Why are millennials marrying later and fucking less?

[Hux]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

something about jews and or muslims

 

[VIVIIXI]

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]

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]

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

 

[crocodilian]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!]

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



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 exceptionalism 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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



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 exceptionalism 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.

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.