is also a good point.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 22, 2019)

Crunchy Leaf said:


> Do you really think having kids in your 30s is a new thing? How exceptional can you get? What's new is having your first child at 30+, yes, but it was absolutely standard for women in the past to have kids well into their early 40s. The starting at 21, ending at 27 baby-boom child bearing thing is historically abnormal and only exists due to birth control. Have you never even looked at your own family tree?
> 
> My uncle's daughter was born when he was 65 (his wife was around 38 ). I think this is terribly irresponsible and unfair to his daughter. Just because men can have kids past 45 doesn't mean they should.


Most of my family had children before their 30's. The exception is the men in my family as I already explained.

To be precise my great grandmother gave birth to four children by the time she was around 28. (when the 4th child my grandmother the youngest) was born.

My grandmother gave birth to my mother and her brother by the time  she was 25.

My own mother gave birth to me by the time she was 15 (although she's a rare exception and was a bit of a slut.) and my other siblings were born by the time  she was 26.

Although it may be a new trend in comparison to the past, with new found knowledge we should be taking actions that are better and not regressive of sorts. Unless we just like having a bunch of exceptional individuals running around. I mean it's a new found thing where men aren't working themselves to death in factories, and sure  them not working at all isn't a good counter answer but often the best way to handle these situations is by looking to a happy medium. Unless we just want to follow in the past's set of actions for eternity?

Edit: In regards to men, I wasn't implying that they should merely that some men might make that argument that by the time they are 40-50 they'd have saved up money to have a family in today's economic conditions.


----------



## Ido (Apr 22, 2019)

Mewtwo_Rain said:


> Although it may be a new trend in comparison to the past, with new found knowledge we should be taking actions that are better and not regressive of sorts. Unless we just like having a bunch of exceptional individuals running around.


With how hands off this generation is chances are there are going to be a lot of exceptional individuals running around, doesn't matter the age. people are letting their kids grow up with tablets and shit, everyone has ADD, autism or anxiety. I can see exactly where one of my relatives failed to raise her last kid, her others are all socialized and out going, then she just stopped caring with the youngest and gave him gta's and shit at like 5 so he'd shut up. Talks like a seven year old and always hides in his room. Overexposure to this is damaging and a lot of people just want a tv baby sitter because this generation is lazy.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 22, 2019)

Ido said:


> With how hands off this generation is chances are there are going to be a lot of exceptional individuals running around, doesn't matter the age. people are letting their kids grow up with tablets and shit, everyone has ADD, autism or anxiety. I can see exactly where one of my relatives failed to raise her last kid, her others are all socialized and out going, then she just stopped caring with the youngest and gave him gta's and shit at like 5 so he'd shut up. Talks like a seven year old and always hides in his room. Overexposure to this is damaging and a lot of people just want a tv baby sitter because this generation is lazy.



I won't deny that's an issue, but that's more of not only the children themselves but their parents are lazy losers as well, with no understanding of responsibility. I don't want to be like my grandfather who has worked his entire life to the point his spinal cord is disolving but like I mentioned there is a fine line.


Though in regards to ADD/etc. The problem is not that kids have it, it is again a failing of the parents.  I have advanced ADHD/ADD/ODD/ODHD (as does my sister) but then again I learned to control it or get my shit smacked down.

I'm not even sure there is a fix for what's currently going on with society in that regard though.


----------



## softsleeper (Apr 22, 2019)

I think it has a lot to do with our social / cultural changes that's created unfortunate disadvantages for young people than our previous generations. Granted, each person is different and lifestyles do vary between people, so I don't think it's merit for alarm just yet. Millennials are still having plenty of babies and people are getting married, albeit a little older than the norm. You don't even have to have a huge wedding to tie a knot, especially if you're on a budget. Plus, it helps if the couple makes a combined income to stay afloat with bills and have a good portion left over for any other necessities (food, emergencies, vacations, college funds, ect.). Plus, being married gives you tax breaks doesn't it? I'm sure it varies from country to country. 

Babies are a huge responsibility (mentally, phisically and financially), but people have to stop acting like a kid is going to be the thing that ends their dreams. Sure, they're certainly not for everyone and I understand if you just don't want em'. Fine, you do you. But Millennials need to understand that a having a child is not something to be afraid of or dread conceiving. I've worked with plenty of children (young and teenage) in a volunteering program and had a relatively positive experience. I'd be lying if I said there weren't a few demons mixed into the bunch, but you have to be patient with them. If you raise them with care, attention and security, they'll turn out fine.

If anything, I think a large portion of Millennials  just need a good 'push' in the right direction with counselling (professional preferably) to give them a decent forecast of what lies ahead. Confidence boosters, aiming for higher positions, being prepared for worst case scenarios. I'm thankful that I have family to at least have my back in those regards, personally. Makes me feel like I can control my life a bit better than doing it alone.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Apr 22, 2019)

Women being told they need careers and not children, and men being told talking to women is sexual harassment and they need to not do that.


_edit_
It's really not hard to understand. So many walls of texts explaining the glaring obvious. Gonna throw in consequence free sex as a cause too. Women can afford to be both promiscuous and discriminatory. Having sex used to be high risk because he usually had a wife. If you got pregnant you were literally and figuratively fucked. But thanks to the magic of science you can have all your rights and none of your responsibilities. 

There are a ton of broken incentives these days and there will be consequences.

Would you like to know more?


----------



## Tasty Tatty (Apr 22, 2019)

Vorhtbame said:


> God, it breaks my heart to see an entire generation, with so much power and privilege, just quit before you even have a chance to start.



A lot of people who screech about "traditional marriages" only get the "men/women" part and not everything else that was involved.

First, your marraige didn't just involved you and your partner: the whole family was involved. Both families, actually. 

Second, because people married young, they kinda grew together. They learned to tolerate each other because they were still becoming adults. 

People now want to marry out of selfishness (which ain't necessarily bad) and at an age in which they're unable to adapt to living to another person. Also, millenials live in a bubble adn many are spoiled. They can't even s hare with their siblings or classmates, imagine sharing your life with a partner. It's not that they don't want, they can't.


----------



## wrangled tard (Apr 22, 2019)

Fat Pikachu said:


> *The statistics I cite are for America. Things are worse or better depending on where you go, but it's a global issue among _developed, first-world_ countries.
> 
> For real, it's an issue. You hear about this stuff most commonly in Japan but it's happening everywhere among developed countries that birth rates are stagnating or falling.
> Today in America, the average age millennials get married at is about 28 and the birth rate has plateaued at 1.8 children per woman, as opposed to about 20-25 and about 3 through the 60s and 70s. 28, as you'll notice, is bordering on being really fucking late to be having children, which isn't good for anyone involved.
> ...


Gay people are also a lot more common now. People are less willing to have kids and more willing to suck dick.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 22, 2019)

Tasty Tatty said:


> A lot of people who screech about "traditional marriages" only get the "men/women" part and not everything else that was involved.
> 
> First, your marraige didn't just involved you and your partner: the whole family was involved. Both families, actually.
> 
> ...




That I think is another issue all together. Families are no longer unified often broken apart, welfare hasn't helped with this, and other issues within families. It does raise a good point though.

Though when it comes to marriage/kids. Too many these days only do it for a status symbol. I'd argue it's pretty bad because they want the children/optics of marriage, they just don't want the responsibility of taking care of the children/responsibilities of marriage.  Kind of reminds me those guys who wear VA shirts, but never actually attend or participate in VA events. They sure want the optics for wearing the shirts but want no responsibility or to have to participate in helping actual veterans. Just in this case you can't wear children like a shirt, so they're an after thought.


----------



## Firefilly1996@DA (Apr 22, 2019)

I don't know a ton about the statistics of why, but as an older (barely a millennial) I think it is due to a change in social norms. In a sense, it is very hard to find the right person because morality and trust are uncommon nowadays. There is also the worry of increased domestic violence, poverty and overall worry something may go wrong. People are more focused on self and success in the workplace then they are in building lifelong relationships with their mate. There is way less dedication to the true meaning of marriage and many see it as an "old person" thing. Most would rather shack up instead of dedicating themselves or their property to another person, again due to lack of trust. I think gender identity disease also play a role. ( different can of beans not getting into that.) People want to experience the "perfect" life their parents had, but don't realize that the world is way less safe then their folks had it. I do not think it is a chemical imbalance so much as it is a reaction to the skewd social norms that are now presented to us. Social media has also taken over the role of social interactions. People will "date" long distance online and only hear a person's voice or see a photo over the internet. It is not the same kind of love that is felt in a physical relationship. It is a shallow shell comparable to dating an AI simulation. We have lost the ability to understand social cues fully and romantic gestures.


----------



## nagant 1895 (Apr 22, 2019)

A lack of trust, i think it might really be that simple. I've had three relationships reach the settle down together phase but I just can't bring myself to trust the opposite sex and they don't have much reason to trust me either. Our society lacks the legal and social structures that held marriages together and people accountable.


----------



## Overcast (Apr 23, 2019)

I seem to recall somebody saying on here (or somewhere else) that this kind of phenomena is partially due to living in a fully developed society with a massive amount of people. Back in the old days, when countries like America were still developing and expanding, it wasn't uncommon for people to have lots of kids due to need for labor and due to short life expectancies.

With the US and other major countries covered across the world with massive cities and health care and technology that makes us live longer, there really isn't as big a need for mass baby making. The human population has grown exponentially over the past century, and the decline of marriage and making of families seems to be a natural response to that. If we kept going the way we did back then, we'd run out of natural resources.

...

Or it could just be autism. Who knows?


----------



## The Fifth Waltz (Apr 23, 2019)

Honestly I'm just glad people are making the decision of not having kids if you can't afford it. I grew up dirt poor and I wouldn't want someone else having that.


----------



## Firefilly1996@DA (Apr 23, 2019)

scorptatious said:


> I seem to recall somebody saying on here (or somewhere else) that this kind of phenomena is partially due to living in a fully developed society with a massive amount of people. Back in the old days, when countries like America were still developing and expanding, it wasn't uncommon for people to have lots of kids due to need for labor and due to short life expectancies.
> 
> With the US and other major countries covered across the continent with massive cities and health care and technology that makes us live longer, there really isn't as big a need for mass baby making. The human population has grown exponentially over the past century, and the decline of marriage and making of families seems to be a natural response to that. If we kept going the way we did back then, we'd run out of natural resources.
> 
> ...




It is quite possible that there is a natural lack of space. Though I am not sure if this is the case personally. It does make sense though. Social norms could be changed by a lack of space, resources, etc. Doubtful it is actually due to autism. XD but I think I get your sarcasm there.  Your reasoning is much like fish breeding. Fish will only breed and lay eggs if the environment is right. This includes the right temperature, food, and space. Without these things, fish feel stressed and do not produce as well. This could also be said about humans, though as higher mammals, I would think this would be less of a matter of space and more to do with thinking and planning for children and possible consequences of marriage and sex as well as affordability.


----------



## Bootylicious Bootyhole (Apr 23, 2019)

Well, as someone who doesn't plan to breed or marry, I can't really say anything beyond the fact that I simply have never desired to before, and the realization that even if I DID want to, I would be so piss poor at it that it would just be a wasted effort on my behalf.

As for fucking less? Well, me and my rolodex of 52 sexual partners would beg to differ.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 23, 2019)

Firefilly1996@DA said:


> It is quite possible that there is a natural lack of space. Though I am not sure if this is the case personally. It does make sense though. Social norms could be changed by a lack of space, resources, etc. Doubtful it is actually due to autism. XD but I think I get your sarcasm there.  Your reasoning is much like fish breeding. Fish will only breed and lay eggs if the environment is right. This includes the right temperature, food, and space. Without these things, fish feel stressed and do not produce as well. This could also be said about humans, though as higher mammals, I would think this would be less of a matter of space and more to do with thinking and planning for children and possible consequences of marriage and sex as well as affordability.


Even if both of you are correct:  (You and Scorptatious) it still doesn't explain why migrants and immigrants are still having three-to-five (More in EU/UK)children. Certain groups who are the minority are having less kids and universally majority groups are having more kids making less room for the other group or creating the illusion of having less space when that space is being used by those other groups who are not limiting their reproduction levels.

If that theory were to be true it'd be the opposite where the groups having 3-5 children (mainly migrants and immigrants) wouldn't have that many children whether funded by tax payers or not.


----------



## Firefilly1996@DA (Apr 23, 2019)

Mewtwo_Rain said:


> Even if both of you are correct:  (You and Scorptatious) it still doesn't explain why migrants and immigrants are still having three-to-five (More in EU/UK)children. Certain groups who are the minority are having less kids and universally majority groups are having more kids making less room for the other group or creating the illusion of having less space when that space is being used by those other groups who are not limiting their reproduction levels.
> 
> If that theory were to be true it'd be the opposite where the groups having 3-5 children (mainly migrants and immigrants) wouldn't have that many children whether funded by tax payers or not.


That's a good point. This again comes down to social norms. Let us take Mexico and Spain for example. If I am correct in my thinking, it is seen as a good thing that a woman raise many children. Less developed nations such as Mexico, Africa, etc. Still, have relatively small populations or they have larger land masses. The thinking is different in each country and an African mil. could think and act far differently then an American one.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 23, 2019)

Firefilly1996@DA said:


> That's a good point. This again comes down to social norms. Let us take Mexico and Spain for example. If I am correct in my thinking, it is seen as a good thing that a woman raise many children. Less developed nations such as Mexico, Africa, etc. Still, have relatively small populations or they have larger land masses. The thinking is different in each country and an African mil. could think and act far differently then an American one.


I don't think they actually have smaller populations. Considering if we say majority wise: African's are the second largest population group on Earth only outnumbered by Asians (Chinese)...    

More or less my point though is if the luxuries of the first world would lend to having less children it should affect them too. Otherwise you'd see White's doing the same [insert "Be fruitful and multiply" Christian quotes here]  I question the theory in general when it only seems to apply to Whites in general though it could be argued a portion of this reason is thanks to welfare incentivizing other groups to having more children at the costs of the tax payer. (Such as Muslims having upwards of double digit children in Europe)


----------



## Firefilly1996@DA (Apr 23, 2019)

Mewtwo_Rain said:


> I don't think they actually have smaller populations. Considering if we say majority wise: African's are the second largest population group on Earth only outnumbered by Asians (Chinese)...
> 
> More or less my point though is if the luxuries of the first world would lend to having less children it should affect them too. Otherwise you'd see White's doing the same [insert "Be fruitful and multiply" Christian quotes here]  I question the theory in general when it only seems to apply to Whites in general though it could be argued a portion of this reason is thanks to welfare incentivizing other groups to having more children at the costs of the tax payer. (Such as Muslims having upwards of double digit children in Europe)


Thats interesting as well (Honestly running on steam here XD its 1 am my time) I would think that having luxuries would cause people to be more self focued then to have more money to spend on children. But then again depends on the person I guess (Think I'm gonna go sleep now, my thinking id not 100% rn)


----------



## mindlessobserver (Apr 23, 2019)

The more tinfoil hat theory is there are political powers that dont want the citizens to have children.

People like to present George Orwell as the prophet heralding the dystopian future. But IMO the true sage was Adolfus Huxley, not Orwell.

Orwell envisioned a tyranny of cruelty, but Huxley envisioned a tyranny of kindness. In the very first chapter of "Brave new world" huxley shows how children are grown in labs rather then through natural procreation. The reason for this is explained as a means of liberating women from the tyranny of nature, so they can live happy lives without the burden of maternal responsibilities. And for the men it's so they can engage in endless rounds of consequence free sex. All of which supported by free entertainment and narcotics that kept the population happy and stupid. Orwell feared a government so tyrannical it could ban thoughts. Huxley feared a government so tyrannical it could could convince people not to have thoughts in the first place  

I think huxley was correct. And the declining birth rate in the western world is a glaring example of it in practice. Why is the birth rate declining? We are told it's because people are more responsible now. That it's a natural progression of advanced societies to not have as many children. All nice ways of saying humans are no longer having sex. Total fucking bullshit. People are still fucking. The only thing that has changed is birth control. That is the unmentionable thing in the whole debate, and the consequences of it go way beyond protecting teenage girls from unwanted babies. At a meta level our society needs a new generation to function, and without it it can fail. Hence the need to import immigrants as stand ins for the absent children. 

Even worse however is that men and women who do not have children are susceptible to nihilism. Psychologists have known for decades that the arrival of a child causes massive psychological changes in the father and mother that are statistically relevant and also physically observable. The biggest change being a greater interest in long term planning. Because your children will outlive you by decades. For them to survive you need to think in such terms. It can even be argued civilization itself is a byproduct of that impulse. In the absence of children there is no investment in the future. Men refuse to work or worse, engage in anti social violence. Women seek to replace their absence with causes. Their pets. Or refugees. 

A village without children is doomed


----------



## Xenomorph (Apr 23, 2019)

Kids are expensive and people are getting out into the world later in life and working one job till you retire does not happen as often anymore. 
Weddings are expensive, it's hard meeting people and most people are too fucking tired.


----------



## CumDumpster (Apr 23, 2019)

Porn has little to do with this, but is instead a symptom of the problem.
The problem can come down to things like the cost of raising a kid (being somewhere in the billions) and the fact that men can start back at square one if they divorce from a marriage along with the fact that all areas of law are positively biased towards women (remember the 19th Amendment, burgers).
This is not bringing up the helicopter-parents observing the party that is life (MeToo) since the birth control pill.



xenomorph said:


> Kids are expensive and people are getting out into the world later in life and working one job till you retire does not happen as often anymore.
> Weddings are expensive, it's hard meeting people and most people are too fucking tired.


Lest we not forget that jobs are one card short of slavery these days and kids are being born into financial turmoil today (look at millennials, they *grew up into* this shit) because of employers that care not about firing everyone at a moment's notice.


----------



## Draza (Apr 23, 2019)

Tasty Tatty said:


> A lot of people who screech about "traditional marriages" only get the "men/women" part and not everything else that was involved.
> 
> First, your marraige didn't just involved you and your partner: the whole family was involved. Both families, actually.
> 
> ...


Third, the government played no part in marriages either.


----------



## Tasty Tatty (Apr 23, 2019)

Ratko_Falco said:


> Third, the government played no part in marriages either.


They were, in some way. There was some sort of societal regulation that guaranteed both parts would be fine and make it all legal. Many people say "no, it was only their religious authorities", but remember that, in ye old times, religion and governmetns were pretty much the same thing.


----------



## Clop (Apr 23, 2019)

Ratko_Falco said:


> Third, the government played no part in marriages either.


Ohhh yes it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_tax 

But that's the extreme example. What the government mostly does now is incentivize marriage, instead of taking money from bachelors they give it to the married. It's not a new trend to call single men cowardly bums, it has always been that way. And women were constantly badgered about it in their young age as well (though obviously these days they're off the hook, even celebrated when they stay single.)

How much money would you need to willingly get on board?


----------



## CumDumpster (Apr 23, 2019)

Clop said:


> It's not a new trend to call single men cowardly bums, it has always been that way. And women were constantly badgered about it in their young age as well (though obviously these days they're off the hook, even celebrated when they stay single.)
> 
> How much money would you need to willingly get on board?


There's an argument to be had about single men having the ability to live frivolous lifestyles.


----------



## Clop (Apr 23, 2019)

CumDumpster said:


> There's an argument to be had about single men having the ability to live frivolous lifestyles.


Damn straight.


----------



## Bum Driller (Apr 23, 2019)

Not very long time ago, getting a divorce or having sex outside marriage was considered a very big taboo in most of the western countries. Nowadays it's not, and this is the consequence. It's amazing that in here of all places, where users so adamantly value "freedom of speech" of all things, someone is asking this question. Isn't it shocking that when you give people freedom to choose whether to reverse bad decisions(getting married, for example), people use that freedom and get divorced more? Surely, it must be enemy propaganda.


----------



## Super Color Up (Apr 23, 2019)

The world is overpopulating and fast. Some conservatives and pro-lifers feel the need to make as many babies as possible.

Also I got cheated on three times in a row so fuck love, I say, as I carve this epitaph I to my local bathroom stall.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Apr 23, 2019)

Why do people keep saying that the world is overpopulating when the entire first world is almost completely below replacement level? Is this same sort of retardation where people blame America for India and China’s pollution?


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 23, 2019)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> Why do people keep saying that the world is overpopulating when the entire first world is almost completely below replacement level? Is this same sort of exceptionalism where people blame America for India and China’s pollution?


Because to look at it that way you have to acknowledge the differences not only in national levels (nationalism) but also race, and other basis (religously: Muslims/etc.) depending on the countries truly being over populated.  Some may not be doing it purposely but I have reserves on that take.

Others may be avoiding more conspiratorial explanations merely because they'd rather double down or avoid any such talk whether it is true or not. 

Though I think part of it also has to do with propaganda mentioned previously.  Examples: "The world is overpopulated! Stop having children!" But wait we're below replacement level... "That's why we'll import more migrants!" Type shit.


----------



## Bum Driller (Apr 23, 2019)

Runforyourlife said:


> Yeah kids are pricey but so is forever alone so is a private nurse. Imagine having a hard day at work then coming home and ya lil kid runs in and gives you some goofy drawing of you they made at school. Prob worth all the money they cost for that.




Yes and no. Having children has certain experiental and emotional benefits which one can't acquire otherwise, but at the same time it comes with anxieties and responsibilities that I wouldn't particularly mind not having. People who say that having kids is the best thing in life are usually total retards, or at least the kind of person who has never experienced anything really interesting. Still, like I said before, having children entitles you to certain experiences which are worth having.


----------



## Steep Stepper (Apr 23, 2019)

I for one have already moved rurally and found a girl, we're planning on becoming subsistence permaculture farmers and homeschooling our kids, I'm the last in my family line so I'm going for at least 4-5 kids, the goal is to raise them humbly and with christian values in a healthy rural environment, something me and my future wife never had, we're tired of europes cultural and social decay so we're networking with other preppers and rural traditionalists and forming a separate community, for now we both need to wageslave enough money for a plot of land and decent house to live on near other people, once we have the money and networking though we are completely disconnecting from society outside of the bare minimum bill paying and hardware shopping, I'm looking forward to finally being truly free from society, until then, I might pop up here and there to post things and joke about.


----------



## Basketball Jones (Apr 23, 2019)

Let’s all cool our conspiracy theory tism for a moment and look at this on a purely human level. I think we all agree that 3rd wave feminism, the rise of hipsters crying about toxic masculinity, social media, hook-up culture, welfare, student loans, the economy, and inflation ruined the dating scene in some manner. But most of these are can be dealt with on an individual level. I think the issue being asked is why is the Millennial generation lonely and miserable, despite having the ability to connect to anyone at any point.

There was a common theme in a lot of the posts in this thread about children being a financial burden, marriage being a crapshoot, and a general lack of trust for the system/women. This kind of cements to me that the issue for most individuals in this generation stems from a fear of commitment.

Not like a fear of commuting to a person, mind you. But a fear of committing to the *wrong* person and the chaos that could ensue. I think this was the only post I saw bring up a large reason as to where this distrust stems from:



Bassomatic said:


> Being in the last gen, divorce hit new record amounts, that's part of it, I think personally , children of divorce see it as 3 futures "holy shit I'll never do that" "I can do it better unlike those chuckle fucks" "I will never bond." You can be not too harshly effected, or abused from it and just choose to anyways.
> 
> Those who don't heal from the split, and want to out do the parents, often pick an unhealthy partner for a lot of reasons, so they are in trouble/risk of splitting.



And I think that nails it. I don’t know about y’all, but I’d like to see the a side-by-side on people who have these views and what kind of household they grew up in. How many of you jaded, childless Kiwis grew up in fucked up homes, or had divorced parents, and how did that shape your view on a family/marriage? 

 I think the simple explanation is that a lot of millennials are broken people who are the product of broken people. 

And I don’t mean “broken” in the same way Tumblr likes to explain it. There are a lot of people who aren’t on Tumblr or Facebook crying about muh anxiety/depreshun for attention points and ruining the mental health scene with their nonsense. I mean “broken” as in they have a skewed outlook on the word “love” and what it is, how it feels, and what it means to love and be loved.

The first people who will show you love in your life is your parents. They teach you what it means to be loved, and what loving in return means. Sure, it’s familial love, but it’s the basis for every interaction in our lives thereafter. 




 No one is a perfect parent. But there’s a hardline between a parent who loves their children and is a flawed person, and a flawed person who merely tolerated their kids. It can be argued that while none of these millennials died from neglect physically, there’s an emotional neglect that persisted long throughout their life and shaped them as adults. When you aren’t taught how to love or show love, does the word hold anything more than a romanticized Disney ideal? 

If a person grows up in a dysfunctional home, they grow up thinking the dysfunction is normal. They seek out partners that remind them of their family, subconsciously gravitating to what is familiar, only to have these relationships fail or to endure more emotional neglect, abuse, and loneliness. The more failures that add up only enforce the idea that people are untrustworthy, and that they’re unloveable. It reinforces that the idea of “love” is only a concept that has been fluffed and marketed to idealists, and that two people truly can’t learn to love only each other until death. 

To grow up in a broken, abusive, or merely dysfunctional family, breeds more broken, abusive, and merely dysfunctional people who want to be loved by someone, but don’t know how to love themselves or others. Of course they’re afraid of marriage and having children. Why would you risk the same thing happening to your kids that happened to you? Why repeat the mistakes your parents made and risk creating another broken human? Why risk the pain of a divorce, splitting families apart, and making the kids feel guilty because they want to go to their dad’s house for Christmas? 



Spoiler: Anecdotal Personal Shit



Anecdotally, I know the majority of people I graduated high school with had divorced parents, or dysfunctional home lives. A lot of them are single or...they’ve “settled” for a less-than-ideal partner. One guy I know is only with his boyfriend for financial reasons, but convinces himself daily that he “loves” him. Personally, I grew up in a dysfunctional family with a volatile brother who was my mother’s favorite (she told me that on several occasions lul), and emotionally uninvolved father. The entire reason why I even have this theory about my generation is because I gained a passing interest in human psychology from years of trying to google “what the fuck is wrong with my brother,” and out of curiosity I looked up the definition for “love” and “family.” 

Did you know the word “family is derived from “servant?” 




Did you know “love” originally had 4 separate meanings and words that were eventually combined into one word to sum up all these feelings? I think I read that it was originall a word for family love, friendly love, desire, and pleasure (read: enjoyment), but I could be wrong. 

Why did I look that shit up? Because after coming to terms with my fucked up family, it dawned on me that I wasn’t loved growing up, and that this lack of insight into what a simple, unconditional love felt like was foreign to me. It occurred to me that I was chasing relationships in hope of finding someone to love me, but I didn’t know how to return that love in a way that didn’t mimic how my family showed “love.” It never occurred to me that someone could just wake up in the morning and love you because love was always conditional. 

Realizing this, I determined I didn’t want/need to have children. The idea of fucking up any potential children the same way my parents fucked my brother and me up terrifies me. I would put a gun to my head if I ever caught myself repeating anything my mom said to me to my children, even if only in a moment of anger. I don’t think that I’m equip to be a good mother to a child. My partner comes from a broken, poor, family that had many kids. And while his mom is one of the sweetest and most loving mother I’ve ever known, he’s still hesitant to get married and even less jazzed to have kids. To him, he relates children to watching his mother work her ass off and barely make it. Financially, kids aren’t an option, and we’re fine with that. Marriage also worries him because for all his mom’s good points, she has bad taste in men, and has had a couple of failed marriages. It’s just an idea that comes with a lot of his own personal baggage. I feel like it might be the same for a lot of other millennials with families like his.



Also: The cost of children has come up in this thread so often that I’m starting to suspect a few of us were reminded daily about how much our parents hated paying for us to go to school/eat. Lol


----------



## The Fool (Apr 23, 2019)

I had always assumed it was the product of social media giving people an easy yet joyless output for social interaction that was quickly degrading the quality of life and socialization skills people have. There's hundreds of studies on it and it's pretty obvious to a lot of society, even if nobody cares. Although reading this thread, and especially Basketball Jones' amazing post (that blows all the stupid conspiracy theories in this thread out of the water; seriously guys some of you sound like /pol/), I'm starting to think it's something else (although I still do think social media is a contributor and will only become worse of one)

I think what some posts are saying about fear of commitment or ruining their life or the life of their child might be the major factor. I think the biggest contributor to modern society is the fact that, now that a lot of physical labor is taken care of and automated, health care is better and life spans are longer, children are starting to have high academic skills expected of them. You're expected to just know more these days, be more aware and attentive and knowledgeable. With that trait being instilled into an entire generation, what are they going to do? First thing they're going to do with the attentive mindset instilled into them is see how fucked up their life is or the life of their friends and family and realize there's actually a very slim chance they're going to have a happy, idyllic life. Generations past didn't care about that stuff, they didn't have time to think, they were busy with their manual labor jobs. But now more than ever, many jobs, especially respectable ones, are all about thinking. People who think aren't usually happy because they instinctively statisticalize everything. It might even be a perfect storm with the fact that divorce rates are so high, so it's only fueling this outlook the current generation is now privileged enough to afford. I mean, even me personally, I sure as hell don't want to marry or have a kid, even if I actually can get a spouse. I just don't want to risk it, I don't have the resources, and the resources I do have I'd rather put into other things. I don't see an incentive, and that's probably because I'm expected of society to get a job where it would actually be my job to judge which things deserve more resources than others.


----------



## Caesare (Apr 23, 2019)

All the antidepressants and mood stabilizers the millennial generation are on is ruining their sex drive. Then when they do get the itch maybe twice a month they'll jack off alone in the bathroom with cellphone porno rather than fuck their fat, depressed wives.


----------



## The best and greatest (Apr 23, 2019)

People freaking out over this phenomenon should probably stop. We should remember that prior to like the 50s it was commonplace for a family unit to all live together well into adulthood and in fact a child would often only leave the family home AFTER marrying and being ready to start a family.

What changed was that Americans witnessed unprecedented prosperity after several decades of relative hardship which made things like home ownership relatively easy to access which in turn meant that all those young men returning from war in the late 40s were able to immediately make new homes for themselves and start families. THIS is what caused the baby boom.

The reason that hasn't continued on into the modern day is because we live under different economic circumstances. Gainful employment is getting harder to find, and the price for a home has skyrocketed since 1950 so unsurprisingly people are reverting to the old ways; Live with mom and dad into your 30s.


----------



## Super Color Up (Apr 23, 2019)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> Why do people keep saying that the world is overpopulating when the entire first world is almost completely below replacement level? Is this same sort of exceptionalism where people blame America for India and China’s pollution?


The First World =/= The Entire World
How did you even arrive at this conclusion?


----------



## Umaibae (Apr 23, 2019)

I guess I'm a millennial. I am married. We did a civil ceremony because weddings are expensive and that money could be better used elsewhere. No, not all millennials have mommy and daddy pay for their weddings. My parents definitely wouldn't have contributed, and don't think my in-laws could have, either.

I know a lot of married couples, but the only ones having kids are either:

1. One spouse has a very wealthy family, so everything baby-related is paid for.

2. Both spouses have very high salaries ($200k combined or more)

3. Wife is a tradthot or military wife who never went to college and never wanted to be anything but a mommy

Everyone else? We can't fucking afford it.

If people want millenials to have more babies, then make it easier for educated, middle-class people to have them. Having a kid with insurance shouldn't cost a family $10-20k out of pocket, especially if the parents are each making $40-50k a year. Women shouldn't be expected to use sick days to give birth, nor should they be expected to go back to work days after pushing a bowling ball out of their vaginas. Bonding with babies is important, and so is letting a woman keep her job if she so chooses. Childcare shouldn't cost more than a mortgage or rent.

I take a lot of issue with the fact someone on welfare can afford to have as many kids as they want, but my spouse and I, with solid educational backgrounds and careers, cannot. Whose children will benefit society more in the long run?

For all the hemming and hawing conservatives do about how great the Scandinavian countries with high white populations are, they don't seem to correlate those countries' solid maternity benefits with population growth. Even Japan offers subsidized daycare, a year of maternity leave and a bunch of financial credits to pregnant women. Giving birth is still FUCKING EXPENSIVE here unless you're in the lowest financial bracket. Would cost about $10k for us.


----------



## Overcast (Apr 23, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> People freaking out over this phenomenon should probably stop. We should remember that prior to like the 50s it was commonplace for a family unit to all live together well into adulthood and in fact a child would often only leave the family home AFTER marrying and being ready to start a family.
> 
> What changed was that Americans witnessed unprecedented prosperity after several decades of relative hardship which made things like home ownership relatively easy to access which in turn meant that all those young men returning from war in the late 40s were able to immediately make new homes for themselves and start families. THIS is what caused the baby boom.
> 
> The reason that hasn't continued on into the modern day is because we live under different economic circumstances. Gainful employment is getting harder to find, and the price for a home has skyrocketed since 1950 so unsurprisingly people are reverting to the old ways; Live with mom and dad into your 30s.



Makes me wonder when (or_ if_) our next baby boom will happen.


----------



## The best and greatest (Apr 23, 2019)

scorptatious said:


> Makes me wonder when (or_ if_) our next baby boom will happen.


Probably the one to make it out of whatever impending calamity is waiting for us by the end of the decade(ish)? Making it out of hardship and into a better world is gud aphrodisiac.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Apr 23, 2019)

The sociological answer is that as the standard of living goes up, birth rates go down. Massive reproduction is a survivalist method, not tradition centered on cultural values, otherwise you'd see different reactions to the same increased standards of living worldwide rather than an apparent universal one, so to speak.

This subject matter is something I'd prefer to treat with a clinical approach rather than one of my personal opinion, but as far as that goes, my opinion is that people are just assholes & that is why they struggle with romance.


----------



## PN 801 (Apr 23, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> I can only speak for myself, but I'm not just gonna settle down with somebody because I feel it's necessary to be married. If I end up finding somebody that I wanna spend the rest of my life with, great, if not, whatever. I don't particularly want kids (and for a variety of reasons I feel I shouldn't have biological kids), and after some lost years I'm really just starting to get my life back on track and don't need to throw a wrench in things.
> 
> Basically, it's just not people's top priority anymore, and there's nothing wrong with that.


This is my current situation as well.  As a man I don't care and after some lost years of mine in early 20s I am just starting to establish a career and get some real money. 

Plus I can fuck any chick at 30s so it is not a big deal. 

I feel for women though.  They are fucked.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Apr 23, 2019)

Crunchy Leaf said:


> Do you really think having kids in your 30s is a new thing? How exceptional can you get? What's new is having your first child at 30+, yes, but it was absolutely standard for women in the past to have kids well into their early 40s. The starting at 21, ending at 27 baby-boom child bearing thing is historically abnormal and only exists due to birth control. Have you never even looked at your own family tree?



The cost of having something as powerful as the information highway at our fingertips, especially when paired with "GTFO NORMALFAG" e-culture is that it also creates an under-rock lifestyle, so it doesn't surprise me that many people today are out of depth or out of touch with any given reality we considered a fact of life just ten years ago, and are of the belief that a family must adhere to a specific ultra-idealized formula with no aberration whatsoever, and insist that their football fantasy nuclear family is not only a normalcy but an incorruptible one at that.



wrangled tard said:


> Gay people are also a lot more common now. People are less willing to have kids and more willing to suck dick.


This has gotten to the point I can't go one post without rolling my eyes at something. Gay people have been a prominent part of humanity for as long as we've stood upright. The Roman Empire is famous for it. Other species do it too. Even bed bugs, of all things, have homo-sex.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 23, 2019)

Umaibae said:


> I take a lot of issue with the fact someone on welfare can afford to have as many kids as they want, but my spouse and I, with solid educational backgrounds and careers, cannot. Whose children will benefit society more in the long run?
> 
> For all the hemming and hawing conservatives do about how great the Scandinavian countries with high white populations are, they don't seem to correlate those countries' solid maternity benefits with population growth. Even Japan offers subsidized daycare, a year of maternity leave and a bunch of financial credits to pregnant women. Giving birth is still FUCKING EXPENSIVE here unless you're in the lowest financial bracket. Would cost about $10k for us.



I agree. It's funny because most of the welfare goes to minority groups while our own countries majority can't even afford to have children. A lot of people just think the standard of living is going up but in some states it is actually going down. Not all of us are living in Texas so to speak. It's honestly why I think welfare needs to be revamped for couples (and not those on welfare/single mothers) wanting to have children or people wanting to adopt children should be incentivized.

The other problem as mentioned is adoption which is insanely costly, and some of the requirements are not only insane, but just detrimental.

Many people I know who wants kids see it's near impossible to afford and that's without schooling, and other side costs. Like even illegals in some states are funded such as on the news a few weeks or months back about some lady who has her medication funded, housing paid for, and recieves an additional $700.00 in social benefits to split between her and her 7 children. (Also illegal)...The news parades it around like a good thing but it makes me go "Why the hell are the rest of the citizens not being funded like that, or incentivized?"

I know some people believe it's merely conspiracy to say governments want to replace our populations, but I don't know how much more transparent with their actions then this, they can be. It'd be one thing if migrants and others on welfare came into the country had children and worked their way to affording their living hood of large amounts of children but instead they get funded and paid to have children while the rest of us can often barely scrape by. Even worse they get funded for generations at the expense of the average tax payer who can often barely afford one child let alone two. (basic replacement level)


----------



## The best and greatest (Apr 23, 2019)

Mewtwo_Rain said:


> I agree. It's funny because most of the welfare goes to minority groups while our own countries majority can't even afford to have children. A lot of people just think the standard of living is going up but in some states it is actually going down. Not all of us are living in Texas so to speak. It's honestly why I think welfare needs to be revamped for couples (and not those on welfare/single mothers) wanting to have children or people wanting to adopt children should be incentivized.
> 
> The other problem as mentioned is adoption which is insanely costly, and some of the requirements are not only insane, but just detrimental.
> 
> ...



Tbf a lot of those needy citizens actively resist attempts to give them social-anything and a lot of the places that implement these immigrant-friendly policies already have comprehensive welfare schemes for the general public.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 23, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Tbf a lot of those needy citizens actively resist attempts to give them social-anything and a lot of the places that implement these immigrant-friendly policies already have comprehensive welfare schemes for the general public.


In regards to that I think a lot of people don't want to have a higher costs of living why they resist those social hand outs, and a lot of people on welfare shouldn't be on it honestly. I see people all the time walking into the welfare office with new cars, jewelry of the expensive sort and more. That would require the government to do its job correctly though.


----------



## The best and greatest (Apr 23, 2019)

Mewtwo_Rain said:


> In regards to that I think a lot of people don't want to have a higher costs of living why they resist those social hand outs, and a lot of people on welfare shouldn't be on it honestly. I see people all the time walking into the welfare office with new cars, jewelry of the expensive sort and more. That would require the government to do its job correctly though.



Tbh I think its kind of petty to focus so much energy on the poor guy who buys a lobster dinner with his EBT when there are people who have had, are, and will continue to swindle the american people out of millions at a time. I understand concerns of misappropriation of government funds though which is why I advocate forms of welfare outside of direct cash payouts to people with little/no financial planning skills or drug problems.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 23, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Tbh I think its kind of petty to focus so much energy on the poor guy who buys a lobster dinner with his EBT when there are people who have had, are, and will continue to swindle the american people out of millions at a time. I understand concerns of misappropriation of government funds though which is why I advocate forms of welfare outside of direct cash payouts to people with little/no financial planning skills or drug problems.


The thing is sometimes they are one in the same. For instance a few years ago, there was a woman who was thought to be poor, she had basically survived on welfare. (Or so everyone thought.) After she died, it was found out she had millions of dollars stuffed in the walls. (Which she was apparently saving for her children and it was confiscated rightfully so)So the whole time everyone thought she was just some poor old lady when realistically she was a manipulative fraudster.

There's a difference between buying a lobster and being able to buy a new car and then saying "I don't have money." When you obviously do. Otherwise, I'd love to know how said people pay for their insurance.

Although I agree that may work with your suggestion, the problem still remains the whole issue starts with government irresponsibility and even if it changes may just maintain new problems due to government responsibility.


----------



## The best and greatest (Apr 23, 2019)

Mewtwo_Rain said:


> The thing is sometimes they are one in the same. For instance a few years ago, there was a woman who was thought to be poor, she had basically survived on welfare. (Or so everyone thought.) After she died, it was found out she had millions of dollars stuffed in the walls. (Which she was apparently saving for her children and it was confiscated rightfully so)So the whole time everyone thought she was just some poor old lady when realistically she was a manipulative fraudster.
> 
> There's a difference between buying a lobster and being able to buy a new car and then saying "I don't have money." When you obviously do. Otherwise, I'd love to know how said people pay for their insurance.
> 
> Although I agree that may work with your suggestion, the problem still remains the whole issue starts with government irresponsibility and even if it changes may just maintain new problems due to government responsibility.


Oh I dunno. Since we live in a society where the government is ostensibly the extension of the people isn't this just a roundabout way of saying we're all irresponsible?


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 23, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Oh I dunno. Since we live in a society where the government is ostensibly the extension of the people isn't this just a roundabout way of saying we're all irresponsible?



It's less irresponsible and more complacency. When you have an irresponsible government people are supposed to over throw it or replace those in power. The problem is we have been led into a "Hippy style" belief that if we just vote the losers who are irresponsible out of power the new guy will be more responsible, and this whole idea that the legal system is just supposed to work and most aren't even educated in understanding their own rights these days. (How do you think people fall for the FBI/IRS-phone scams?)

In either case, expanding government involvement or power is the last thing you wan to do, because expanding it just means you'll have more irresponsibility and insanity coming from the government.

Honestly, it's why I'd rather see all regulatory systems be revamped and rewritten and revised, to whittle down the complex system and shorten government's involvement. You can have welfare, incentives, and more, but they need to be reduced in how they are given out and earned or as I mentioned earlier, requirements for adoption per se should be made so that they don't exclude 99% of the population. (just as an example)

The real truth is though, the government isn't really an extension of the people anymore. Did you push for the ACA when it comes to medical systems? I know I didn't. Did you push for raising minimum wage in your area? I know I didn't and most people in my area didn't but we were over ridden by Chicago in this state.

It's part extension but it's not the entire concept of how the government operates. Though then again maybe you are right and we are all irresponsible since we have become complacent.


----------



## Chichan (Apr 23, 2019)

I believe it is in part brought on by that whole free love bs of the 60's. Now a days I feel people would rather dump someone then work through their issues. Or they think if I just date someone else for sure this time its gonna be perfect and we are gonna be in love forever uwu, but that shit doesn't happen. If you love someone for a long time it changes no it won't be butterflies, but its a wonderful thing to share your life with someone and there are ways to keep the spark alive, but cheating on someone or getting a divorce because you supposedly don't love someone anymore is asinine. I feel people jump into relationships in order to make themselves happy without really getting to know that person and end up letting themselves down when that person doesn't meet their expectations. I feel as though the best thing would be to get to know that person slowly before deciding can we be together long term and do I actually enjoy their company and not just superficial shit like looks or are we compatible sexually. This is not to say you shouldn't have standards, but that if you are going to have them embody them yourself i.e being a learned individual, healthy, hobbies, social life and stable living situation that you don't lie about. Also learn to be happy alone first because I see people use relationships to make themselves happy, but they end up realizing they are still not happy and it goes a lot deeper than just not having companionship.


----------



## The best and greatest (Apr 23, 2019)

Mewtwo_Rain said:


> It's less irresponsible and more complacency. When you have an irresponsible government people are supposed to over throw it or replace those in power. The problem is we have been led into a "Hippy style" belief that if we just vote the losers who are irresponsible out of power the new guy will be more responsible, and this whole idea that the legal system is just supposed to work and most aren't even educated in understanding their own rights these days. (How do you think people fall for the FBI/IRS-phone scams?)
> 
> In either case, expanding government involvement or power is the last thing you wan to do, because expanding it just means you'll have more irresponsibility and insanity coming from the government.
> 
> ...


It doesn't really matter what I individually thought of the ACA though, because I am not the people, WE are. It honestly sounds to me like you have a problem with the administrative apparatus conceptually and that you'd be happier if we dismantled the states and fed in favor of a more particularist government. 

I can see how the tyranny of the demos might be a bother to you, but at the end of the day society is a tyranny. Its a tyranny we accept though because we're ultimately dependent on society to provide us everything in our lives just about. For all our talk of doing for ourselves i'd be amazed if you could show me one American where the majority of the things in their home(Including the home itself) were made by themselves. The tyranny of society is also preferable to dying of disease, animals, or extreme temperature exposure. So there's that too lol.


----------



## CumDumpster (Apr 23, 2019)

Mewtwo_Rain said:


> It's less irresponsible and more complacency. When you have an irresponsible government people are supposed to over throw it or replace those in power. The problem is we have been led into a "Hippy style" belief that if we just vote the losers who are irresponsible out of power the new guy will be more responsible, and this whole idea that the legal system is just supposed to work and most aren't even educated in understanding their own rights these days. (How do you think people fall for the FBI/IRS-phone scams?)
> 
> In either case, expanding government involvement or power is the last thing you wan to do, because expanding it just means you'll have more irresponsibility and insanity coming from the government.
> 
> ...


The issue is that America's simply corporatist and this nation has been broke since the great depression (I've seen people say that "we've been out of money since 1933").  California is mostly operating with cash from the paper tiger of the world and emergency funds (why do you think Jerry Brown enables fires to happen constantly and drags his feet on fighting them?).


----------



## Cishet Nerdscum (Apr 23, 2019)

i think people are a lot more selfish now compared to before and have less interest in having to take care of a kid. know lots of gen x'rs with the same attitude who had kids just to tell them how much they hate them cuz they ruined their life / free time and i guess it's better to just not have the kids instead of let the state take care of them


----------



## Bunny Tracks (Apr 23, 2019)

Honestly, I think that people are putting way too much stock into the whole "all women think all men are rapists" and "all men think all women are evil harpies ready to cry rape and sexual harassment is you so much as talk to them" thing. Average people are not like that, nor do they think like that. The vast majority of people are not out to get you, nor do they think you are out to get them.

I am not saying that there aren't awful people out there, nor am I downplaying the instances in which situations like that occur. What I am saying is that social media, high profile cases, and fear mongering has led to some men and women believing that every single member of the opposite sex is plotting to utterly destroy their lives. Something which in reality couldn't be further from the truth.

tl;dr-Kyle isn't going to rape you and Hannah isn't going to scream sexual harassment just because you talked to her. Get off the internet, calm down, and go outside.

Here's some actual reasons behind this issue:

Economical. Jobs are scarce, the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation, the cost of living has skyrocketed, everyone's in debt, and there aren't enough homes. Marriage and children are extremely expensive. People are less likely to get hitched and start a family when they can barely scrap by as it is.
Birth Control. Back in the day before the pill, people boned and kids were just a by-product. Now with all the shots, patches, pills, condoms, and implants, there's of course going to be less kids.
Cultural. For the most part, women used to not be able to get life long careers and if they did, they were looked down upon. Being unmarried was also seen as a severe social stigma. Men who didn't marry were considered outcasts and often suspected as being gay. Now that all of these things are no longer an issue, marriage is not seen as a requirement to fit in society. If a woman wants a career instead of a kid, let her. It's her life, not yours. If man isn't married and has no desire to, that's fine. It's none of your business.
Divorce Rates. Divorce rates have shot up dramatically over the last few decades. Most millennials have seen their parents go through rough divorces and don't want to go through it themselves.



softsleeper said:


> Babies are a huge responsibility (mentally, phisically and financially), but people have to stop acting like a kid is going to be the thing that ends their dreams. Sure, they're certainly not for everyone and I understand if you just don't want em'. Fine, you do you. But Millennials need to understand that a having a child is not something to be afraid of or dread conceiving.


For me personally, it's not because I fear having a child would ruin my life or end my dreams. My fear is that I would be a bad parent. Without too much detail, I must admit that I did not have a very good childhood. I don't know how to properly raise a child. I fear that I would either repeat what I experienced, or would be trying to live vicariously through my child and end up coddling and spoiling them.


----------



## The Fool (Apr 23, 2019)

Bunny Tracks said:


> Get off the internet, calm down, and go outside.



This really can't be said enough. Half the posts in this thread are "the internet has made everyone autistic! I knew gamergate was behind this!", like jesus christ we make fun of twitter troons for this kind of behavior, it's embarrassing we're starting to emit it too.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Apr 23, 2019)

The Fool said:


> This really can't be said enough. Half the posts in this thread are "the internet has made everyone autistic! I knew gamergate was behind this!", like jesus christ we make fun of twitter troons for this kind of behavior, it's embarrassing we're starting to emit it too.


especially since nobody who participated in gamergate was gonna have kids anyway


----------



## Basic Bleach (Apr 23, 2019)

I have my own reasons, but I'm a late-model Gen X so I don't count lol.


My two cents though... five hundred new genders, a shitload of sexual preferences, poly bullshit, and popular-illness-of-the-year have doomed a lot of the millennials I know.  Not to mention "I identify as" instead of "I am" sounds to me like an inability to commit.


----------



## Overcast (Apr 24, 2019)

The Fool said:


> This really can't be said enough. Half the posts in this thread are "the internet has made everyone autistic! I knew gamergate was behind this!", like jesus christ we make fun of twitter troons for this kind of behavior, it's embarrassing we're starting to emit it too.



"Whoever fights with monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster in the process. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."


----------



## CumDumpster (Apr 24, 2019)

Rogue Boob said:


> I have my own reasons, but I'm a late-model Gen X so I don't count lol.
> 
> 
> My two cents though... five hundred new genders, a shitload of sexual preferences, poly bullshit, and popular-illness-of-the-year have doomed a lot of the millennials I know.  Not to mention "I identify as" instead of "I am" sounds to me like an inability to commit.





> I'm a late-model Gen-X so I don't count lol.


YOU *ARE* PART OF THE PROBLEM!
Re*meme*ber that the people of the X Generation were birthed on messages like *this*.




And people today claim that Millennials on Birdsite are self-centred twits.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Apr 25, 2019)

Bunny Tracks said:


> Honestly, I think that people are putting way too much stock into the whole "all women think all men are rapists" and "all men think all women are evil harpies ready to cry rape and sexual harassment is you so much as talk to them" thing. Average people are not like that, nor do they think like that. The vast majority of people are not out to get you, nor do they think you are out to get them.
> 
> I am not saying that there aren't awful people out there, nor am I downplaying the instances in which situations like that occur. What I am saying is that social media, high profile cases, and fear mongering has led to some men and women believing that every single member of the opposite sex is plotting to utterly destroy their lives. Something which in reality couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> ...



If you are worried about being a bad parent odds are you will be a good parent. The only bad parents are the ones who dont care or care so much they want to be the kids friend rather them their parent.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 25, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> It doesn't really matter what I individually thought of the ACA though, because I am not the people, WE are. It honestly sounds to me like you have a problem with the administrative apparatus conceptually and that you'd be happier if we dismantled the states and fed in favor of a more particularist government.
> 
> I can see how the tyranny of the demos might be a bother to you, but at the end of the day society is a tyranny. Its a tyranny we accept though because we're ultimately dependent on society to provide us everything in our lives just about. For all our talk of doing for ourselves i'd be amazed if you could show me one American where the majority of the things in their home(Including the home itself) were made by themselves. The tyranny of society is also preferable to dying of disease, animals, or extreme temperature exposure. So there's that too lol.



Not exactly what I'm getting at though. In my state for instance, the only reason my state is blue is only due to one city. It's why many in my state want that one city to become it's own official state. If most of the cities and areas were with that city (Chicago) I would agree we'd have to abide by the majority but this is a case of one particular city controlling every other area, which is a little bit abusrd and more than just simple "acceptable tyranny" if you want to call it that.  You can still have state/fed government but it's got to be prevented from being abused,  and corrupted or just overshadowed by one meager sector of a state, or people will sooner or later become less complacent and likely more violent. 



CumDumpster said:


> The issue is that America's simply corporatist and this nation has been broke since the great depression (I've seen people say that "we've been out of money since 1933").  California is mostly operating with cash from the paper tiger of the world and emergency funds (why do you think Jerry Brown enables fires to happen constantly and drags his feet on fighting them?).



I agree, though it's mainly corporatist because we've allowed too much of a larger government where it's spiraling out of control. Which is merely my only point. There's a way to solve it and fix these issues but it requires responsibility from people overseeing the government, and good luck with that. Sadly. So the tyranny of society as mentioned a second ago has more become the tyranny of the irresponsible. Yikes.


----------



## RadicalCentrist (Apr 27, 2019)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> Even bed bugs, of all things, have homo-sex.


 Bedbugs fuck by the delightfully named "traumatic insemination;" or, puncturing the victim randomly with a razor dick.  This has the incidental benefit of the female rarely surviving to be mated again.  As a response, female bed bugs disguise themselves as men, thus leading to the stated "homo-sex."


----------



## ICametoLurk (Apr 27, 2019)

Why the hell would you force yourself to be with someone just because you two fucked and created a monster.


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 28, 2019)

You can talk about economics, laws, immigration and tradition but lets be honest. This generation of young men grew up around whipped fathers and abusive/terrifying Boomer and GenX soccermoms and they're still traumatized.

Most men have historically pursued monogamy and sex after marriage or after beginning a relationship.  A large chunk of that group is avoiding relationships and in turn avoiding sex because for them the two ideas are linked. Men are alienated from women so we see less of them pursuing relationships that result in sex as a result

Pickup culture is still around and the "accidents" from that create a few marriages and some men in that majority will find their "one" but this decline is set in stone and no policy can change that. Why? Because men are at odds with women. You'd have to run one hell of a propaganda campaign to change that because people don't have kids for money unless they're Gary Brown Sr and Shaniqua. 

Look at the country of France in the 19th century. They empowered their women and the result was tumbling birth rates that made them weak in the face of Germany. French men married older or didn't marry at all but the country was urbanizing and sex was happening.  The French government bribed people to have kids but the policies bore little fruit. 

You can focus on the women but its the men that have to take initiative for anything to happen. 

Incurable super STI/STDs will probably kill hookup culture. However, that is a minor issue. That kind of culture doesn't lead to pop growth because that isn't how most people are. Most people want stable relationships and monogamy and that is natural. Rapidly urbanizing cosmopolitan France was degenerate as hell and you could find sex anywhere but that isn't how you fix your demographics.


----------



## Voltaire (Apr 28, 2019)

Women started getting jobs so salaries got cut in half so people can't afford to settle down in their 20's or even their 30's anymore. Add to that the stress of trying to afford a place on a job that pays less then it would have in the past and you wind up with mindless NPC's who want to just watch Netflix and play PS4 moviegames or whatever. It's not that complicated.


----------



## The best and greatest (Apr 28, 2019)

Voltaire said:


> *Women started getting jobs so salaries got cut in half so people can't afford to settle down in their 20's or even their 30's anymore. *Add to that the stress of trying to afford a place on a job that pays less then it would have in the past and you wind up with mindless NPC's who want to just watch Netflix and play PS4 moviegames or whatever. It's not that complicated.


I sometimes wonder at turning child-rearing into a gov paid job for this reason actually.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 28, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> You can talk about economics, laws, immigration and tradition but lets be honest. This generation of young men grew up around whipped fathers and abusive/terrifying Boomer and GenX soccermoms and they're still traumatized.
> 
> Most men have historically pursued monogamy and sex after marriage or after beginning a relationship.  A large chunk of that group is avoiding relationships and in turn avoiding sex because for them the two ideas are linked. Men are alienated from women so we see less of them pursuing relationships that result in sex as a result
> 
> ...




Honestly, I'd argue it's even worse than that.  More and more men are growing up in single parent (single mother) households, with large amounts of abuse

I do find though, men are only kept at bay from taking the initiatve in current circumstances due to government. Which has created the issue where men dare to tread and fix the issue outright, which is creating a vicious circle, of not merely a hook up culture but a population decline. (not only of a population but a culture, and civilization in a sense) It's the only reason when arguing these stances I disagree with focusing on the men, unless the solution is dismantling the government in the first place (by "initiative") otherwise you'll just lead to a loop repeating and not solving that loop and what's come from it. In my personal opinion.




The best and greatest said:


> I sometimes wonder at turning child-rearing into a gov paid job for this reason actually.




As silly and autistic as it might sound, that's one of the far better solutions I've seen or heard proposed.


----------



## Voltaire (Apr 28, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> I sometimes wonder at turning child-rearing into a gov paid job for this reason actually.


Some more progressive European countries more or less are taking this approach through social programmes. Personally I think UBI would help even the playing field.


----------



## UngaWunga (Apr 28, 2019)

Video games. Who'd want to date a fucking gamer?


----------



## Bunny Tracks (Apr 29, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> You can talk about economics, laws, immigration and tradition but lets be honest. This generation of young men grew up around whipped fathers and abusive/terrifying Boomer and GenX soccermoms and they're still traumatized.





Mewtwo_Rain said:


> Honestly, I'd argue it's even worse than that. More and more men are growing up in single parent (single mother) households, with large amounts of abuse



If that's the case, then we also have to admit that there's generation of young women who dealt with the same thing. They would also be traumatized.  In addition, I feel like it's worth mentioning that most women don't become single mothers by choice. Usually either divorce happens, or the father just skips town. If we're going down this route, we would also have to acknowledge that there's a generation of young people whose fathers either didn't play a huge role in their lives, or were just entirely absent. This, along with what you two have stated, would cause trust issues on both sides.

Look, when it comes to a topic like this, you really can't boil it down to one issue as being the sole catalyst.  We can point the finger at society, economics, feminism, technological and/or medical advancements as being the only reason, but when it comes down to it it's a combination of these factors.

If I had to sum it up, it's that, well, times have changed. The world has socially and technologically progressed more in the two centuries then it has in the last two thousand years. It's honestly kind of scary. What we have accept is that these changes, barring a huge catastrophic event, are here to stay. The old ways aren't coming back, and nor should they. 

Modern life, for all its, many, _many_ faults, is still a hell of a lot better than yesteryear's.


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 29, 2019)

Bunny Tracks said:


> Usually either divorce happens.



Leaving your man because you got bored or wanted money is still a choice.




Bunny Tracks said:


> Modern life, for all its, many, _many_ faults, is still a hell of a lot better than yesteryear's.



Being pro-family shouldn't be a reactionary position and it really doesn't have to be. The traditional system had some merit and the new ways have some benefits. 



> Look, when it comes to a topic like this, you really can't boil it down to one issue as being the sole catalyst. We can point the finger at society, economics, feminism, technological and/or medical advancements as being the only reason, but when it comes down to it it's a combination of these factors.



No, we can predict this trend by looking at countries and we've seen this trend happen over millenia. History is all about the particulars and those matter but human nature doesn't change.


----------



## UngaWunga (Apr 29, 2019)

Anime.


----------



## Chexxchunk (Apr 29, 2019)

UngaWunga said:


> Anime.


It's true, women simply can't compete with awful cartoon drawings done by sweaty, balding 40 year old Japanese men who don't even speak the language of their Western audience.


----------



## UngaWunga (Apr 29, 2019)

Chexxchunk said:


> It's true, women simply can't compete with awful cartoon drawings done by sweaty, balding 40 year old salarymen who don't even speak the language of their Western audience.


No not anime girls. Just the kind of platonic idea of anime. What girl would want a man who hangs around the house watching cartoons about ducking g your little sister, and being bussybothered online that the SJWs are trying to ruin video game boobs?

Actually I wrote that as a set up to no none but then remembered that oh yeah, that’s the protagonist from like every shitty anime romcom. 

I played myself.


----------



## 1864897514651 (Apr 29, 2019)

"And it is better to die without children, than to leave ungodly children."

This is not a Bible quote that supports the illusory "morality" of culturally infertile neo-Sodomites. I believe the infertility that we see in neo-Sodomites is a supernatural support provided to the faithful by God so that we are not entirely surrounded by absolutely evil, degenerate human beings. This will obviously not be the case during Parousia, but it is the case for our present generation.

On the other hand, the faithful in Christ that choose infertility and chastity are morally justified. The morality of infertility depends on why you choose it, and there is nothing wrong with choosing to be celibate.


----------



## UngaWunga (Apr 29, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> "And it is better to die without children, than to leave ungodly children."
> 
> This is not a Bible quote that supports the illusory "morality" of culturally infertile neo-Sodomites. I believe the infertility that we see in neo-Sodomites is a supernatural support provided to the faithful by God so that we are not entirely surrounded by absolutely evil, degenerate human beings. This will obviously not be the case during Parousia, but it is the case for our present generation.
> 
> On the other hand, the faithful in Christ that choose infertility and chastity are morally justified. The morality of infertility depends on why you choose it, and there is nothing wrong with choosing to be celibate.


Source your quotes


----------



## 1864897514651 (Apr 29, 2019)

UngaWunga said:


> [redacted]



Ecclesiasticus Chapter 16, Verse 4. Douay-Rheims translation.


----------



## UngaWunga (Apr 29, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> Ecclesiasticus Chapter 16, Verse 4. Douay-Rheims translation.


No I meant for the he rest of the post.

Also Douay-Rhein’s? Lol that’s like the official Bible version of all the wildest Catholic nonsense.


----------



## Bunny Tracks (Apr 29, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> Leaving your man because you got bored or wanted money is still a choice.


So is leaving your girl for younger tail, or not wanting to take responsibility. It goes both ways, man.



Apoth42 said:


> Being pro-family shouldn't be a reactionary position and it really doesn't have to be. The traditional system had some merit and the new ways have some benefits.


That's not what I meant. What I was trying say is that the benefits of modern life far outweigh its problems. We can try to look at the past through rose-colored glasses, but at the end of the day, we have to admit that the past wasn't all its cracked up to be. People have much more freedom now, and that's not a bad thing. It's not anti-family, it's that people now have the choice of whether or not they want to start a family.


Apoth42 said:


> No, we can predict this trend by looking at countries and we've seen this trend happen over millenia. History is all about the particulars and those matter but human nature doesn't change.


What exactly do you mean by this? Going back to your example of France in the 19th century, and how the empowerment of women lead to degeneracy and a drop in population, you conveniently left out that the French Revolution and everything that came before and after with it was also happening. I think a civil war, and a famine would lead to less people settling down and raising families, don't you?

Like I said before, there's a lot of factors contributing to this problem. Trying to pin it on just one whilst ignoring everything else is just being willfully ignorant.


----------



## Fougaro (Apr 29, 2019)

Because in this day and age "it's bothersome", as the Nips would say. Given the increasing amount of autistic, shut-in, depressed, loveshy and soy titted pseudo-women that pass for men these days, it is in my opinion imperative to understand the NEET/hikikomori mindset. Why would you go the extra mile to go on a date with a 7/10 3DPD to maybe get some coochie, when you can simply quickly rub one out to wholesome 2D and go on with your day? Why would you bother to find a job when you live off government gibs and have parents that hate you enough that tolerate your zombie "life"style? In other words: Why grow up when there is no need for it? Why change a working system?

One of the many drawbacks of the comforts the modern era offers is that it also gives you the opportunity to prolong your childhood. Problem is that whenever adults cling to their childhood or try to relive it, it _always_ ends in a disaster. It isn't helped by the fact that the internet has communities for you which replace much needed real life contacts for the socially awkward and offer refuge in hugboxes that attempt to rationalize and normalize their respective forms of autism and degeneracy, be it otherkin, headmates, unironic waifuism, incels, MGTOW and so on. An impartial third party observer would be tempted to conclude that love is on a noticeable decline when you have an entire generation that grew into autists and sociopaths.

Regarding marriage, I would support a reform that modifies no-fault divorce to no-fault = no money. However, going back to my preceding spergery, I would ask how many couples got married out of genuine love, which they confuse with lust. I mean love as in a partnership built on mutual understanding and respect and crafted into an unbreakable bond that last a lifetime. You are of course welcome to dismiss this as an anecdotal example, but pretty much all of the divorces I have personally seen from people around me, was because said couples married for the wrong reasons such as lust, the loud ticking of the biological clock, concern trolling or outright coercion by parents and peers etc. Emotional immaturity in their cases didn't help matters either.

TL;DR:


----------



## Chexxchunk (Apr 29, 2019)

Pretty much everything is conspiring against it. It's not just one thing, and it doesn't have to be one thing. It's all of them.


----------



## dopy (Apr 29, 2019)

ummmm that's why G-d invented immigrants, because they are the ones who carry society forward, duh lol




Fougaro said:


> View attachment 741232


feline darkmage alternate timeline???


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 29, 2019)

Fougaro said:


> Because in this day and age "it's bothersome", as the Nips would say. Given the increasing amount of autistic, shut-in, depressed, loveshy and soy titted pseudo-women that pass for men these days, it is in my opinion imperative to understand the NEET/hikikomori mindset. Why would you go the extra mile to go on a date with a 7/10 3DPD to maybe get some coochie, when you can simply quickly rub one out to wholesome 2D and go on with your day? Why would you bother to find a job when you live off government gibs and have parents that hate you enough that tolerate your zombie "life"style? In other words: Why grow up when there is no need for it? Why change a working system?
> 
> One of the many drawbacks of the comforts the modern era offers is that it also gives you the opportunity to prolong your childhood.



Would it be fair to say that this social autism is enforced on people by a culture of paranoia and fear? Going back to the 90s and 2000s we see a tonne of helicopter parenting and a generally paranoia about strangers.  In 2019 a man can't talk to a random girl or be alone in a room with one without being viewed as a rapist.

Perhaps the rise of degenerate communities was a response to culturally enforced isolation? Or perhaps its a chicken and egg situation. I suspect that these communities formed from a pool of natural degenerates and ended up creating more degenerates by virtue of being established communities in an era of social isolation.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 29, 2019)

Bunny Tracks said:


> If that's the case, then we also have to admit that there's generation of young women who dealt with the same thing. They would also be traumatized.  In addition, I feel like it's worth mentioning that most women don't become single mothers by choice. Usually either divorce happens, or the father just skips town. If we're going down this route, we would also have to acknowledge that there's a generation of young people whose fathers either didn't play a huge role in their lives, or were just entirely absent. This, along with what you two have stated, would cause trust issues on both sides.
> 
> Look, when it comes to a topic like this, you really can't boil it down to one issue as being the sole catalyst.  We can point the finger at society, economics, feminism, technological and/or medical advancements as being the only reason, but when it comes down to it it's a combination of these factors.
> 
> ...



Although I agree for the most part, I would point out many fathers are being removed from the portrait not solely due to abandonment but due to the legal system (divorce laws) which have been abused. Even outside of courts people usually use the argument "Dead beat dads ran away." Yet whenever MRA's fought for custody rights they were snarled at by the majority of the population.

Honestly, I think some old ways will stay, this whole "everything progresses" concept I have to disagree with. Adopting bad policies and decisions will only further lead to bad outcomes. Sometimes you have to take a step back and realize what works and what doesn't. Pushing something that doesn't can only lead to further damage in society and a further extreme and let me tell you there's a breaking point of no return sooner or later if things don't change.


When I look at how families used to be compared to now, can we realy argue this is a "Hell of a lot better" than yesteryear's? Sure my granfather has a degenerating spine, and isn't in good health, but at least he has money, a family that cares and is close compared to most, which shows forcing change may not be  for the best despite what people want to pretend.


----------



## Fougaro (Apr 29, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> Would it be fair to say that this social autism is enforced on people by a culture of paranoia and fear? Going back to the 90s and 2000s we see a tonne of helicopter parenting and a generally paranoia about strangers.  In 2019 a man can't talk to a random girl or be alone in a room with one without being viewed as a rapist.
> 
> Perhaps the rise of degenerate communities was a response to culturally enforced isolation? Or perhaps its a chicken and egg situation. I suspect that these communities formed from a pool of natural degenerates and ended up creating more degenerates by virtue of being established communities in an era of social isolation.
> 
> View attachment 741308


The underlined part is in my opinion the more likely answer since weirdos have been around ever since time immemorial. Living in a day and age where sociopathy isn't just tolerated but outright promoted doesn't help either.

As for the rest of your post, I think it's a global phenomenon around the entire civilized world. I might be operating on outdated info, but Japan has AFAIK been thankfully spared from feminism, #MeToo, "rape"-culture, fat-acceptance and all the other blue haired nonsense. And yet the Nips have taken inceldom, loveshyness and autism to levels the West has yet to reach. I even once remember reading in an article that apparently almost a third of Japanese men between 18 and mid-30s have no interest in sex at all. At least not with 3DPD. Japanese sex life is a more depressing tale than _Devilman Crybaby_.

The reasons are different. The results are the same.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (Apr 29, 2019)

Marrying later? Be happy they're marrying at all.  Fucking less? Who has the time to romance and fuck anymore? Pick a porn site, apply physical stimulus, done, now back to more important things.


----------



## NeoGAF Lurker (Apr 29, 2019)

Millennials are just a shit generation. About as bad as baby boomers.

I’ve been at different levels and statuses in my life. I’ve been a minimum wage wageslave to making six figures with yuge and bigly bonuses and guess what? Talking to my peers in the various categories, the excuses change but the outcome is the same. They can’t act like adults for reasons. Having a kid is too expensive but owning a Tesla and flying first class to Hawaii apparently is affordable.

It’s probably the first generation that’s never been asked to take responsibility for anything in their lives. No responsibilities means just aimlessly drifting through life. I don’t care if that is all they aspire to be but these excuses are so paper thin considering there are billions of people who are dirt poor yet somehow manages to fuck and have kids anyway.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (Apr 29, 2019)

I don't think it's wise to force child-rearing on people that have no interest in it.  You tend to end up with neglected, abused, resented and possibly severely fucked-up people that way.  Might be better to ask why they're shying away from it in a way that doesn't immediately answer the question with "they must just be lazy/cowardly/suffering from Peter Pan Syndrome".  I could venture a number of guesses myself.


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 29, 2019)

Fougaro said:


> As for the rest of your post, I think it's a global phenomenon around the entire civilized world. I might be operating on outdated info, but Japan has AFAIK been thankfully spared from feminism, #MeToo, "rape"



Dunno, they might just do it through extreme social conservatism like in Korea.


----------



## Inflatable Julay (May 2, 2019)

I'm too autistic to get laid and too broke to get married


----------



## Monika H. (May 3, 2019)

I guess this is a primarily American thing, since here lots of people marry in their early twenties.
Hell, I married at 19.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 3, 2019)

Heinrich Himmler said:


> I guess this is a primarily American thing, since here lots of people marry in their early twenties.
> Hell, I married at 19.


It's becoming very noticeable here even to the lay idiot, yes.  Still, I doubt it's contained solely to Burgerland.


----------



## Pikonic (May 3, 2019)

American millennials are having less children because we all broke af. Unplanned pregnancies have declined because public school teaches is to use condoms.

Millennials are also marrying later in life because women are no longer being “forced” to marry to get out of their parents house. Women now can work and make just as much as men and can live on their own. They don’t have to marry at 18, they can work on their careers and not feel like they have to marry.
This has also lead to the divorce rate of millennials to decline because we’re marrying for love and waiting.


----------



## JektheDumbass (May 5, 2019)

Everyone I know around my age or younger have "special needs" kids.  Every.  Single.  One.  I don't know if there was something in the water or what, but I'm tired of all my friends having tard babies and I'm afraid my seed is likewise tainted.  Sure, it's selfish but I don't want to wipe an adult retard's ass when I'm 70.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (May 5, 2019)

identity politics + shitty economy + easy divorce + mechanistic isolating society


----------



## The best and greatest (May 5, 2019)

NeoGAF Lurker said:


> Millennials are just a shit generation. About as bad as baby boomers.
> 
> I’ve been at different levels and statuses in my life. I’ve been a minimum wage wageslave to making six figures with yuge and bigly bonuses and guess what? Talking to my peers in the various categories, the excuses change but the outcome is the same. They can’t act like adults for reasons. Having a kid is too expensive but owning a Tesla and flying first class to Hawaii apparently is affordable.
> 
> It’s probably the first generation that’s never been asked to take responsibility for anything in their lives. No responsibilities means just aimlessly drifting through life. I don’t care if that is all they aspire to be but these excuses are so paper thin considering there are billions of people who are dirt poor yet somehow manages to fuck and have kids anyway.


Technically both of those activities you've listed are free and require no upfront investment on your part. We only think otherwise because we like having mother and child survive the birthing process reliably.


----------



## The best and greatest (May 5, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> Marrying later? Be happy they're marrying at all.  Fucking less? Who has the time to romance and fuck anymore? Pick a porn site, apply physical stimulus, done, now back to more important things.


The Buddhists know how this goes. The more we abandon our animalistic ways and the more enlightened and civilized we become the more dispassionate and beyond base instinctual responses we become as well.


----------



## Antipathy (May 6, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> The Buddhists know how this goes. The more we abandon our animalistic ways and the more enlightened and civilized we become the more dispassionate and beyond base instinctual responses we become as well.


Wait a minute, is this all a fucking Buddhist plot? Declining birthrates, people spending much of their time in solitude... hmm...


Damn, they're good.


----------



## Guts Gets Some (May 6, 2019)

Chichan said:


> I believe it is in part brought on by that whole free love bs of the 60's. Now a days I feel people would rather dump someone then work through their issues. Or they think if I just date someone else for sure this time its gonna be perfect and we are gonna be in love forever uwu, but that shit doesn't happen. If you love someone for a long time it changes no it won't be butterflies, but its a wonderful thing to share your life with someone and there are ways to keep the spark alive, but cheating on someone or getting a divorce because you supposedly don't love someone anymore is asinine. I feel people jump into relationships in order to make themselves happy without really getting to know that person and end up letting themselves down when that person doesn't meet their expectations. I feel as though the best thing would be to get to know that person slowly before deciding can we be together long term and do I actually enjoy their company and not just superficial shit like looks or are we compatible sexually. This is not to say you shouldn't have standards, but that if you are going to have them embody them yourself i.e being a learned individual, healthy, hobbies, social life and stable living situation that you don't lie about. Also learn to be happy alone first because I see people use relationships to make themselves happy, but they end up realizing they are still not happy and it goes a lot deeper than just not having companionship.



God, does this hit me hard. Especially the first bit about how it's always easier these days to just up and drop someone than work things out.

Honestly.... that upsets me. More than I can explain. Even when you think you find someone who's finally different, sure enough, they always find a way to let you down and prove you wrong.
If you truly love somebody, you can and should work out anything with them. If you can't with them, then you can't with anyone else. A relationship is not a one-sided shortcut to pleasure or comfort; it's a true equal and intimate connection to someone, that requires serious commitment and most of all, a serious want and passion to do so. If one approaches it with that kind of indifference that you're okay with just letting someone go, or having it end, and NOT fixing it, then it was already flawed at the core.


You're very well spoken; I only hope you too haven't had to experience this firsthand to learn it, though. It's definitely not fun.


----------



## ApatheticViewer (May 7, 2019)

This pretty much sums everything up


----------



## Sīn the Moon Daddy (May 7, 2019)

Heinrich Himmler said:


> I guess this is a primarily American thing, since here lots of people marry in their early twenties.
> 
> Hell, I married at 19.


I'm working on my first marriage and I'm past 30. Things picked up all of a sudden lol



Sprig of Parsley said:


> Marrying later? Be happy they're marrying at all.  Fucking less? Who has the time to romance and fuck anymore? Pick a porn site, apply physical stimulus, done, now back to more important things.



Mm! Dirty talk like that always gets me. Apply stimulus bby

Beep beep boop


----------



## Basil II (May 7, 2019)

Pikonic said:


> This has also lead to the divorce rate of millennials to decline because we’re marrying for love and waiting.


lmao come back in 15 years and tell us how it goes.


----------



## Pokemonquistador (May 7, 2019)

I am shocked, SHOCKED! That no one has mentioned the John Calhoun Mouse Utopia Experiment yet.






What happened was that Calhoun, a scientist, made a heaven on Earth for rats. It had everything, food, water, housing. But it was in an enclosed space, and once the rats had reached a certain population, they no longer had the space they needed to stake out territories or engage in normal social behavior. Some of the male rats turned on each other while others disengaged from society and behaved like rat_ hikikomori_.  Female rats forgot how to raise children and within a short amount of time, the colony developed a condition called "behavioral sink" and collapsed. Every time the Mouse Utopia Experiment was done, it ended the same way - with every mouse dying. This concerned scientists who thought the same thing could happen to humans if politics and economic forces crammed them all into cities. However, there hasn't been a mass die-off of humans yet, and scientists are pretty sure that humans, being slightly smarter than rats, won't follow the rat path to destruction.


Mice only lacked ONE resource they needed to reproduce - the space to stake out their own territories.  That fact eventually caused their collapse. People today have plenty of space to mill around (and most millenials can afford a flophouse apartment for themselves,) but to have kids and raise them well, humans need a lot of resources they just aren't getting anymore -  a large private space of their very own, a job with a respectable salary (or two jobs, depending on where one lives,) enough money to pay someone to take care of the childrearing duties (or to allow one parent to stay at home with the kids,) and the societal status that comes (or at least used to come) with being a parent. It doesn't help that we live in a society where having kids is seen as a money sink/ drudge work by both men and women. Or as a way to suck away money and time that they could have spent on themselves and their cool, flashy hobbies.

Still, after watching video commentary after video commentary about the Mice Utopia, I really didn't think humans would stand for societies that treated them like mice in cubicles, or that people would willingly emulate the conditions of the mice utopia all by themselves, but then, I didn't figure on a little island nation called Japan...


----------



## Chichan (May 7, 2019)

Guts Gets Some said:


> God, does this hit me hard. Especially the first bit about how it's always easier these days to just up and drop someone than work things out.
> 
> Honestly.... that upsets me. More than I can explain. Even when you think you find someone who's finally different, sure enough, they always find a way to let you down and prove you wrong.
> If you truly love somebody, you can and should work out anything with them. If you can't with them, then you can't with anyone else. A relationship is not a one-sided shortcut to pleasure or comfort; it's a true equal and intimate connection to someone, that requires serious commitment and most of all, a serious want and passion to do so. If one approaches it with that kind of indifference that you're okay with just letting someone go, or having it end, and NOT fixing it, then it was already flawed at the core.
> ...





Spoiler: TL'DS sort of powerlevel



I have TL'DS version date people in your own age range i.e. 4 year gap at most so you can both grow together, make sure you really know that person i.e background check anyone you want to bring into your life. I know back in the 1950's it was a more trusting society and people got to know others organically, but in a time where you can do background checks it makes it so you can protect your heart and you won't waste your health/time. Also don't get into an online long distance relationship they don't work. Jealousy will tear at you inadequacy will be your company and if you met on social media and that person has a flirty personality you will be disappointed because there is a slew of other people out there far more attractive and will inevitably be smarter and have more in common with that person at their finger tips. Its especially annoying when they play it off as a joke or just say its a part of their personality I fucking hate capricious people. Balance your time well because you could lose yourself and others around you i.e distance makes the heart grow fonder and its healthy(I practically never left my room). Make sure you engage in your hobbies and not text that person twenty four seven you will be better for it. Make sure you are healthy and the person you are dating is healthy(No people who qualify for my 400/600lb life if they can't take care of themselves how are they gonna take care of a family). Be established already and don't lie about your job or about having one. Means no living with parents or lying about being in a relationship with someone already(see background check). If you have to lie about the relationship or keep it secret odds are its probably not gonna last long or its already flawed from the get go. Lastly men and women cannot be friends unless they really don't feel a fuckin thing for that person because generally what happens is someone either has an unrequited love and they get friendzoned or they do end up together, but end up breaking up and its hurt feelings all around.


----------



## The best and greatest (May 7, 2019)

Pokemonquistador said:


> I am shocked, SHOCKED! That no one has mentioned the John Calhoun Mouse Utopia Experiment yet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While the mouse experiments are most thought provoking I'm leery of attempting to draw parallels between those experiments and the sum whole of human society. Generally speaking humans have way more ways of occupying time not spent meeting our basic needs. One might argue things like acting and sports are motivated by the rise of civilization. Since people can meet their basic needs without working literally all day every day all that spare time needs to be occupied so we don't go crazy. Ultimately we should remember, mice are animals, not civilized human beings. Human beings can survive well enough without having territory explicitly owned by themselves.


----------



## rabbitgay (May 7, 2019)

Tbh I think a lot of young women want kids but fear becoming a single mother. Both raising children and being able to afford them is easier with both parents in the picture.

I also think there's a growing phenomena of young people expecting to find a "soul mate" where they can't settle down until they find the _perfect person _with whom they have fairy tale chemistry with, never have any conflict with, always have mindblowing sex, everything is sunshine and rainbows 24/7, and anything less is settling.

Which isn't how relationships work, no matter how well you get along. I think younger people have a super skewed idea of how good relationships actually look in real life, which consists of less romantic stuff like being able to have disagreements without causing tension, understanding that sometimes sex isn't gonna happen for one reason or another, coming to terms that there will always be something about your partner that you don't like and _that's okay_ because they are human and so are you, and a whole lot of other stuff that probably involves being able to live together without tearing eachother apart. 

Relationships do require work and effective communication, it's not always going to come super easily, but it's worth it in the end because you care about eachother.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 7, 2019)

rabbitgay said:


> Tbh I think a lot of young women want kids but fear becoming a single mother. Both raising children and being able to afford them is easier with both parents in the picture.
> 
> I also think there's a growing phenomena of young people expecting to find a "soul mate" where they can't settle down until they find the _perfect person _with whom they have fairy tale chemistry with, never have any conflict with, always have mindblowing sex, everything is sunshine and rainbows 24/7, and anything less is settling.
> 
> ...


It really needs to be reiterated with a lot of people that any time someone outside your relationship tells you things like "you can do better" or "why are you settling", they should be politely thanked for their input and be told to sod off.  Down that road misery lies.  I don't care what their motives are, the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.  You should be able to recognize some basic red flags before you get deep into the relationship game, and if YOU are getting bad vibes of any sort YOU need to take appropriate action.  Unless you're a full-on battered spouse or something similar, third-party intervention is grossly inappropriate.

This weird phenomenon of relationships being some sort of audience-participation-mandatory form of entertainment makes my fucking skin crawl.


----------



## Inquisitor_BadAss (May 7, 2019)

I’m gonna put a lot of blame on consumerism and dating apps. Why work on a relationship when you can have instant gratification by wasting cash on some gadget which will be obsolete next year?

Why bother trying to work out issues with your boyfriend when you can just swipe right on tinder, talk with that guy for a week while getting a free meal and repeating the process.

Instant gratification and lacking the will to problem solve also people just aren’t as close with each other as they used to be. A little less then a decade ago you actually had to ask people on dates face to face or go out with friends to meet new people.


----------



## NimertiS (May 7, 2019)

Because we're neurotic, catatonic or broke.I can't have a normal relationship with a guy.
Has money? He's distant and workaholic.
Has no money? He'll mooch of his parents,living with them in his late 30s or just being a basement dweller.
Also, I see even when people have the funds to get marry they'll get a furry babeh and they're not gonna breed because, children are yucky nowadays or because of "tokophobia".
Everything sucks


----------



## Guts Gets Some (May 7, 2019)

Chichan said:


> Spoiler: TL'DS sort of powerlevel
> 
> 
> 
> I have TL'DS version date people in your own age range i.e. 4 year gap at most so you can both grow together, make sure you really know that person i.e background check anyone you want to bring into your life. I know back in the 1950's it was a more trusting society and people got to know others organically, but in a time where you can do background checks it makes it so you can protect your heart and you won't waste your health/time. Also don't get into an online long distance relationship they don't work. Jealousy will tear at you inadequacy will be your company and if you met on social media and that person has a flirty personality you will be disappointed because there is a slew of other people out there far more attractive and will inevitably be smarter and have more in common with that person at their finger tips. Its especially annoying when they play it off as a joke or just say its a part of their personality I fucking hate capricious people. Balance your time well because you could lose yourself and others around you i.e distance makes the heart grow fonder and its healthy(I practically never left my room). Make sure you engage in your hobbies and not text that person twenty four seven you will be better for it. Make sure you are healthy and the person you are dating is healthy(No people who qualify for my 400/600lb life if they can't take care of themselves how are they gonna take care of a family). Be established already and don't lie about your job or about having one. Means no living with parents or lying about being in a relationship with someone already(see background check). If you have to lie about the relationship or keep it secret odds are its probably not gonna last long or its already flawed from the get go. Lastly men and women cannot be friends unless they really don't feel a fuckin thing for that person because generally what happens is someone either has an unrequited love and they get friendzoned or they do end up together, but end up breaking up and its hurt feelings all around.



It's sad you have to give this as advice, when it only seems common sense to me.

But I will have to disagree about never doing online or long-distance. I think it requires certain kind of people to really work; those that are dedicated and truly can see or respect someone just the same as if they were before them in person or just online. 
That, and every other little bit of advice; IE, don't lie and be open about yourself and feelings, even if you are miles apart; that's how any good relationship starts; long distance or not.


----------



## Chichan (May 7, 2019)

Guts Gets Some said:


> It's sad you have to give this as advice, when it only seems common sense to me.
> 
> But I will have to disagree about never doing online or long-distance. I think it requires certain kind of people to really work; those that are dedicated and truly can see or respect someone just the same as if they were before them in person or just online.
> That, and every other little bit of advice; IE, don't lie and be open about yourself and feelings, even if you are miles apart; that's how any good relationship starts; long distance or not.


Its nothing to be sad over I did it to myself I was naive and went feet first instead of head and instead of severing the relationship like I should have the first time I had a gut feeling what I was doing was wrong I tried to be friends, but that last line about men and woman being friends is very pertinent to this case. Also long distance its more so those people are the exception to the rule not that it still isn't applicable to everybody else. They make you depressed because all you have is a phone. You can't touch them and even if you could the other things I mentioned made all of that null and void.


----------



## Ruin (May 7, 2019)

Higgins said:


> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/npvNPORFXpc" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Wut?


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 7, 2019)

Higgins said:


> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/npvNPORFXpc" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


yes hello also what the blueberry fuckmuffin


----------



## Higgins (May 7, 2019)

My bad, meant to post in a different thread. Bring on the autistic ratings


----------



## Guts Gets Some (May 7, 2019)

Chichan said:


> Its nothing to be sad over I did it to myself I was naive and went feet first instead of head and instead of severing the relationship like I should have the first time I had a gut feeling what I was doing was wrong I tried to be friends, but that last line about men and woman being friends is very pertinent to this case. Also long distance its more so those people are the exception to the rule not that it still isn't applicable to everybody else. They make you depressed because all you have is a phone. You can't touch them and even if you could the other things I mentioned made all of that null and void.



Honestly, yeah it might suck to not be able to actually reach out to someone you find and grow to really love, but I still find just that feeling of closeness and intimacy with them, no mater how far, to be far more satisfying than anything physical they could actually do for you.


I have a feeling this is why so many people view their first times as pure mediocrity, because they went in for feeling alone and not as a supplement to true feelings of attraction, love, etc, that precede it. That's what makes good sex.


----------



## nonvir_1984 (May 8, 2019)

Don't whether there is a single answer, but from what I've seen, the cost of divorce and people are so unforgiving, expect perfection and have hair triggers when it comes to sexual harassment: the fact that if any person asks another to go have coffee then it becomes sexual harassment. I recently had to sit on a complaint where a girl claimed that some boy was looking at her suggestively. The problem was he is legally blind..... Then she amended. He was thinking about her. WTF. 
Sexual harassment is really and happens too often. But sometimes people are not actually harassing anyone. Long way of saying that if you value your career then you'll find someone to hook you up (goes for females as much as males). You can't take the risk.


----------



## Drunk and Pour (May 8, 2019)

Pikonic said:


> American millennials are having less children because we all broke af. Unplanned pregnancies have declined because public school teaches is to use condoms.
> 
> Millennials are also marrying later in life because women are no longer being “forced” to marry to get out of their parents house. Women now can work and make just as much as men and can live on their own. They don’t have to marry at 18, they can work on their careers and not feel like they have to marry.
> This has also lead to the divorce rate of millennials to decline because we’re marrying for love and waiting.


Millennials have not been married long enough to have declining divorce rates.

People have brought up the internet, social media, dating apps, ect. for the problem, but I think it's been brewing for decades.  And I don't want to get all "Leftist Conspiracy" about it, but the last few years has really made me think about this.  None of my friends were married or had kids, most of the people I knew didn't either, and the few that did it seemed out of the ordinary.  Since I've moved from my friends and a life of partying, it's hit me that, , I'm old.  And I didn't really notice because almost everybody else around me was also stuck in "pre-family" mode.  And looking back, I can see how more left-wing ideals helped shape that.  The financial crash of 2008 didn't fucking help much either, but live your life until you're ready to settle down doesn't work because I don't think anybody is "ready" to settle down.  If anything, getting married and having a kid forces you to settle down.  My grandparents grew up during the great depression, and they had like 8 siblings.  Most of them lived to have families of their own.  So "kids are too expensive" is kind of a thin excuse (though not an unjustified one).

Maybe most of liberalism was well intentioned.  Sitting around getting high and creating art is much more fun than being shot at in a war.  But the last few years, the left has really been pushing crazy ideas, that I think cynically have been only talked about amongst their own, but have now been starting to spew into the main stream.  And I think Trump's election helped to lance that boil.  People talking about how we need to have less kids, dismantling infrastructure for the sake of the environment, opening borders to help pay for social security, Presidential candidates apologizing for being white, law enforcement are Nazis, terrorists are justified, dogs and cats living together (as emotional support fur babies), mass hysteria!

Damn it.  I said I didn't want to get all Leftist Conspiracy.  Yeah, millennials are marrying later and fucking less because our society going insane.


----------



## Clones of Alex Jones (May 8, 2019)

Why Are Young People Having So little Sex


Spoiler: Full ArticleFull (it is fucking long)




The Atlantic
Popular
Latest
Sections
*SECTIONS*
Politics
Culture
Technology
Ideas
Science
Books
Family
Business
Global
Health
Education
Letters
The Masthead
Photo
Podcasts
The Atlantic Crossword
Video
Events
Writers
Projects

Magazine
*MAGAZINE*
Current issue
All issues
Manage subscription
Give a Gift
Subscribe

MoreCategories
*MORE*
Create account
Sign in
Newsletters
The Atlantic Crossword
iOS App
Life Timeline
Events
Books
Shop
Help Center
View all
SUBSCRIBE
Search
*SEARCHQUICK LINKS*
James Fallows
Megan Garber
David Frum
Adam Serwer
Manage subscription

*Why Are Young People Having So Little Sex?*
Despite the easing of taboos and the rise of hookup apps, Americans are in the midst of a sex recession.





Mendelsund / Munday

KATE JULIAN
DECEMBER 2018 ISSUE
 CULTURE


Share
Tweet

LinkedIn
Email
Print

TEXT SIZE



Like _The Atlantic_? Subscribe to The Atlantic Daily, our free weekday email newsletter.

These should be boom times for sex.
The share of Americans who say sex between unmarried adults is “not wrong at all” is at an all-time high. New cases of HIV are at an all-time low. Most women can—at last—get birth control for free, and the morning-after pill without a prescription.
If hookups are your thing, Grindr and Tinder offer the prospect of casual sex within the hour. The phrase _If something exists, there is porn of it_ used to be a clever internet meme; now it’s a truism. BDSM plays at the local multiplex—but why bother going? Sex is portrayed, often graphically and sometimes gorgeously, on prime-time cable. Sexting is, statistically speaking, normal.
_To hear more feature stories, see our full list or get the Audm iPhone app.
Polyamory_ is a household word. Shame-laden terms like _perversion_ have given way to cheerful-sounding ones like _kink_. Anal sex has gone from final taboo to “fifth base”—_Teen Vogue_ (yes, _Teen Vogue_) even ran a guide to it. With the exception of perhaps incest and bestiality—and of course nonconsensual sex more generally—our culture has never been more tolerant of sex in just about every permutation.

But despite all this, American teenagers and young adults are having _less_ sex.
To the relief of many parents, educators, and clergy members who care about the health and well-being of young people, teens are launching their sex lives later. From 1991 to 2017, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey finds, the percentage of high-school students who’d had intercourse dropped from 54 to 40 percent. In other words, in the space of a generation, sex has gone from something most high-school students have experienced to something most haven’t. (And no, they aren’t having oral sex instead—that rate hasn’t changed much.)
Meanwhile, the U.S. teen pregnancy rate has plummeted to a third of its modern high. When this decline started, in the 1990s, it was widely and rightly embraced. But now some observers are beginning to wonder whether an unambiguously good thing might have roots in less salubrious developments. Signs are gathering that the delay in teen sex may have been the first indication of a broader withdrawal from physical intimacy that extends well into adulthood.
Over the past few years, Jean M. Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University, has published research exploring how and why Americans’ sex lives may be ebbing. In a series of journal articles and in her latest book,_ iGen_, she notes that today’s young adults are on track to have fewer sex partners than members of the two preceding generations. People now in their early 20s are two and a half times as likely to be abstinent as Gen Xers were at that age; 15 percent report having had no sex since they reached adulthood.

Gen Xers and Baby Boomers may also be having less sex today than previous generations did at the same age. From the late 1990s to 2014, Twenge found, drawing on data from the General Social Survey, the average adult went from having sex 62 times a year to 54 times. A given person might not notice this decrease, but nationally, it adds up to a lot of missing sex. Twenge recently took a look at the latest General Social Survey data, from 2016, and told me that in the two years following her study, sexual frequency fell even further.
*FROM OUR DECEMBER 2018 ISSUE*



Subscribe to _The Atlantic_and support 160 years of independent journalism
SUBSCRIBE
Some social scientists take issue with aspects of Twenge’s analysis; others say that her data source, although highly regarded, is not ideally suited to sex research. And yet none of the many experts I interviewed for this piece seriously challenged the idea that the average young adult circa 2018 is having less sex than his or her counterparts of decades past. Nor did anyone doubt that this reality is out of step with public perception—most of us still think that other people are having a _lot_more sex than they actually are.
When I called the anthropologist Helen Fisher, who studies love and sex and co-directs Match.com’s annual Singles in America survey of more than 5,000 unpartnered Americans, I could almost feel her nodding over the phone. “The data is that people are having less sex,” she said, with a hint of mischief. “I’m a Baby Boomer, and apparently in my day we were having a lot more sex than they are today!” She went on to explain that the survey has been probing the intimate details of people’s lives for eight years now. “Every year the whole Match company is rather staggered at how little sex Americans are having—including the Millennials.”

Fisher, like many other experts, attributes the sex decline to a decline in couplehood among young people. For a quarter century, fewer people have been marrying, and those who do have been marrying later. At first, many observers figured that the decline in marriage was explained by an increase in unmarried cohabitation—yet the share of people living together hasn’t risen enough to offset the decline in marriage: About 60 percent of adults under age 35 now live without a spouse or a partner. One in three adults in this age range live with their parents, making that the most common living arrangement for the cohort. People who live with a romantic partner tend to have sex more than those who don’t—and living with your parents is obviously bad for your sex life. But this doesn’t explain why young people are partnering up less to begin with.
Over the course of many conversations with sex researchers, psychologists, economists, sociologists, therapists, sex educators, and young adults, I heard many other theories about what I have come to think of as the sex recession. I was told it might be a consequence of the hookup culture, of crushing economic pressures, of surging anxiety rates, of psychological frailty, of widespread antidepressant use, of streaming television, of environmental estrogens leaked by plastics, of dropping testosterone levels, of digital porn, of the vibrator’s golden age, of dating apps, of option paralysis, of helicopter parents, of careerism, of smartphones, of the news cycle, of information overload generally, of sleep deprivation, of obesity. Name a modern blight, and someone, somewhere, is ready to blame it for messing with the modern libido.

Some experts I spoke with offered more hopeful explanations for the decline in sex. For example, rates of childhood sexual abuse have decreased in recent decades, and abuse can lead to both precocious and promiscuous sexual behavior. And some people today may feel less pressured into sex they don’t _want_ to have, thanks to changing gender mores and growing awareness of diverse sexual orientations, including asexuality. Maybe more people are prioritizing school or work over love and sex, at least for a time, or maybe they’re simply being extra deliberate in choosing a life partner—and if so, good for them.
Many—or all—of these things may be true. In a famous 2007 study, people supplied researchers with 237 distinct reasons for having sex, ranging from mystical (“I wanted to feel closer to God”) to lame (“I wanted to change the topic of conversation”). The number of reasons _not_to have sex must be at least as high. Still, a handful of suspects came up again and again in my interviews and in the research I reviewed—and each has profound implications for our happiness.
*1. Sex for One*
The retreat from sex is not an exclusively American phenomenon. Most countries don’t track their citizens’ sex lives closely, but those that try (all of them wealthy) are reporting their own sex delays and declines. One of the most respected sex studies in the world, Britain’s National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, reported in 2001 that people ages 16 to 44 were having sex more than six times a month on average. By 2012, the rate had dropped to fewer than five times. Over roughly the same period, Australians in relationships went from having sex about 1.8 times a week to 1.4 times. Finland’s “Finsex” study found declines in intercourse frequency, along with rising rates of masturbation.

In the Netherlands, the median age at which people first have intercourse rose from 17.1 in 2012 to 18.6 in 2017, and other types of physical contact also got pushed back, even kissing. This news was greeted not with universal relief, as in the United States, but with some concern. The Dutch pride themselves on having some of the world’s highest rates of adolescent and young-adult well-being. If people skip a crucial phase of development, one educator warned—a stage that includes not only flirting and kissing but dealing with heartbreak and disappointment—might they be unprepared for the challenges of adult life?
Meanwhile, Sweden, which hadn’t done a national sex study in 20 years, recently launched one, alarmed by polling suggesting that Swedes, too, were having less sex. The country, which has one of the highest birth rates in Europe, is apparently disinclined to risk its fecundity. “If the social conditions for a good sex life—for example through stress or other unhealthy factors—have deteriorated,” the Swedish health minister at the time wrote in an op-ed explaining the rationale for the study, it is “a political problem.”
This brings us to fertility-challenged Japan, which is in the midst of a demographic crisis and has become something of a case study in the dangers of sexlessness. In 2005, a third of Japanese single people ages 18 to 34 were virgins; by 2015, 43 percent of people in this age group were, and the share who said they did not intend to get married had risen too. (Not that marriage was any guarantee of sexual frequency: A related survey found that 47 percent of married people hadn’t had sex in at least a month.)

For nearly a decade, stories in the Western press have tied Japan’s sexual funk to a rising generation of _soushoku danshi_—literally, “grass-eating boys.” These “herbivore men,” as they are known in English, are said to be ambivalent about pursuing either women or conventional success. The new taxonomy of Japanese sexlessness also includes terms for groups such as _hikikomori _(“shut-ins”), _parasaito shinguru_ (“parasite singles,” people who live with their parents beyond their 20s), and _otaku _(“obsessive fans,” especially of anime and manga)—all of whom are said to contribute to _sekkusu shinai shokogun_(“celibacy syndrome”).
Early on, most Western accounts of all this had a heavy subtext of “Isn’t Japan wacky?” This tone has slowly given way to a realization that the country’s experience might be less a curiosity than a cautionary tale. Dismal employment prospects played an initial role in driving many men to solitary pursuits—but the culture has since moved to accommodate and even encourage those pursuits. Roland Kelts, a Japanese American writer and longtime Tokyo resident, has described “a generation that found the imperfect or just unexpected demands of real-world relationships with women less enticing than the lure of the virtual libido.”
Let’s consider this lure for a moment. Japan is among the world’s top producers and consumers of porn, and the originator of whole new porn genres, such as _bukkake_(don’t ask). It is also a global leader in the design of high-end sex dolls. What may be more telling, though, is the extent to which Japan is inventing modes of genital stimulation that no longer bother to evoke old-fashioned sex, by which I mean sex involving more than one person. A recent article in _The Economist_, titled “Japan’s Sex Industry Is Becoming Less Sexual,” described _onakura _shops, where men pay to masturbate while female employees watch, and explained that because many younger people see the very idea of intercourse as _mendokusai_—tiresome—“services that make masturbation more enjoyable are booming.”

In their 2015 book, _Modern Romance_, the sociologist Eric Klinenberg and the comedian Aziz Ansari (who earlier this year became infamous for a hookup gone awry) describe Ansari’s visit to Japan seeking insights into the future of sex. He concluded that much of what he’d read about herbivore men missed the mark. Herbivores, he found, were “interested in sexual pleasure”—just not “through traditional routes.” Among Japan’s more popular recent innovations, he notes, is “a single-use silicone egg that men fill with lubricant and masturbate inside.” One night in Tokyo, Ansari picks one up at a convenience store, heads back to his hotel, and—sorry for the visual—gives it a go. He finds it cold and awkward, but understands its purpose. “It was a way,” he writes, “to avoid putting yourself out there and having an actual experience with another person.”
Justin Metz / Mendelsund / Munday
From 1992 to 2014, the share of American men who reported masturbating in a given week doubled, to 54 percent, and the share of women more than tripled, to 26 percent. Easy access to porn is part of the story, of course; in 2014, 43 percent of men said they’d watched porn in the past week. The vibrator figures in, too—a major study 10 years ago found that just over half of adult women had used one, and by all indications it has only grown in popularity. (Makes, models, and features have definitely proliferated. If you don’t know your Fun Factory Bi Stronic Fusion pulsator from your Power Toyfriend, you can find them on Amazon, which has these and some 10,000 other options.)

This shift is particularly striking when you consider that Western civilization has had a major hang-up about masturbation going back at least as far as Onan. As Robert T. Michael and his co-authors recount in _Sex in America_, J. H. Kellogg, the cereal maker, urged American parents of the late 19th century to take extreme measures to keep their children from indulging, including circumcision without anesthetic and application of carbolic acid to the clitoris. Thanks in part to his message, masturbation remained taboo well into the 20th century. By the 1990s, when Michael’s book came out, references to masturbation were still greeted with “nervous titters or with shock and disgust,” despite the fact that the behavior was commonplace.
Today, masturbation is even more common, and fears about its effects—now paired with concerns about digital porn’s ubiquity—are being raised anew by a strange assortment of people, including the psychologist Philip Zimbardo, the director of the famous Stanford Prison Experiment, who is enjoying an unlikely second act as an antiporn activist. In his book _Man, Interrupted_, Zimbardo warns that “procrasturbation”—his unfortunate portmanteau for procrastination via masturbation—may be leading young men to fail academically, socially, and sexually. Gary Wilson, an Oregon man who runs a website called Your Brain on Porn, makes a similar claim. In a popular tedx talk, which features animal copulation as well as many (human) brain scans, Wilson argues that masturbating to internet porn is addictive, causes structural changes in the brain, and is producing an epidemic of erectile dysfunction.

These messages are echoed and amplified by a Salt Lake City–based nonprofit called Fight the New Drug—the “drug” being porn—which has delivered hundreds of presentations to schools and other organizations around the country, including, this spring, the Kansas City Royals. The website NoFap, an offshoot of a popular Reddit message board founded by a now-retired Google contractor, provides community members (“fapstronauts”) a program to quit “fapping”—masturbating. Further outside the mainstream, the far-right Proud Boys group has a “no wanks” policy, which prohibits masturbating more than once a month. The group’s founder, Gavin McInnes, who also co-founded Vice Media, has said that pornography and masturbation are making Millennials “not even want to pursue relationships.”
The truth appears more complicated. There is scant evidence of an epidemic of erectile dysfunction among young men. And no researcher I spoke with had seen compelling evidence that porn is addictive. As the authors of a recent review of porn research note in _The Archives of Sexual Behavior_, “The notion of problematic pornography use remains contentious in both academic and popular literature,” while “the mental health community at large is divided as to the addictive versus non-addictive nature of Internet pornography.”
This isn’t to say there’s no correlation between porn use and desire for real-life sex. Ian Kerner, a well-known New York sex therapist and the author of several popular books about sex, told me that while he doesn’t see porn use as unhealthy (he recommends certain types of porn to some patients), he works with a lot of men who, inspired by porn, “are still masturbating like they’re 17,” to the detriment of their sex life. “It’s taking the edge off their desire,” he said. Kerner believes this is why more and more of the women coming to his office in recent years report that they want sex more than their partners do.

In reporting this story, I spoke and corresponded with dozens of 20- and early-30-somethings in hopes of better understanding the sex recession. I can’t know that they were representative, though I did seek out people with a range of experiences. I talked with some who had never had a romantic or sexual relationship, and others who were wildly in love or had busy sex lives or both. Sex may be declining, but most people are still having it—even during an economic recession, most people are employed.
The recession metaphor is imperfect, of course. Most people need jobs; that’s not the case with relationships and sex. I talked with plenty of people who were single and celibate by choice. Even so, I was amazed by how many 20-somethings were deeply unhappy with the sex-and-dating landscape; over and over, people asked me whether things had always been this hard. Despite the diversity of their stories, certain themes emerged.
One recurring theme, predictably enough, was porn. Less expected, perhaps, was the extent to which many people saw their porn life and their sex life as entirely separate things. The wall between the two was not absolute; for one thing, many straight women told me that learning about sex from porn seemed to have given some men dismaying sexual habits. (We’ll get to that later.) But by and large, the two things—partnered sex and solitary porn viewing—existed on separate planes. “My porn taste and partner taste are quite different,” one man in his early 30s told me, explaining that he watches porn about once a week and doesn’t think it has much effect on his sex life. “I watch it knowing it is fiction,” a 22-year-old woman said, adding that she didn’t “internalize” it.

I thought of these comments when Pornhub, the top pornography website, released its list of 2017’s most popular searches. In first place, for the third year running, was _lesbian_ (a category beloved by men and women alike). The new runner-up, however, was _hentai_—anime, manga, and other animated porn. Porn has never been like real sex, of course, but _hentai_ is not even of this world; unreality is the source of its appeal. In a _New York_–magazine cover story on porn preferences, Maureen O’Connor described the ways _hentai_ transmogrifies body parts (“eyes bigger than feet, breasts the size of heads, penises thicker than waists”) and eroticizes the supernatural (“sexy human shapes” combine with “candy-colored fur and animal horns, ears, and tails”). In other words, the leading search category for porn involves sex that half the population doesn’t have the equipment to engage in, and the runner-up isn’t carnal so much as hallucinatory.
Many of the younger people I talked with see porn as just one more digital activity—a way of relieving stress, a diversion. It is related to their sex life (or lack thereof) in much the same way social media and binge-watching TV are. As one 24-year-old man emailed me:


> The internet has made it so easy to gratify basic social and sexual needs that there’s far less incentive to go out into the “meatworld” and chase those things. This isn’t to say that the internet can give you more satisfaction than sex or relationships, because it doesn’t … [But it can] supply you with _just enough_ satisfaction to placate those imperatives … I think it’s healthy to ask yourself: “If I didn’t have any of this, would I be going out more? Would I be having sex more?” For a lot of people my age, I think the answer is probably yes.


Even people in relationships told me that their digital life seemed to be vying with their sex life. “We’d probably have a lot more sex,” one woman noted, “if we didn’t get home and turn on the TV and start scrolling through our phones.” This seems to defy logic; our hunger for sex is supposed to be primal. Who would pick messing around online over actual messing around?

Teenagers, for one. An intriguing study published last year in the _Journal of Population Economics_ examined the introduction of broadband internet access at the county-by-county level, and found that its arrival explained 7 to 13 percent of the teen-birth-rate decline from 1999 to 2007.
Maybe adolescents are not the hormone-crazed maniacs we sometimes make them out to be. Maybe the human sex drive is more fragile than we thought, and more easily stalled.
*2. Hookup Culture and Helicopter Parents*
I started high school in 1992, around the time the teen pregnancy and birth rates hit their highest levels in decades, and the median age at which teenagers began having sex was approaching its modern low of 16.9. Women born in 1978, the year I was born, have a dubious honor: We were younger when we started having sex than any group since.
But as the ’90s continued, the teen pregnancy rate began to decline. This development was welcomed—even if experts couldn’t agree on why it was happening. Birth-control advocates naturally pointed to birth control. And yes, teenagers were getting better about using contraceptives, but not sufficiently better to single-handedly explain the change. Christian pro-abstinence groups and backers of abstinence-only education, which received a big funding boost from the 1996 welfare-reform act, also tried to take credit. Yet the teen pregnancy rate was falling even in places that hadn’t adopted abstinence-only curricula, and research has since shown that virginity pledges and abstinence-only education don’t actually beget abstinence.

Still, the trend continued: Each wave of teenagers had sex a little later, and the pregnancy rate kept inching down. You wouldn’t have known either of these things, though, from all the hyperventilating about hookup culture that started in the late ’90s. _The New York Times_, for example, announced in 1997 that on college campuses, casual sex “seems to be near an all-time high.” It didn’t offer much data to support this, but it did introduce the paper’s readers to the term _hooking up_, which it defined as “anything from 20 minutes of strenuous kissing to spending the night together fully clothed to sexual intercourse.”
Pretty much ever since, people have been overestimating how much casual sex high-school and college students are having (even, surveys show, students themselves). In the past several years, however, a number of studies and books on hookup culture have begun to correct the record. One of the most thoughtful of these is _American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus_, by Lisa Wade, a sociology professor at Occidental College. The book draws on detailed journals kept by students at two liberal-arts colleges from 2010 to 2015, as well as on Wade’s conversations with students at 24 other colleges and universities.
Wade sorts the students she followed into three groups. Roughly one-third were what she calls “abstainers”—they opted out of hookup culture entirely. A little more than a third were “dabblers”—they hooked up sometimes, but ambivalently. Less than a quarter were “enthusiasts,” who delighted in hooking up. The remainder were in long-term relationships.

This portrait is compatible with a 2014 study finding that Millennial college students weren’t having more sex or sexual partners than their Gen X predecessors. It also tracks with data from the Online College Social Life Survey, a survey of more than 20,000 college students that was conducted from 2005 to 2011, which found the median number of hookups over a four-year college career to be five—a third of which involved only kissing and touching. The majority of students surveyed said they wished they had more opportunities to find a long-term boyfriend or girlfriend.
When I spoke with Wade recently, she told me that she found the sex decline among teens and 20-somethings completely unsurprising—young people, she said, have always been most likely to have sex in the context of a relationship. “Go back to the point in history where premarital sex became more of a thing, and the conditions that led to it,” she said, referring to how post–World War II anxiety about a man shortage led teen girls in the late 1940s and ’50s to pursue more serious romantic relationships than had been customary before the war. “Young women, at that point, innovate ‘going steady,’ ” Wade said, adding that parents were not entirely happy about the shift away from prewar courtship, which had favored casual, nonexclusive dating. “If you [go out with someone for] one night you might get up to a little bit of necking and petting, but what happens when you spend months with them? It turns out 1957 has the highest rate of teen births in American history.”
“We hook up because we have no social skills. We have no social skills because we hook up.”
In more recent decades, by contrast, teen romantic relationships appear to have grown less common. In 1995, the large longitudinal study known as “Add Health” found that 66 percent of 17-year-old men and 74 percent of 17-year-old women had experienced “a special romantic relationship” in the past 18 months. In 2014, when the Pew Research Center asked 17-year-olds whether they had “ever dated, hooked up with or otherwise had a romantic relationship with another person”—seemingly a broader category than the earlier one—only 46 percent said yes.

So what thwarted teen romance? Adolescence has changed so much in the past 25 years that it’s hard to know where to start. As Jean Twenge wrote in _The Atlantic_last year, the percentage of teens who report going on dates has decreased alongside the percentage who report other activities associated with entering adulthood, like drinking alcohol, working for pay, going out without one’s parents, and getting a driver’s license.
These shifts coincide with another major change: parents’ increased anxiety about their children’s educational and economic prospects. Among the affluent and educated, especially, this anxiety has led to big changes in what’s expected of teens. “It’s hard to work in sex when the baseball team practices at 6:30, school starts at 8:15, drama club meets at 4:15, the soup kitchen starts serving at 6, and, oh yeah, your screenplay needs completion,” said a man who was a couple of years out of college, thinking back on his high-school years. He added: “There’s immense pressure” from parents and other authority figures “to focus on the self, at the expense of relationships”—pressure, quite a few 20-somethings told me, that extends right on through college.
Malcolm Harris strikes a similar note in his book, _Kids These Days: Human Capital and the Making of Millennials_. Addressing the desexing of the American teenager, he writes:


> A decline in unsupervised free time probably contributes a lot. At a basic level, sex at its best is unstructured play with friends, a category of experience that … time diaries … tell us has been decreasing for American adolescents. It takes idle hands to get past first base, and today’s kids have a lot to do.


Marriage 101, one of the most popular undergraduate classes at Northwestern University, was launched in 2001 by William M. Pinsof, a founding father of couples therapy, and Arthur Nielsen, a psychiatry professor. What if you could teach about love, sex, and marriage before people chose a partner, Pinsof and Nielsen wondered—before they developed bad habits? The class was meant to be a sort of preemptive strike against unhappy marriages. Under Alexandra Solomon, the psychology professor who took over the course six years ago, it has become, secondarily, a strike against what she sees as the romantic and sexual stunting of a generation. She assigns students to ask someone else out on a date, for example, something many have never done.

This hasn’t hurt the class’s appeal; during registration, it fills within minutes. (It may or may not have helped that a course with overlapping appeal, Human Sexuality, was discontinued some years back after its professor presided over a demonstration of something called a fucksaw.) Each week during office hours, students wait in line to talk with Solomon, who is also a practicing therapist at the university’s Family Institute, not only about the class but about their love woes and everything they don’t know about healthy and pleasurable sex—which, in many cases, is a lot.
Over the course of numerous conversations, Solomon has come to various conclusions about hookup culture, or what might more accurately be described as lack-of-relationship culture. For one thing, she believes it is both a cause and an effect of social stunting. Or, as one of her students put it to her: “We hook up because we have no social skills. We have no social skills because we hook up.” For another, insofar as her students find themselves choosing between casual sex and no sex, they are doing so because an obvious third option—relationship sex—strikes many of them as not only unattainable but potentially irresponsible. Most Marriage 101 students have had at least one romantic relationship over the course of their college career; the class naturally attracts relationship-oriented students, she points out. Nonetheless, she believes that many students have absorbed the idea that love is secondary to academic and professional success—or, at any rate, is best delayed until those other things have been secured. “Over and over,” she has written, “my undergraduates tell me they try hard not to fall in love during college, imagining that would mess up their plans.”

One Friday afternoon in March, I sat in on a discussion Solomon was hosting for a group of predominantly female graduate students in the Family Institute’s counseling programs, on the challenges of love and sex circa 2018. Over rosé and brownies, students shared thoughts on topics ranging from Aziz Ansari’s notorious date (which had recently been detailed on the website Babe) to the ambiguities of current relationship terminology. “People will be like, ‘We’re dating, we’re exclusive, but we’re not boyfriend and girlfriend.’ What does that _mean_?” one young woman asked, exasperated. A classmate nodded emphatically. “What _does_ that mean? We’re in a monogamous relationship, but …” She trailed off. Solomon jumped in with a sort of relationship litmus test: “If I get the flu, are you bringing me soup?” Around the conference table, heads shook; not many people were getting (or giving) soup.
The conversation proceeded to why soup-bringing relationships weren’t more common. “You’re supposed to have so much _before_ you can get into a relationship,” one woman offered. Another said that when she was in high school, her parents, who are both professionals with advanced degrees, had discouraged relationships on the grounds that they might diminish her focus. Even today, in graduate school, she was finding the attitude hard to shake. “Now I need to finish school, I need to get a practice going, I need to do this and this, and _then_ I’ll think about love. But by 30, you’re like, _What is love? What’s it like to be in love?_”
He couldn’t escape the sense that hitting on someone in person had, in a short period of time, gone from normal behavior to borderline creepy.
In early May, I returned to Northwestern to sit in on a Marriage 101 discussion section. I had picked that particular week because the designated topic, “Sex in Intimate Relationships,” seemed relevant. As it happened, though, there wasn’t much talk of sex; the session was mostly consumed by a rapturous conversation about the students’ experiences with something called the “mentor couple” assignment, which had involved interviewing a couple in the community and chronicling their relationship.

“To see a relationship where two people are utterly content and committed,” one woman said, with real conviction, “it’s kind of an aha moment for me.” Another student spoke disbelievingly of her couple’s pre-smartphone courtship. “I couldn’t necessarily relate to it,” she said. “They met, they got each other’s email addresses, they emailed one another, they went on a first date, they knew that they were going to be together. They never had a ‘define the relationship’ moment, because both were on the same page. I was just like, _Damn, is that what it’s supposed to be like?_” About two-thirds of the way through the allotted discussion time, one of the teaching assistants finally interrupted. “Should we transition?” she asked, tentatively. “I wanted to transition to talk about sex. Which is the topic of this week.”
*3. The Tinder Mirage*
Simon, a 32-year-old grad student who describes himself as short and balding (“If I wasn’t funny,” he says, “I’d be doomed”), didn’t lack for sex in college. (The names of people who talked with me about their personal lives have been changed.) “I’m outgoing and like to talk, but I am at heart a significant nerd,” he told me when we spoke recently. “I was so happy that college had nerdy women. That was a delight.” Shortly before graduation, he started a relationship that lasted for seven years. When he and his girlfriend broke up, in 2014, he felt like he’d stepped out of a time machine.

Before the relationship, Tinder didn’t exist; nor did iPhones. Simon wasn’t particularly eager to get into another serious relationship right away, but he wanted to have sex. “My first instinct was go to bars,” he said. But each time he went to one, he struck out. He couldn’t escape the sense that hitting on someone in person had, in a short period of time, gone from normal behavior to borderline creepy. His friends set up a Tinder account for him; later, he signed up for Bumble, Match, OkCupid, and Coffee Meets Bagel.
Unless you are exceptionally good-looking, the thing online dating may be best at is sucking up large amounts of time.
He had better luck with Tinder than the other apps, but it was hardly efficient. He figures he swiped right—indicating that he was interested—up to 30 times for every woman who also swiped right on him, thereby triggering a match. But matching was only the beginning; then it was time to start messaging. “I was up to over 10 messages sent for a single message received,” he said. In other words: Nine out of 10 women who matched with Simon after swiping right on him didn’t go on to exchange messages with him. This means that for every 300 women he swiped right on, he had a conversation with just one.
At least among people who don’t use dating apps, the perception exists that they facilitate casual sex with unprecedented efficiency. In reality, unless you are exceptionally good-looking, the thing online dating may be best at is sucking up large amounts of time. As of 2014, when Tinder last released such data, the average user logged in 11 times a day. Men spent 7.2 minutes per session and women spent 8.5 minutes, for a total of about an hour and a half a day. Yet they didn’t get much in return. Today, the company says it logs 1.6 billion swipes a day, and just 26 million matches. And, if Simon’s experience is any indication, the overwhelming majority of matches don’t lead to so much as a two-way text exchange, much less a date, much less sex.

When I talked with Simon, he was seven months into a relationship with a new girlfriend, whom he’d met through another online-dating service. He liked her, and was happy to be on hiatus from Tinder. “It’s like howling into the void for most guys,” he explained, “and like searching for a diamond in a sea of dick pics for most girls.”
So why do people continue to use dating apps? Why not boycott them all? Simon said meeting someone offline seemed like less and less of an option. His parents had met in a chorus a few years after college, but he couldn’t see himself pulling off something similar. “I play volleyball,” he added. “I had somebody on the volleyball team two years ago who I thought was cute, and we’d been playing together for a while.” Simon wanted to ask her out, but ultimately concluded that this would be “incredibly awkward,” even “boorish.”
At first, I wondered whether Simon was being overly genteel, or a little paranoid. But the more people I talked with, the more I came to believe that he was simply describing an emerging cultural reality. “No one approaches anyone in public anymore,” said a teacher in Northern Virginia. “The dating landscape has changed. People are less likely to ask you out in real life now, or even talk to begin with,” said a 28-year-old woman in Los Angeles who volunteered that she had been single for three years.
As romance and its beginnings are segregated from the routines of daily life, there is less and less space for elevator flirtation.
This shift seems to be accelerating amid the national reckoning with sexual assault and harassment, and a concomitant shifting of boundaries. According to a November 2017 _Economist_/YouGov poll, 17 percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 now believe that a man inviting a woman out for a drink “always” or “usually” constitutes sexual harassment. (Among older groups, much smaller percentages believe this.)
Laurie Mintz, who teaches a popular undergraduate class on the psychology of sexuality at the University of Florida, told me that the #MeToo movement has made her students much more aware of issues surrounding consent. She has heard from many young men who are productively reexamining their past actions and working diligently to learn from the experiences of friends and partners. But others have described less healthy reactions, like avoiding romantic overtures for fear that they might be unwelcome. In my own conversations, men and women alike spoke of a new tentativeness and hesitancy. One woman who described herself as a passionate feminist said she felt empathy for the pressure that heterosexual dating puts on men. “I think I owe it to them, in this current cultural moment particularly, to try to treat them like they’re human beings taking a risk talking to a stranger,” she wrote me. “There are a lot of lonely, confused people out there, who have no idea what to do or how to date.”
I mentioned to several of the people I interviewed for this piece that I’d met my husband in an elevator, in 2001. (We worked on different floors of the same institution, and over the months that followed struck up many more conversations—in the elevator, in the break room, on the walk to the subway.) I was fascinated by the extent to which this prompted other women to sigh and say that they’d just love to meet someone that way. And yet quite a few of them suggested that if a random guy started talking to them in an elevator, they would be weirded out. “_Creeper! Get away from me_,” one woman imagined thinking. “Anytime we’re in silence, we look at our phones,” explained her friend, nodding. Another woman fantasized to me about what it would be like to have a man hit on her in a bookstore. (She’d be holding a copy of her favorite book. “What’s that book?” he’d say.) But then she seemed to snap out of her reverie, and changed the subject to _Sex and the City_reruns and how hopelessly dated they seem. “Miranda meets Steve at a _bar_,” she said, in a tone suggesting that the scenario might as well be out of a Jane Austen novel, for all the relevance it had to her life.
*Video: The Sex Drought*

How could various dating apps be so inefficient at their ostensible purpose—hooking people up—and still be so popular? For one thing, lots of people appear to be using them as a diversion, with limited expectations of meeting up in person. As Iris, who’s 33, told me bitterly, “They’ve gamified interaction. The majority of men on Tinder just swipe right on everybody. They say _yes, yes, yes _to every woman.”
Stories from other app users bear out the idea of apps as diversions rather than matchmakers. “Getting right-swiped is a good ego boost even if I have no intention of meeting someone,” one man told me. A 28-year-old woman said that she persisted in using dating apps even though she had been abstinent for three years, a fact she attributed to depression and low libido: “I don’t have much inclination to date someone.”
“After a while it just feels exactly the same as getting good at a bubble-popping game. I’m happy to be good at it, but what am I really achieving?” said an app user who described herself as abstinent by choice. Another woman wrote that she was “too lazy” to meet people, adding: “I usually download dating apps on a Tuesday when I’m bored, watching TV … I don’t try very hard.” Yet another woman said that she used an app, but only “after two glasses of white wine—then I promptly delete it after two hours of fruitless swiping.”
Many critiques of online dating, including a2013 article by Dan Slater in _The Atlantic_, adapted from his book _A Million First Dates_, have focused on the idea that too many options can lead to “choice overload,” which in turn leads to dissatisfaction. Online daters, he argued, might be tempted to keep going back for experiences with new people; commitment and marriage might suffer. Michael Rosenfeld, a sociologist who runs a longitudinal study out of Stanford called “How Couples Meet and Stay Together,” questions this hypothesis; his research finds that couples who meet online tend to marry more quickly than other couples, a fact that hardly suggests indecision.
Maybe choice overload applies a little differently than Slater imagined. Maybe the problem is not the people who date and date some more—they might even get married, if Rosenfeld is right—but those who are so daunted that they don’t make it off the couch. This idea came up many times in my conversations with people who described sex and dating lives that had gone into a deep freeze. Some used the term _paradox of choice_; others referred to _option paralysis_ (a term popularized by _Black Mirror_); still others invoked fobo (“fear of a better option”).
And yet online dating continues to attract users, in part because many people consider apps less stressful than the alternatives. Lisa Wade suspects that graduates of high-school or college hookup culture may welcome the fact that online dating takes some of the ambiguity out of pairing up (_We’ve each opted in; I’m at least a little bit interested in you_). The first time my husband and I met up outside work, neither of us was sure whether it was a date. When you find someone via an app, there’s less uncertainty.
As a 27-year-old woman in Philadelphia put it: “I have insecurities that make fun bar flirtation very stressful. I don’t like the _Is he into me?_ moment. I use dating apps because I want it to be clear that this is a date and we are sexually interested in one another. If it doesn’t work out, fine, but there’s never a _Is he asking me to hang as a friend or as a date?_feeling.” Other people said they liked the fact that on an app, their first exchanges with a prospective date could play out via text rather than in a face-to-face or phone conversation, which had more potential to be awkward.
Anna, who graduated from college three years ago, told me that in school, she struggled to “read” people. Dating apps have been a helpful crutch. “There’s just no ambiguity,” she explained. “This person is interested in me to some extent.” The problem is that the more Anna uses apps, the less she can imagine getting along without them. “I never really learned how to meet people in real life,” she said. She then proceeded to tell me about a guy she knew slightly from college, whom she’d recently bumped into a few times. She found him attractive and wanted to register her interest, but wasn’t sure how to do that outside the context of a college party. Then she remembered that she’d seen his profile on Tinder. “Maybe next time I sign in,” she said, musing aloud, “I’ll just swipe right so I don’t have to do this awkward thing and get rejected.”
Apart from helping people avoid the potential embarrassments (if also, maybe, the exhilaration) of old-fashioned flirting, apps are quite useful to those who are in what economists call “thin markets”—markets with a relatively low number of participants. Sexual minorities, for example, tend to use online dating services at much higher rates than do straight people. (Michael Rosenfeld—whose survey deliberately oversampled gays and lesbians in an effort to compensate for the dearth of research on their dating experiences—finds that “unpartnered gay men and unpartnered lesbians seem to have substantially more active dating lives than do heterosexuals,” a fact he attributes partly to their successful use of apps. This disparity raises the possibility that the sex recession may be a mostly heterosexual phenomenon.)
Justin Metz / Pablo Delcan
In all dating markets, apps appear to be most helpful to the highly photogenic. As Emma, a 26-year-old virgin who sporadically tries her luck with online dating, glumly told me, “Dating apps make it easy for hot people—who already have the easiest time.” Christian Rudder, a co-founder of OkCupid (one of the less appearance-centric dating services, in that it encourages detailed written profiles), reported in 2009 that the male users who were rated most physically attractive by female users got 11 times as many messages as the lowest-rated men did; medium-rated men received about four times as many messages. The disparity was starker for women: About two-thirds of messages went to the one-third of women who were rated most physically attractive. A more recent study by researchers at the University of Michigan and the Santa Fe Institute found that online daters of both genders tend to pursue prospective mates who are on average 25 percent more desirable than they are—presumably not a winning strategy.
The very existence of online dating makes it harder for anyone to make an overture in person without seeming inappropriate.
So where does this leave us? Many online daters spend large amounts of time pursuing people who are out of their league. Few of their messages are returned, and even fewer lead to in-person contact. At best, the experience is apt to be bewildering (_Why are all these people swiping right on me, then failing to follow through?_). But it can also be undermining, even painful. Emma is, by her own description, fat. She is not ashamed of her appearance, and purposefully includes several full-body photos in her dating profiles. Nevertheless, men persist in swiping right on her profile only to taunt her—when I spoke with her, one guy had recently ended a text exchange by sending her a gif of an overweight woman on a treadmill.
An even bigger problem may be the extent to which romantic pursuit is now being cordoned off into a predictable, prearranged online venue, the very existence of which makes it harder for _anyone_, even those not using the apps, to extend an overture in person without seeming inappropriate. What a miserable impasse.
*4.  Bad Sex (Painfully Bad)*
One especially springlike morning in May, as Debby Herbenick and I walked her baby through a park in Bloomington, Indiana, she shared a bit of advice she sometimes offers students at Indiana University, where she is a leading sex researcher. “If you’re with somebody for the first time,” she said evenly, “don’t choke them, don’t ejaculate on their face, don’t try to have anal sex with them. These are all things that are just _unlikely_ to go over well.”
I’d sought out Herbenick in part because I was intrigued by an article she’d written for _The_ _Washington Post_ proposing that the sex decline might have a silver lining. Herbenick had asked whether we might be seeing, among other things, a retreat from coercive or otherwise unwanted sex. Just a few decades ago, after all, marital rape was still legal in many states. As she pushed her daughter’s stroller, she elaborated on the idea that some of the sex recession’s causes could be a healthy reaction to bad sex—a subset of people “not having sex that they don’t _want _to have anymore. People feeling more empowered to say ‘No thanks.’ ”
Bloomington is the unofficial capital of American sex research, a status that dates back to the 1940s, when the Indiana University biologist Alfred Kinsey’s pioneering sex surveys inaugurated the field. It retains its standing thanks partly to the productivity of its scientists, and partly to the paucity of sex research at other institutions. In 2009, Herbenick and her colleagues launched the ongoing National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, which is only the second nationally representative survey to examine Americans’ sex lives in detail—and the first to try to chart them over time. (The previous national survey, out of the University of Chicago, was conducted just once, in 1992. Most other sex research, including Kinsey’s, has used what are known as convenience samples, which don’t represent the population at large. The long-running General Social Survey, which much of Jean Twenge’s research is based upon, is nationally representative, but poses only a few questions about sex.)
I asked Herbenick whether the NSSHB’s findings gave her any hunches about what might have changed since the 1990s. She mentioned the new popularity of sex toys, and a surge in heterosexual anal sex. Back in 1992, the big University of Chicago survey reported that 20 percent of women in their late 20s had tried anal sex; in 2012, the NSSHB found a rate twice that. She also told me about new data suggesting that, compared with previous generations, young people today are more likely to engage in sexual behaviors prevalent in porn, like the ones she warns her students against springing on a partner. All of this might be scaring some people off, she thought, and contributing to the sex decline.
“If you are a young woman,” she added, glancing down at her daughter, “and you’re having sex and somebody tries to choke you, I just don’t know if you’d want to go back for more right away.”
Justin Metz / Pablo Delcan
Some of herbenick’s most sobering research concerns the prevalence of painful sex. In 2012, 30 percent of women said they’d experienced pain the last time they’d had vaginal intercourse; during anal intercourse, 72 percent had. Whether or not these rates represent an increase (we have no basis for comparison), they are troublingly high. Moreover, most women don’t tell their partners about their pain. J. Dennis Fortenberry, the chief of adolescent medicine at Indiana University’s medical school and a co-leader of the NSSHB, believes that many girls and women have internalized the idea that physical discomfort goes with being female.
A particularly vivid illustration of this comes from Lucia O’Sullivan, a University of New Brunswick psychology professor who has published research documenting high rates of sexual dysfunction among adolescents and young adults. That work grew out of a lunch several years ago with a physician from the university’s student-health center, who told O’Sullivan that she was deeply concerned by all the vulvar fissures she and her colleagues were seeing in their student patients. These women weren’t reporting rape, but the condition of their genitals showed that they were enduring intercourse that was, literally, undesired. “They were having sex they didn’t want, weren’t aroused by,” O’Sullivan says. The physician told her that the standard of care was to hand the women K‑Y Jelly and send them on their way.
Painful sex is not new, but there’s reason to think that porn may be contributing to some particularly unpleasant early sexual experiences. Studies show that, in the absence of high-quality sex education, teen boys look to porn for help understanding sex—anal sex and other acts women can find painful are ubiquitous in mainstream porn. (This isn’t to say that anal sex has to be painful, but rather that the version most women are experiencing is.) In a series of in-depth interviews, Cicely Marston of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found that teenage boys experimenting with anal sex—perhaps influenced by what they’ve seen in porn—may find that sudden, unlubricated penetration is more difficult than it looks, and more agonizing for the recipient. Some of her subjects appear to have pressured their partner; others seem to have resorted to what another researcher described to me, clinically, as “nonconsensual substitution of anal for vaginal sex.”
In my interviews with young women, I heard too many iterations to count of “he did something I didn’t like that I later learned is a staple in porn,” choking being one widely cited example. Outside of porn, some people do enjoy what’s known as erotic asphyxiation—they say restricting oxygen to the brain can make for more intense orgasms—but it is dangerous and ranks high on the list of things you shouldn’t do to someone unless asked to. Tess, a 31-year-old woman in San Francisco, mentioned that her past few sexual experiences had been with slightly younger men. “I’ve noticed that they tend to go for choking without prior discussion,” she said. Anna, the woman who described how dating apps could avert awkwardness, told me she’d been choked so many times that at first, she figured it was normal. “A lot of people don’t realize you have to ask,” she said.
As Marina Adshade, a professor at the University of British Columbia who studies the economics of sex and love, said to me, “Men have bad sex and good sex. But when sex is bad for women, it’s really, _really_ bad. If women are avoiding sex, are they trying to avoid the really bad sex?”
Sex takes time to learn under the best of circumstances, and these are not the best of circumstances. Modeling your behavior after what you’ve seen on-screen can lead to what’s known as “spectatoring”—that is, worrying about how you look and sound while you’re having sex, a behavior the sex researchers William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson long ago posited was bad for sexual functioning. Some young women told me they felt pressured to emulate porn actresses—and to achieve orgasm from penetration alone, which most women can’t do. “It took me a while to be comfortable with the fact that I don’t have to be as vocal during sex as the girls seem to be in porn,” a 24-year-old woman in Boston said. A 31-year-old in Phoenix explained that in her experience, porn has made men “expect that they can make any woman orgasm by just pounding away.”
Learning sex in the context of one-off hookups isn’t helping either. Research suggests that, for most people, casual sex tends to be less physically pleasurable than sex with a regular partner. Paula England, a sociologist at NYU who has studied hookup culture extensively, attributes this partly to the importance of “partner-specific sexual skills”—that is, knowing what your partner likes. For women, especially, this varies greatly. One study found that while hooking up with a new partner, only 31 percent of men and 11 percent of women reached orgasm. (By contrast, when people were asked about their most recent sexual encounter in the context of a relationship, 84 percent of men and 67 percent of women said they’d had an orgasm.) Other studies have returned similar results. Of course, many people enjoy encounters that don’t involve orgasms—a third of hookups don’t include acts that could reasonably be expected to lead to one—but the difference between the two contexts is striking. If young people are delaying serious relationships until later in adulthood, more and more of them may be left without any knowledge of what good sex really feels like.
As I was reporting this piece, quite a few people told me that they were taking a break from sex and dating. This tracks with research by Lucia O’Sullivan, who finds that even after young adults’ sex lives start up, they are often paused for long periods of time. Some people told me of sexual and romantic dormancy triggered by assault or depression; others talked about the decision to abstain as if they were taking a sabbatical from an unfulfilling job.
Late one afternoon in February, I met up with Iris, the woman who remarked to me that Tinder had been “gamified,” at the Lemon Collective, a design studio and workshop space in the Petworth neighborhood of Washington, D.C. The collective hosts DIY and design classes as well as courses geared toward the wellness of Millennial women; Valentine’s Day had been celebrated with a wildly oversubscribed real-estate workshop called “House Before Spouse.” (“We don’t need partners to be financially savvy and create personal wealth,” the event’s description said. “Wine and cheese will be served, obviously.”)
As we chatted (over, obviously, wine), Iris despaired at the quality of her recent sexual interactions. “I had such bad sex yesterday, my God, it was so bad,” she said wearily. “He basically got it in and—” She banged a fist against her palm at a furious tempo. It was the first time she’d slept with this man, whom she had met on Tinder, and she wondered aloud whether she could coach him. She was doubtful, though; he was in his 30s—old enough, she thought, to know better.
Iris observed that her female friends, who were mostly single, were finding more and more value in their friendships. “I’m 33, I’ve been dating forever, and, you know, women are better,” she said. “They’re just better.” She hastened to add that men weren’t _bad_; in fact, she hated how anti-male the conversations around her had grown. Still, she and various platonic female friends—most of whom identified as straight—were starting to play roles in one another’s lives that they might not be playing if they had fulfilling romantic or sexual relationships. For instance, they’d started trading lesbian-porn recommendations, and were getting to know one another’s preferences pretty well. Several women also had a text chain going in which they exchanged nude photos of themselves. “It’s nothing but positivity,” she said, describing the complimentary texts they’d send one another in reply to a photo (“Damn, girl, your _tits_!”). She wasn’t ready to swear off men entirely. But, she said, “I want good sex.” Or at least, she added, “pretty good sex.”
*5. Inhibition*
“Millennials don’t like to get naked—if you go to the gym now, everyone under 30 will put their underwear on under the towel, which is a massive cultural shift,” Jonah Disend, the founder of the branding consultancy Redscout, told Bloomberg last year. He said that designs for master-bedroom suites were evolving for much the same reason: “They want their own changing rooms and bathrooms, even in a couple.” The article concluded that however “digitally nonchalant” Millennials might seem—an allusion, maybe, to sexting—“they’re prudish in person.” Fitness facilities across the country are said to be renovating locker rooms in response to the demands of younger clients. “Old-timers, guys that are 60-plus, have no problem with a gang shower,” one gym designer told _The New York Times_, adding that Millennials require privacy.
*RELATED STORIES*




A Million First Dates
Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?
The Sexually Conservative Millennial
Dear Therapist: My Husband Doesn’t Want to Have Sex Anymore
Some observers have suggested that a new discomfort with nudity might stem from the fact that, by the mid-1990s, most high schools had stopped requiring students to shower after gym class. Which makes sense—the less time you spend naked, the less comfortable you are being naked. But people may also be newly worried about what they look like naked. A large and growing body of research reports that for both men and women, social-media use is correlated with body dissatisfaction. And a major Dutch study found that among men, frequency of pornography viewing was associated with concern about penis size. I heard much the same from quite a few men (“too hairy, not fit enough, not big enough in terms of penis size,” went one morose litany). According to research by Debby Herbenick, how people feel about their genitals predicts sexual functioning—and somewhere between 20 and 25 percent of people, perhaps influenced by porn or plastic-surgery marketing, feel negatively. The business of labiaplasty has become so lucrative, she told me in an email, “that you will actually see billboards (yes, billboards!) in some cities advertising it.”
As one might imagine, feeling comfortable in your body is good for your sex life. A review of 57 studies examining the relationship between women’s body image and sexual behavior suggests that positive body image is linked to having better sex. Conversely, not feeling comfortable in your own skin complicates sex. If you don’t want your partner to see you getting out of the shower, how is oral sex going to work?
Maybe, for some people, it isn’t. The 2017 iteration of Match.com’s Singles in America survey (co-led by Helen Fisher and the Kinsey Institute’s Justin Garcia) found that single Millennials were 66 percent less likely than members of older generations to enjoy receiving oral sex. Which doesn’t bode particularly well for female pleasure: Among partnered sex acts, cunnilingus is one of the surest ways for women to have orgasms.
Ian Kerner, the New York sex therapist, told me that he works with a lot of men who would like to perform oral sex but are rebuffed by their partner. “I know the stereotype is often that men are the ones who don’t want to perform it, but I find the reverse,” he said. “A lot of women will say when I’m talking to them privately, ‘I just can’t believe that a guy wants to be down there, likes to do that. It’s the ugliest part of my body.’ ” When I asked 20-somethings about oral sex, a pretty sizable minority of women sounded a similar note. “Receiving makes me nervous. It feels more intimate than penetration,” wrote one woman. “I become so self-conscious and find it difficult to enjoy,” wrote another.
Mendelsund / Munday
Over the past 20 years, the way sex researchers think about desire and arousal has broadened from an initially narrow focus on stimulus to one that sees inhibition as equally, if not more, important. (The term _inhibition_, for these purposes, means anything that interferes with or prevents arousal, ranging from poor self-image to distractedness.) In her book _Come as You Are_, Emily Nagoski, who trained at the Kinsey Institute, compares the brain’s excitement system to the gas pedal in a car, and its inhibition system to the brakes. The first turns you on; the second turns you off. For many people, research suggests, the brakes are more sensitive than the accelerator.
That turn-offs matter more than turn-ons may sound commonsensical, but in fact, this insight is at odds with most popular views of sexual problems. When people talk about addressing a lack of desire, they tend to focus on fuel, or stimulation—erotica, Viagra, the K‑Y Jelly they were handing out at the New Brunswick student-health center. These things are helpful to many people in many cases, but they won’t make you want to have sex if your brakes are fully engaged.
In my interviews, inhibition seemed a constant companion to many people who’d been abstinent for a long time. Most of them described abstinence not as something they had embraced (due to religious belief, say) so much as something they’d found themselves backed into as a result of trauma, anxiety, or depression. Dispiritingly but unsurprisingly, sexual assault was invoked by many of the women who said they’d opted out of sex. The other two factors come as no great shock either: Rates of anxiety and depression have been rising among Americans for decades now, and by some accounts have risen quite sharply of late among people in their teens and 20s. Anxiety suppresses desire for most people. And, in a particularly unfortunate catch‑22, both depression _and _the antidepressants used to treat it can also reduce desire.
“I have a therapist and this is one of the main things we’re working on,” a 28-year-old woman I’ll call April wrote to me, by way of explaining that, owing to intense anxiety, she’d never slept with anyone or been in a relationship. “I’ve had a few kisses & gone to second base (as the kids say) and it really has never been good for me.” When we later spoke by phone, she told me that in adolescence, she’d been shy, overweight, and “very, very afraid of boys.” April isn’t asexual (she gives thanks for her Magic Bullet vibrator). She’s just terrified of intimacy. From time to time she goes on dates with men she meets through her job in the book industry or on an app, but when things get physical, she panics. “I jumped out of someone’s car once to avoid him kissing me,” she said miserably. As we were ending the conversation, she mentioned to me a story by the British writer Helen Oyeyemi, which describes an author of romance novels who is secretly a virgin. “She doesn’t have anyone, and she’s just stuck. It’s kind of a fairy tale—she lives in the garret of a large, old house, writing these romantic stories over and over, but nothing ever happens for her. I think about her all the time.”
In exchanges like these, I was struck by what a paralyzing and vicious cycle unhappiness and abstinence can be. The data show that having sex makes people happier (up to a point, at least; for those in relationships, more than once a week doesn’t seem to bring an additional happiness bump). Yet unhappiness inhibits desire, in the process denying people who are starved of joy one of its potential sources. Are rising rates of unhappiness contributing to the sex recession? Almost certainly. But mightn’t a decline in sex and intimacy also be leading to unhappiness?
Moreover, what research we have on sexually inactive adults suggests that, for those who desire a sex life, there may be such a thing as waiting too long. Among people who are sexually inexperienced at age 18, about 80 percent will become sexually active by the time they are 25. But those who haven’t gained sexual experience by their mid-20s are much less likely to ever do so. The authors of a 2009 study in _The Journal of Sexual Medicine_speculated that “if a man or woman has not had intercourse by age 25, there is a reasonable chance [he or she] will remain a virgin at least until age 45.” Research by Stanford’s Michael Rosenfeld confirms that, in adulthood, true singledom is a far more stable category than most of us have imagined. Over the course of a year, he reports, only 50 percent of heterosexual single women in their 20s go on any dates—and older women are even less likely to do so.
Other sources of sexual inhibition speak distinctly to the way we live today. For example, sleep deprivation strongly suppresses desire—and sleep quality is imperiled by now-common practices like checking one’s phone overnight. (For women, getting an extra hour of sleep predicts a 14 percent greater likelihood of having sex the next day.) In her new book, _Better Sex Through Mindfulness_, Lori Brotto, an obstetrics-and-gynecology professor at the University of British Columbia, reviews lab research showing that background distraction of the sort we’re all swimming in now likewise dampens arousal, in both men and women.
How can such little things—a bad night’s sleep, low-grade distraction—defeat something as fundamental as sex? One answer, which I heard from a few quarters, is that our sexual appetites are meant to be easily extinguished. The human race needs sex, but individual humans don’t.
Among the contradictions of our time is this: We live in unprecedented physical safety, and yet something about modern life, very recent modern life, has triggered in many of us autonomic responses associated with danger—anxiety, constant scanning of our surroundings, fitful sleep. Under these circumstances, survival trumps desire. As Emily Nagoski likes to point out, nobody ever died of sexlessness: “We can starve to death, die of dehydration, even die of sleep deprivation. But nobody ever died of not being able to get laid.”
When toys “r” us announced this spring—after saying it had been struggling because of falling birth rates—that it would be shutting down, some observers mordantly remarked that it could be added to the list of things that Millennials had destroyed.
Societal changes have a way of inspiring generational pessimism. Other writers, examining the same data I’ve looked at, have produced fretful articles about the future; critics have accused them of stoking panic. And yet there are real causes for concern. One can quibble—if one cares to—about exactly why a particular toy retailer failed. But there’s no escaping that the American birth rate has been falling for a decade.
At first, the drop was attributed to the Great Recession, and then to the possibility that Millennial women were delaying motherhood rather than forgoing it. But a more fundamental change may be under way. In 2017, the U.S. birth rate hit a record low for a second year running. Birth rates are declining among women in their 30s—the age at which everyone supposed more Millennials would start families. As a result, some 500,000 fewer American babies were born in 2017 than in 2007, even though more women were of prime childbearing age. Over the same period, the number of children the average American woman is expected to have fell from 2.1 (the so-called replacement rate, or fertility level required to sustain population levels without immigration) to 1.76. If this trend does not reverse, the long-term demographic and fiscal implications will be significant.
A more immediate concern involves the political consequences of loneliness and alienation. Take for example the online hate and real-life violence waged by the so-called incels—men who claim to be “involuntarily celibate.” Their grievances, which are illegitimate and vile, offer a timely reminder that isolated young people are vulnerable to extremism of every sort. See also the populist discontent roiling Europe, driven in part by adults who have so far failed to achieve the milestones of adulthood: In Italy, half of 25-to-34-year-olds now live with their parents.
When I began working on this story, I expected that these big-picture issues might figure prominently within it. I was pretty sure I’d hear lots of worry about economic insecurity and other contributors to a generally precarious future. I also imagined, more hopefully, a fairly lengthy inquiry into the benefits of loosening social conventions, and of less couple-centric pathways to a happy life. But these expectations have mostly fallen to the side, and my concerns have become more basic.
Humans’ sexual behavior is one of the things that distinguish us from other species: Unlike most apes, and indeed most animals, humans have sex at times and in configurations that make conception not just unlikely but impossible (during pregnancy, menopause, and other infertile periods; with same-sex partners; using body parts that have never issued babies and never will). As a species, we are “bizarre in our nearly continuous practice of sex,” writes the UCLA professor Jared Diamond, who has studied the evolution of human sexuality. “Along with posture and brain size, sexuality completes the trinity of the decisive aspects in which the ancestors of humans and great apes diverged.” True, nobody ever died of not getting laid, but getting laid has proved adaptive over millions of years: We do it because it is fun, because it bonds us to one another, because it makes us happy.
A fulfilling sex life is not necessary for a good life, of course, but lots of research confirms that it contributes to one. Having sex is associated not only with happiness, but with a slew of other health benefits. The relationship between sex and wellness, perhaps unsurprisingly, goes both ways: The better off you are, the better off your sex life is, and vice versa. Unfortunately, the converse is true as well. Not having a partner—sexual or romantic—can be both a cause and an effect of discontent. Moreover, as American social institutions have withered, having a life partner has become a stronger predictor than ever of well-being.
Like economic recessions, the sex recession will probably play out in ways that are uneven and unfair. Those who have many things going for them already—looks, money, psychological resilience, strong social networks—continue to be well positioned to find love and have good sex and, if they so desire, become parents. But intimacy may grow more elusive to those who are on less steady footing.
When, over the course of my reporting, people in their 20s shared with me their hopes and fears and inhibitions, I sometimes felt pangs of recognition. Just as often, though, I was taken aback by what seemed like heartbreaking changes in the way many people were relating—or not relating—to one another. I am not so very much older than the people I talked with for this story, and yet I frequently had the sense of being from a different time.
Sex seems more fraught now. This problem has no single source; the world has changed in so many ways, so quickly. In time, maybe, we will rethink some things: The abysmal state of sex education, which was once a joke but is now, in the age of porn, a disgrace. The dysfunctional relationships so many of us have with our phones and social media, to the detriment of our relationships with humans. Efforts to “protect” teenagers from most everything, including romance, leaving them ill-equipped for both the miseries and the joys of adulthood.
In October, as I was finishing this article, I spoke once more with April, the woman who took comfort in the short story about the romance novelist who was secretly a virgin. She told me that, since we’d last talked, she’d met a man on Tinder whom she really liked. They’d gone on several dates over the summer, and fooled around quite a bit. As terrified as she had been about getting physically and emotionally intimate with another person, she found, to her surprise, that she loved it: “I never thought I would feel that comfortable with someone. It was so much better than I thought it was going to be.”
As things progressed, April figured that, in the name of real intimacy, she should explain to the man that she hadn’t yet had sex. The revelation didn’t go over well. “I told him I was a virgin. And he broke up with me. Beforehand, I figured that was the worst thing that could happen. And then it happened. The worst thing happened.” She paused, and when she spoke again her voice was steadier and more assured. “But I’m still here.”
_This article appears in the December 2018 print edition with the headline “The Sex Recession.”_

Share
Tweet


*ABOUT THE AUTHOR*

KATE JULIAN is a senior editor at _The Atlantic_.https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/588769/grizzly-country/


----------



## Salubrious (May 8, 2019)

> According to a November 2017 Economist/YouGov poll, 17 percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 now believe that a man inviting a woman out for a drink “always” or “usually” constitutes sexual harassment. (Among older groups, much smaller percentages believe this.)
> 
> Laurie Mintz, who teaches a popular undergraduate class on the psychology of sexuality at the University of Florida, told me that the #MeToo movement has made her students much more aware of issues surrounding consent. She has heard from many young men who are productively reexamining their past actions and working diligently to learn from the experiences of friends and partners.* But others have described less healthy reactions, like avoiding romantic overtures for fear that they might be unwelcome. In my own conversations, men and women alike spoke of a new tentativeness and hesitancy.*



Uh, maybe if 1-in-6 Americans think that simply asking someone out "usually constitutes sexual harassment", then avoidance isn't that unhealthy, but in fact becomes more warranted.



> I mentioned to several of the people I interviewed for this piece that I’d met my husband in an elevator, in 2001...I was fascinated by the extent to which t*his prompted other women to sigh and say that they’d just love to meet someone that way. And yet quite a few of them suggested that if a random guy started talking to them in an elevator, they would be weirded out.* “Creeper! Get away from me,” one woman imagined thinking.



So these women wished someone would ask them out, but if someone actually did that then they would think it was creepy.

Please see avoidance as a reaction sentence above.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 8, 2019)

So after reading that article...


Salubrious said:


> Uh, maybe if 1-in-6 Americans think that simply asking someone out "usually constitutes sexual harassment", then avoidance isn't that unhealthy, but in fact becomes more warranted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This just makes that one bar encounter of mine that much funnier (and also more depressing).


----------



## Slimy Time (May 8, 2019)

-Expense/economic factors, expensive to pool resources and have a kid.
-Divorce rates are high and the husband tends to get raped in court.
-Especially now, the new culture of claiming sexual harassment/rape deters men from engaging with or committing to women.
-Internet/social media/technology provides either rabbit hole escapism/entertainment which replaces the need to go out and date/find a partner, and an increase of casual hookups/speed dating lessening desire to get married.
-Increased socialist ideology (put feminism in there as well, almost inseparable) amongst millennials which encourages the breakdown of the family.
-Increased number of women in the professional workforce. Makes it more likely that they will marry later after securing a comfortable income stream. Having children would also detract from career, which some may not want to do.
-Increased abortion (PP in the States), may wish to abort child if not in a secure financial position/lack desire to have children.

Probably a lot more reasons. The west has a declining birthrate, so governments seek to remedy this by importing people who will have children.

Instead of bringing over successful individuals from around the world, they import the third world, whether they be Africans, Muslims or Mexicans, who, while they do bring all sorts of shitty ideals/behaviour with them, offset this by the retention of a family environment and willingness to breed (in the eyes of the government), in addition to cheap labour (which doesn't exactly happen... Never knew Arabs or Africans were known for their work ethic).


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 8, 2019)

Slimy Time said:


> (which doesn't exactly happen... Never knew Arabs or Africans were known for their work ethic).



Personal experience would indicate that if it's possible to have the exact opposite of a work ethic those peoples are most likely to possess it


----------



## Slimy Time (May 8, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> Personal experience would indicate that if it's possible to have the exact opposite of a work ethic those peoples are most likely to possess it


Could have brought in South East Asians or Chinese...if your going to replace people, at least get people who work. Noooo...instead bring people over who can't do anything in spite running around to other nations with a begging bowl.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 8, 2019)

Slimy Time said:


> Could have brought in South East Asians or Chinese...if your going to replace people, at least get people who work. Noooo...instead bring people over who can't do anything in spite running around to other nations with a begging bowl.


I had to deal with one employee (I'm not calling him a coworker because that implies things that aren't true) who thought being on the clock was the perfect time to practice his freestyle rap and was attempting to solicit opinions of his stylings from other people trying to actually do their jobs.  After it became clear he was allergic to work I just kicked it to a manager and he reportedly accused me and other people present of racism and insulted the company before being shitcanned.

Wait, thread subject.  Right.  Anyone mention that whole weird catch-22 of "women want you to chase after them real bad but are like as not to screech about harassment when you do"? Because that's a thing.  It's kind of like after the sexual revolution women said "Now WE want to be the hunters, the pursuers, the aggressive ones." and then promptly turned around and said "j/k no we don't".


----------



## friedshrimp (May 22, 2019)

rabbitgay said:


> Tbh I think a lot of young women want kids but fear becoming a single mother. Both raising children and being able to afford them is easier with both parents in the picture.
> 
> I also think there's a growing phenomena of young people expecting to find a "soul mate" where they can't settle down until they find the _perfect person _with whom they have fairy tale chemistry with, never have any conflict with, always have mindblowing sex, everything is sunshine and rainbows 24/7, and anything less is settling.
> 
> ...



Exactly. I blame people growing up in the 90s/2000s on a diet of Disney movies and Romcoms with their idealized romances that never realized to distinguish fiction from real life, and throw tantrums the moment their relationships stop being like a fairy tale. Never realizing that communication, a willingness to work, shared interests and such are the key to good relationships, and not just "well he's attractive and he's nice so he's the guy of my dreams!"

That and I also blame protective parents/bad school environment/any religious teaching as to why (some) Millenials won't get partners. Parents urging you to focus on your studies and single parents going on and on about how relationships are awful because men/women are shallow jerks/skanks that will leave you for anything, hardcore religious nutters seeing even kissing as something evil that will send you to hell, and then seeing your high school classmates that spent all their time fucking at 15 ended up pregnant at 19 and turned into college dropouts due to it...Yeah, all of that combined in your head and it turns into a depressing overall picture of romance.


----------



## Shadfan666xxx000 (May 22, 2019)

What good is it going to do to marry somebody purely for the sake of society and morality when nobody knows who they are or how to find out?


----------



## underscoredash (May 22, 2019)

I never go outside and instead spend tons of pontificating as to why a generation of internet addicted burnouts don't have sex in the wake of the #metoo movement.


----------



## Bum Driller (May 22, 2019)

Chichan said:


> I believe it is in part brought on by that whole free love bs of the 60's. Now a days I feel people would rather dump someone then work through their issues. Or they think if I just date someone else for sure this time its gonna be perfect and we are gonna be in love forever uwu, but that shit doesn't happen. If you love someone for a long time it changes no it won't be butterflies, but its a wonderful thing to share your life with someone and there are ways to keep the spark alive, but cheating on someone or getting a divorce because you supposedly don't love someone anymore is asinine. I feel people jump into relationships in order to make themselves happy without really getting to know that person and end up letting themselves down when that person doesn't meet their expectations. I feel as though the best thing would be to get to know that person slowly before deciding can we be together long term and do I actually enjoy their company and not just superficial shit like looks or are we compatible sexually. This is not to say you shouldn't have standards, but that if you are going to have them embody them yourself i.e being a learned individual, healthy, hobbies, social life and stable living situation that you don't lie about. Also learn to be happy alone first because I see people use relationships to make themselves happy, but they end up realizing they are still not happy and it goes a lot deeper than just not having companionship.



Tbh, "being sexually compatible" isn't superficial trait in any healthy relationship. It's the absolute mandatory bedrock upon which relationship is built in the first place, and the moment it goes away, you should pack your bags and move away. Of course, it should not be the only indicator on whether you should seriously get together with someone, but it's the most important one.


----------



## Chichan (May 22, 2019)

Bum Driller said:


> Tbh, "being sexually compatible" isn't superficial trait in any healthy relationship. It's the absolute mandatory bedrock upon which relationship is built in the first place, and the moment it goes away, you should pack your bags and move away. Of course, it should not be the only indicator on whether you should seriously get together with someone, but it's the most important one.


I mean in a way that its all you have going for you. If the sex is the only thing keeping you together chances are it will fizzle out.


----------



## SnowBall (May 22, 2019)

Thank the #metoo and current year shit. When young men are told everyday that they’re shit for existing, pestered to check their privilege, and treated like they are rapists in the making of course you’re going to get this as a result. It is so easy to destroy a man’s life thanks to the “always listen and believe victims!” culture.

On the other side of the coin you have young women being told (mostly) by feminists that men are awful and that any sort of conflicts in relationships can be considered abuse. These women are then led to believe that a relationship that isn’t sunshine and rainbows all the time is a toxic one. Instead of working their issues out they are encouraged by other women to dump their partners at any sign of conflict. 

I think it is really unfair to place a lot of the blame on millennials. Most young people I know legitimately want to get married and have kids if they were able to. Society pitting men and women against each other is doing nothing but destroying an entire generation and I honestly think gen z isn’t going to fare any better.


----------



## God of Nothing (May 22, 2019)

SnowBall said:


> Thank the #metoo and current year shit. When young men are told everyday that they’re shit for existing, pestered to check their privilege, and treated like they are rapists in the making of course you’re going to get this as a result. It is so easy to destroy a man’s life thanks to the “always listen and believe victims!” culture.
> 
> On the other side of the coin you have young women being told (mostly) by feminists that men are awful and that any sort of conflicts in relationships can be considered abuse. These women are then led to believe that a relationship that isn’t sunshine and rainbows all the time is a toxic one. Instead of working their issues out they are encouraged by other women to dump their partners at any sign of conflict.
> 
> I think it is really unfair to place a lot of the blame on millennials. Most young people I know legitimately want to get married and have kids if they were able to. Society pitting men and women against each other is doing nothing but destroying an entire generation and I honestly think gen z isn’t going to fare any better.


They have sown the fields with soy and shall reap the infertile berry. 

Never has there ever been a greater time to be a misanthrope than now. A majority of women have been turned into sheltered raving sheep and a majority of men have been made servile browbeaten slaves. Just goes to show you most people are small-minded, tribalistic, and hypocritical. Third wave feminism has shown just how awful women can actually be beyond the adorable preconceived positive notions most people have about them and are displayed in our cultures. They're just as manipulative, abusive, pathetic, ignorant, self-absorbed, entilted, and "priveleged" as men. 

It'll take more than a few years for this shit to die down and about a decade or two to actually learn anything from it before everyone forgets about it again and the cycle repeats itself. Hope I can actually find someone I can have a romantic relationship with before then.


----------



## Slap47 (May 22, 2019)

SnowBall said:


> I think it is really unfair to place a lot of the blame on millennials. Most young people I know legitimately want to get married and have kids if they were able to. Society pitting men and women against each other is doing nothing but destroying an entire generation and I honestly think gen z isn’t going to fare any better.











						Divorce rates up for Americans 50 and older, led by Baby Boomers
					

Among U.S. adults ages 50 and older, the divorce rate has roughly doubled since the 1990s.




					www.pewresearch.org
				




Divorce rates are high with the boomers.

Imagine millions of people growing up in dysfunctional families with people that hate eachother. I lean more towards men getting spooked and pushed away from marriage by this trend.


----------



## Shiawase (May 23, 2019)

Pokemonquistador said:


> I am shocked, SHOCKED! That no one has mentioned the John Calhoun Mouse Utopia Experiment yet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was interesting research. The habitat had plenty of available living space even at the zenith of the population, but most of the mice concentrated in extremely overcrowded areas. Meanwhile, other equally livable places remained completely empty, food and water untouched.

Space was only an issue because they were stepping all over each other trying to cram into overfilled dens.

Maybe they were trying to phase into one another so they could all join as one in some kind of mouse singularity. Didn't work for them, hasn't worked for me.


----------



## Otterly (May 26, 2019)

Lots of reasons. Modern society infantilises people. Kids are stuck indoors in front of screens instead of going out to get shitfaced on cheap booze and dance like it’s 1996. People have ridiculous expectations - they will do a degree in gender studies and instantly become a CEO, while bagging a girl who looks like a starlet but is also in a good job. Disney has told women to expect their Prince. House prices are ridiculous. Reality TV tells people that they can be famous for no effort and that the response to any setback is a dramatic breakup. Education is devalued so that jobs that would have been accessible post school now need degrees, and anything else needs postgraduate. Huge student debt. People living longer with parents. General SJW failure to engage with reality and face the fact that life can be hard and you need to work at it. 

Lots of reasons. I don’t think waiting to have kids is necessarily bad - kids are hard work and the people I know who aren’t getting divorced are either those who met in their thirties or those who’ve been an item since school.


----------



## ZeCommissar (May 26, 2019)

Houses getting expensive are also a huge factor. Who wants to raise their kid in some shitty apartment? 

Relationships are also very shallow these days. Is your relationship being hard? Fuck compromising! I bet I can find someone else that won't give me ANY bullshit that I deserve! 

Oh and everyone is a depressed sack of shit discussing the meaning of life on a website named after a fruit bird.


----------



## SnowBall (May 26, 2019)

I know it is easy to go REEEE MODERN TECHNOLOGY/ANIMU/DISNEY!!!!!! But even before social media became huge this problem has been festering, Unless you live in or near a city meeting new people and finding things to do is hard. Suburbs especially are the worst. Nobody moves in or out and you are stuck with the same group of awful people in your neighborhood. Being in such an isolated environment is unhealthy. 

Living on your own in your 20’s is a recent thing. Even my family members still lived with their parents when they were married until they had enough money to move out.


----------



## The Estatist (May 27, 2019)

The decline of patriarchy as practiced in traditional Europe or Japan really. 

See, absence of patriarchy means that a minority of males monopolized the women of properly reproductive age. Leaving far less options for less appealing males to reproduce. You can just take at the Black Communities around the world to see how society functions after a millennia of this. 

When you combined this with access to porn, you'll see the picture now.


----------



## Sweetpeaa (Oct 17, 2020)

The Estatist said:


> The decline of patriarchy as practiced in traditional Europe or Japan really.
> 
> See, absence of patriarchy means that a minority of males monopolized the women of properly reproductive age. Leaving far less options for less appealing males to reproduce. You can just take at the Black Communities around the world to see how society functions after a millennia of this.
> 
> When you combined this with access to porn, you'll see the picture now.



More like the requirements of two incomes to have children...

There was a time when you just needed one.


----------



## Unyielding Stupidity (Oct 19, 2020)

I'd argue financial reasons are one of the major reasons people just aren't having kids nowadays.

The vast majority of good jobs have either gone overseas, require decades of experience in a specific field, or are nepotistic as all hell. The remainder are all "service/gig economy" bullshit that pay pittance, and often come bundled with "zero hour contracts". Said jobs also have no options for climbing the career ladder, the higher rungs are all reserved for the already wealthy and their spawn. Your only bet is going into a trade, and you can only have so many plumbers or electricians in an area before you get diminishing returns. The fact that the elites seem content to flood those already-competitive service economy jobs with masses of low-skill migrants doesn't help matters either.

Housing is also a pipe-dream to most working-class people nowadays. Allow me to give an example; back in the late 80's, after Thatcher decided to sell off all the council houses, a family member of mine managed to buy a former council for just over £9,000. Nowadays, in that area, houses almost identical to that one are going for close to £200,000. The place hasn't even been gentrified, it's still a bloody council estate, chavs and all. I don't know about you, but wages haven't gone up nearly as much as that. The only places you're really getting affordable housing are utter shitholes. And I don't think the average person wants to raise a family in a place like Gary, IN or Bradford.

Notice how the only people having kids nowadays are people from backgrounds that are used to living on absolutely fuck all. Third-worlders who are content with not living in a slum, Benefit scroungers that grew up in a family that were also on the dole 24/7, hoodrats that are used to having more bastard children than your average warlord. It's hard for dropping quality of life to affect your birthrates when your quality of life was already at rock-bottom to begin with.

This isn't related to the financial point, but there's also the fact that westerners nowadays are fatter, less mature, and less finanically stable than they were even 20 years ago. Yet their standards have seemingly skyrocketed - every single hambeast or incel thinks they're entitled to the absolute cream of the crop, and they refuse to settle for anything else. People view relationships as much more of a disposable thing nowadays, and when you can hook up with anyone and have casual sex, you don't want to be producing kids that you're gonna either have to raise alone or pay child support for.


----------



## Bad Gateway (Oct 19, 2020)

Pull your head out of the internet and look around you. Take a night to read things that aren't in a newspaper or found on a pol screenshot. Drive 10 hours from your current location in any direction and spend a weekend in a random city. And when you have found the merest shred of life experience, try and ask this question again.


----------



## Sweetpeaa (Oct 19, 2020)

Approx. 59 Robins said:


> I'd argue financial reasons are one of the major reasons people just aren't having kids nowadays.
> 
> The vast majority of good jobs have either gone overseas, require decades of experience in a specific field, or are nepotistic as all hell. The remainder are all "service/gig economy" bullshit that pay pittance, and often come bundled with "zero hour contracts". Said jobs also have no options for climbing the career ladder, the higher rungs are all reserved for the already wealthy and their spawn. Your only bet is going into a trade, and you can only have so many plumbers or electricians in an area before you get diminishing returns. The fact that the elites seem content to flood those already-competitive service economy jobs with masses of low-skill migrants doesn't help matters either.
> 
> ...



Third world people are imported for that very reason: They'll put up with a reduced standard of living. A person from Bangladesh probably thinks the quality of life and the pay is ''wonderful''. In Canada it's the same thing. People from India and their 16 family members renting a 800,000 dollar home working shitty jobs to pay the rent and raising their kids in an overcrowded environment. They're usually the ones who say what a ''great country'' Canada is too. While the rest of us haven't seen wages move in years and the quality of life drop off to shit. Rich people are moving into ''gated communities'' though. Which wasn't a thing in Canada ten years ago. Makes you wonder...


----------



## PaleTay (Oct 19, 2020)

Sweetpeaa said:


> Third world people are imported for that very reason: They'll put up with a reduced standard of living. A person from Bangladesh probably thinks the quality of life and the pay is ''wonderful''. In Canada it's the same thing. People from India and their 16 family members renting a 800,000 dollar home working shitty jobs to pay the rent and raising their kids in an overcrowded environment. They're usually the ones who say what a ''great country'' Canada is too. While the rest of us haven't seen wages move in years and the quality of life drop off to shit. Rich people are moving into ''gated communities'' though. Which wasn't a thing in Canada ten years ago. Makes you wonder...


I live in a gated community in a rich area. Wages moved down significantly before adjusting for inflation, just look at tech jobs in Canada for example.

What gets me about boomers is that they fall for every scam in the book, yet succeed because of seniority. Therefore, every customer service profession becomes used car salesmen with nepotism and inconvenience. This led to the importation of the 3rd world as well, because the only method for growth is quantity of consumers/low-skilled workers.

It's not even a case of "experienced" workers doing a good job for their customers/clients, there's just so many hurdles to enter careers that the mediocre workers cannot be pushed out and people cannot easily switch careers.


----------



## Sweetpeaa (Oct 20, 2020)

Most Millennials are close to middle age. Better hope Gen Z breeds like rabbits...


----------



## Pointless Pedant (Oct 20, 2020)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

Here you go. /thread.

This also happens to literally every country that isn't dirt poor. Even countries like Russia where no one has heard of PC culture have this, leading to major government fertility drives to reach replacement level.



dotONION said:


> Pull your head out of the internet and look around you. Take a night to read things that aren't in a newspaper or found on a pol screenshot. Drive 10 hours from your current location in any direction and spend a weekend in a random city. And when you have found the merest shred of life experience, try and ask this question again.



Yes.


----------



## Orange Rhymer (Oct 20, 2020)

Sweetpeaa said:


> More like the requirements of two incomes to have children...
> 
> There was a time when you just needed one.


Doesn't stop SOME demographics...


----------



## Unassuming Local Guy (Oct 20, 2020)

Beginning of human history up to the early 20th century: Everyone was dying young and infant mortality was sky high, so getting started as young as possible and having as many kids as possible was a mathematical necessity

Early 20th century to late 20th century: Holdovers from the bygone days; romanticization of domestic bliss, mothers and children are nearly worshiped as deities, providing for a family is the most noble thing a man can aspire to; things that were once necessary for the survival of humanity are now just cultural norms

Late 20th century to early 21st century: Massive population explosions and near-zero infant mortality have made it so that having children is no longer seen as a noble act in and of itself

Now: Rampant hedonism and narcissism have made having children a reprehensible act to much of society; spending money on a family instead of on yourself is seen as "old-fashioned"


----------



## DDBCAE CBAADCBE (Oct 20, 2020)

Huh, I would have thought it would have been Getting Married Later and Fucking More. Every millennial I personally know outside of a few social outcasts seem like their having plenty of sex. Though, I imagine libs don't get much sex these days so I get that.


----------



## Ofelia (Oct 21, 2020)

Am I the only one who never really crushes on anyone?


----------



## Inquisitor_BadAss (Oct 22, 2020)

Ofelia said:


> Am I the only one who never really crushes on anyone?



You have to go outside to do that.


----------



## Orange Rhymer (Oct 22, 2020)

Ofelia said:


> Am I the only one who never really crushes on anyone?


You mean like, with your thighs?


----------



## Ofelia (Oct 22, 2020)

Orange Rhymer said:


> You mean like, with your thighs?


That’s another one.


----------



## Chomosexual (Oct 22, 2020)

It's a combination of high prices, low wages, wide-spread hedonism and Millennials full on commies who think marriage is a relic of bourgeoisie past and straight sex is fascist propaganda.


----------



## Poop A Loop (Nov 3, 2020)

I'll post a snippet from a review of The Handmaid's Tale that applies moreso to women but has truth in application to a lot of the millennial men I work with whose only excuse is selfishness.



Spoiler



Handmaid’s Tale is meant to reassure every wretched office-worker who goes home to a cat, a VCR, and Pizza-for-one that her life is noble and progressive. Handmaid’s Tale is fun horror-fiction for women who work in the American-style cubicle-world precisely because it’s so utterly unrelated to the miseries and terrors of their own lives. No one wants to force middle-class American women to have babies. In fact, it’s almost impossible for them to contemplate having kids, because they’re terrified that it might set them back in their careers, and their rivals in the adjacent cubicles would grab their parking spaces and health plans. Nobody wants to use their bodies. That’s precisely the horror with which they live: no one wants to mate with them because in their world, every single striver must fear every other, and the sort of joint action involved in mating and rearing one’s young is impossible—laughable, a thing which only those who have abandoned the hope of A Career can contemplate. So in their minds, mating and rearing children moves down in class, becoming a thing for rednecks and (though they’ll never say this part out loud) immigrants-of-color. The desire to have children gets bounced outside oneself, onto these lesser beings, and returns, courtesy of Atwood, in demonized form, as the tyranny of procreation, family values and the Patriarchy. It’s the horror they love to fear.



That's only cultural half of it, though. I didn't have my first kid until 28 even though my wife and I got married at 19 and it was purely because of financial reasons. Just one of our incomes would barely have paid for a one bedroom apartment, so in our early 20's we would have had to keep the kiddo in daycare forever and my wife wouldn't have been able to stay home with him while he's young like she is now. We both tried working when he was born but it sucked balls. We were both tired after work and God forbid the bossman wanted you to stay late because then it was a mad dash to figure out who could pick him up from daycare on time. Your child is now secondary to your career. I get that you have to work to eat, but the lack of help or cultural value placed on families from most employers goes far beyond reasonable expectations of work.

Two-income households becoming the default fucking sucks. I hate it and it's hurting people who want to have kids but can't due to money reasons and it's discouraging people who would think about it otherwise.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Nov 3, 2020)

ZeCommissar said:


> Houses getting expensive are also a huge factor. Who wants to raise their kid in some shitty apartment?


Raising a happy family on a low budget is possible, Westerners just aren't taught how to do it. Think of all the third worlders who live in mud huts but breed like rabbits.


----------



## Dysnomia (Nov 4, 2020)

💗Bitchstopher Columbitch💗 said:


> Raising a happy family on a low budget is possible, Westerners just aren't taught how to do it. Think of all the third worlders who live in mud huts but breed like rabbits.



Living in poverty is not fun. Having your mom tell you to just go back to sleep because you won't be eating today is not fun. Having no heat, phone or refridgerator is not fun. Having only one pair of pants that you have to resew practically every day is not fun. I've lived through all this and more and wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Please don't have kids if you are living in poverty. Try to save yourself instead.

I think that a lot of people live virtually and don't care much about face to face interaction now. 



God of Nothing said:


> They have sown the fields with soy and shall reap the infertile berry.
> 
> Never has there ever been a greater time to be a misanthrope than now. A majority of women have been turned into sheltered raving sheep and a majority of men have been made servile browbeaten slaves. Just goes to show you most people are small-minded, tribalistic, and hypocritical. Third wave feminism has shown just how awful women can actually be beyond the adorable preconceived positive notions most people have about them and are displayed in our cultures. They're just as manipulative, abusive, pathetic, ignorant, self-absorbed, entilted, and "priveleged" as men.
> 
> It'll take more than a few years for this shit to die down and about a decade or two to actually learn anything from it before everyone forgets about it again and the cycle repeats itself. Hope I can actually find someone I can have a romantic relationship with before then.



And all the genderspecials. You can't make babies with the genital combinations and hormone deflated dicks going on these days.


----------



## Nate Higgers (Oct 18, 2021)

softsleeper said:


> I'm thankful that I have family to at least have my back in those regards


Family? What’s that?


----------



## Spiny Rumples (Oct 19, 2021)

Nate Higgers said:


> Family? What’s that?


I'm pretty sure it's commonplace in illegal street races and porn, something about quality time together.


----------



## celebrityskin (Oct 20, 2021)

Marrying later: The answer is second and third wave feminism.

If you were a working class young woman in the 1970s your career opportunities were... a secretary, a hairdresser, working in a shop, MAYBE a nurse or teacher if you were especially intelligent. Anyone who went beyond this were the special few and even then your family and children were still the first priority

Idk, this site sends to be mostly zoomers so I think a lot of people aren't aware of how recent the whole "girls can do whatever they want if they can put their mind to it" sentiment is.


----------



## ulsterscotsman (Oct 20, 2021)

💗Freddie Freaker💗 said:


> Raising a happy family on a low budget is possible, Westerners just aren't taught how to do it. Think of all the third worlders who live in mud huts but breed like rabbits.


I think a lot of people overspend when its comes to children on things like expensive prams and cots ect.
Like babies don't give a shit if their pram is some designer brand or not.


----------



## God of Nothing (Oct 20, 2021)

ulsterscotsman said:


> I think a lot of women overspend when its comes to children on things like expensive prams and cots ect.
> Like babies don't give a shit if their pram is some designer brand or not.


fixed that for you


----------



## A Gay Retard (Oct 20, 2021)

I don't owe anybody a thing. It's not a new concept. Millennials are just better at it. I like my girlfriend but I'm not putting myself in a position to be fucked over by anybody. Boomers demonstrated for Gen Y how that shit works out all too well. If they wanted their grand-babies so badly they should have given marriage counseling a shot. I'm also unexcited by the prospect of raising kids in clown world and having them troon out due to media and government influence.


----------



## Orange Rhymer (Oct 20, 2021)

A Gay Retard said:


> I don't owe anybody a thing. It's not a new concept. Millennials are just better at it. I like my girlfriend but I'm not putting myself in a position to be fucked over by anybody. Boomers demonstrated for Gen Y how that shit works out all too well. If they wanted their grand-babies so badly they should have given marriage counseling a shot. I'm also unexcited by the prospect of raising kids in clown world and having them troon out due to media and government influence.


An alternative: Get married religiously, but not civilly. Make sure you don't reproduce, or live in a 'common law' state.

I know some colleagues that did this. One went to divorce, bitch got nothing.


----------



## celebrityskin (Oct 31, 2021)

celebrityskin said:


> Spoiler: TLDR
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As for young people fucking less, it's a lot of reasons really.

More ways to pass time on your own (video games, social media, netflix etc.), much more concern about STDs, less privacy with young adults moving out of their parents houses later and later, dating apps which are used for an ego stroke rather than a way to find partners. I also think younger people are also more insecure and self-conscious due to decline of socialisation (which has gotten wayyyy worse post-covid) and also the chance that their behaviour will be called out/made visible on social media, and in the age of #MeToo there's the worry that men will be branded a creeper when making the first move.

Idk if anyone else has picked up on this, but I've also noticed that something strange is happening where media has been getting more hyper-sexual (Shows like Elite and Euphoria for example) even though youth are more insecure and sexless than they've been in generations. Iirc something like this happened in Japan quite a while ago, where weird sexual expressions worked their way into the mainstream with sexy anime and Japanese businessman porn or w/e, while young men gradually went into their shells and became more and more sexless. Idk if the West can prevent this.


----------



## God of Nothing (Oct 31, 2021)

celebrityskin said:


> As for young people fucking less, it's a lot of reasons really.
> 
> More ways to pass time on your own (video games, social media, netflix etc.), much more concern about STDs, less privacy with young adults moving out of their parents houses later and later, dating apps which are used for an ego stroke rather than a way to find partners. I also think younger people are also more insecure and self-conscious due to decline of socialisation (which has gotten wayyyy worse post-covid) and also the chance that their behaviour will be called out/made visible on social media, and in the age of #MeToo there's the worry that men will be branded a creeper when making the first move.
> 
> Idk if anyone else has picked up on this, but I've also noticed that something strange is happening where media has been getting more hyper-sexual (Shows like Elite and Euphoria for example) even though kids are more insecure and sexless than they've been in generations. Iirc something like this happened in Japan quite a while ago, where weird sexual expressions worked their way into the mainstream with sexy anime and Japanese businessman porn or w/e, while young men gradually went into their shells and became more and more sexless. Idk if the West can prevent this.


You need to teach an entire generation to adhere to gender norms, produce media to encourage this behavior, and improve wages so everyone isn't too busy trying to forget they're fucking miserable to pay attention to their lives.

It's too late.


----------



## Ser Prize (Oct 31, 2021)

God of Nothing said:


> You need to teach an entire generation to adhere to gender norms, produce media to encourage this behavior, and improve wages so everyone isn't too busy trying to forget they're fucking miserable to pay attention to their lives.
> 
> It's too late.


That or remove all distractions aside from sex.


----------



## God of Nothing (Oct 31, 2021)

Ser Prize said:


> That or remove all distractions aside from sex.


Good luck with that.


----------



## Pokemonquistador2 (Oct 31, 2021)

A Gay Retard said:


> I don't owe anybody a thing. It's not a new concept. Millennials are just better at it. I like my girlfriend but I'm not putting myself in a position to be fucked over by anybody. Boomers demonstrated for Gen Y how that shit works out all too well. If they wanted their grand-babies so badly they should have given marriage counseling a shot. I'm also unexcited by the prospect of raising kids in clown world and having them troon out due to media and government influence.



For me it was the prospect of having to work a full 9-10 hour day, then having to go home and do all of the child-raising and housework. Even if kid-raising/housework duties are equally shared by the parents, the other spouse works a full 9-10 hour day too, so you'll have both parents working their asses off outside the home, and having to offshore their parenting duties to daycare workers, who suck up most of the surplus money a two income family would make.

There are parents who could make this work,  but if you want to keep your kid out of the Clown World Hellmouth, you have to constantly monitor what they watch, read, who they hang out with and what they're learning at school. Can two people working a combined 20 or so hours a day manage this on a regular basis?  There are all kinds of groomers lurking on the internet waiting to hook your kids into sex stuff, or give them validation and asspats when they decide to adopt an "alternate lifestyle". Most normie parents aren't going to know what to do about this. Either they'll alienate their kids by hating their new "lifestyle choices"or bend over and be totally accepting of them so as to not alienate their child.

Clown World is just too alluring to kids these days. Kids are extremely susceptible to status striving, and are at the time of their lives when judgment is poorest. It's extra hard when you have Mommy and Daddy shielding them from consequences or if they're a ward of the state.


----------



## Maratus volans (Oct 31, 2021)

celebrityskin said:


> As for young people fucking less, it's a lot of reasons really.
> 
> More ways to pass time on your own (video games, social media, netflix etc.), much more concern about STDs, less privacy with young adults moving out of their parents houses later and later, dating apps which are used for an ego stroke rather than a way to find partners. I also think younger people are also more insecure and self-conscious due to decline of socialisation (which has gotten wayyyy worse post-covid) and also the chance that their behaviour will be called out/made visible on social media, and in the age of #MeToo there's the worry that men will be branded a creeper when making the first move.
> 
> Idk if anyone else has picked up on this, but I've also noticed that something strange is happening where media has been getting more hyper-sexual (Shows like Elite and Euphoria for example) even though youth are more insecure and sexless than they've been in generations. Iirc something like this happened in Japan quite a while ago, where weird sexual expressions worked their way into the mainstream with sexy anime and Japanese businessman porn or w/e, while young men gradually went into their shells and became more and more sexless. Idk if the West can prevent this.


I don't think you can.  A lot of this stems from hyper-individualism and the destruction of local networks of family, community, religion, and so on that might have given people meaning and helped them find a way in life.  A lot of it also comes from globalization, which steadily erodes standards of living from the bottom up.  People in the elite creative classes are preening narcissists who don't have a reason to commit to each other outside of utility or vanity, and people in the expanding serf classes can't build stable relationships because they have nothing to offer.  In the end, you have a lot of unhappy people.

But when you have a lot of unhappy people, how do you keep them complacent and controlled?  You sedate them with porn and video games, you syphon off their energies with the spectacles of social media and partisanship.  All of the bread and circuses further reduces the desire to build families and futures.


----------



## Don't Tread on Me (Nov 1, 2021)

It is education. Women make up the majority of college educated and the fields they like (humanities) are worthless with just a bachelor's degree so they go into graduate school and PhDs more too. They don't get out of school until 28, then they spend a few years looking for a job and settling in to try and feel like they've actually accomplished something. They may also hit the wanderlust phase where they say "I don't want to settle down before I travel the world". 

Then they start looking for a guy at 30-31 and freak out that no one wants them.


----------



## Ser Prize (Nov 2, 2021)

Don't Tread on Me said:


> It is education. Women make up the majority of college educated and the fields they like (humanities) are worthless with just a bachelor's degree so they go into graduate school and PhDs more too. They don't get out of school until 28, then they spend a few years looking for a job and settling in to try and feel like they've actually accomplished something. They may also hit the wanderlust phase where they say "I don't want to settle down before I travel the world".
> 
> Then they start looking for a guy at 30-31 and freak out that no one wants them.


Don't forget typically slutting it up during the schooling days.


----------

