Why are millennials marrying later and fucking less?

[Caesare]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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