The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]
2017-10-03 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 412 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is truly laugh-worthy, and late -- because frankly, it didn't deserve any digital ink at the time.

But when one gets bored....

Thanks to cheap sex, marriage may be doomed.

The share of Americans ages 25-34 who are married dropped 13 percentage points from 2000 to 2014. A new book by sociologist Mark Regnerus blames this declining rate on how easy it is for men to get off.

Regnerus calls it “cheap sex,” an economic term meant to describe sex that has very little cost in terms of time or emotional investment, giving it little value.

He goes on to "credit"..... masturbation, as if that's some new thing.

I think he's got a few screws missing -- never mind a few timelines.

What this clownface refuses to acknowledge is the changes in legal environment for marriage.  Previous to the so-called sexual revolution once you said "yes" to marriage you were mostly stuck.  Oh sure, you could walk off, but you couldn't get a divorce without showing fault, which was mostly defined as terrible cruelty, alcoholism, abuse and similar offenses.  "I don't love you anymore" didn't cut it, and more to the point if you took off and ran as a woman you didn't get either the kids or the money.

Now there were certainly severe problems with this arrangement, not the least of which was that men could run off with the money, but not the kids -- and they sometimes did.  That left both the woman and children in terrible circumstances.  But those cads couldn't get an actual divorce without fault either, so remarriage was out of the question (on pain of a bigamy charge, which was and still is a real thing.)  This kept the serial cads mostly at bay simply because you could only play the game once.

The problem today is that while there has been plenty done to allegedly address the issue of a man running off and abandoning his children (at least financially) statistically speaking what it has led to is an enormous number of women who run off without any cruelty or evil involved in their marriage and take both the kids and the money.  So we went from an injustice a modest part of the time with an inhibiting factor remaining for serial abusers to the opposite injustice a great majority of the time and removed the inhibiting factor as well so those of both sex who wish to serially abuse the other sex -- and the kids -- can now do so!

Men have figured risk out and have been left with exactly zero options available to them to mitigate it  Many have simply decided not to go down that road because the outcome is completely out of their control.  Add to it the so-called "gender studies" crowd that likes to proclaim that all sex is rape and has managed to get the view that men can consent to sex when drunk, but women cannot ensconced in extra-judicial career and life-destroying punishments meted out in colleges (which would never pass muster in an actual court of law) and it's not hard to figure out why a larger and larger percentage of men have said "**** that" and refused to entertain the option.

“In the domain of sex and relationships, men will act as nobly as women collectively demand,” he writes.

Meh.

No demand will carry any weight when lefty and righty are available and "good enough."

See, that's the problem when you get down to it, which this clown doesn't want to deal with: For interpersonal sex to "win", especially on a "bonded" basis, it has to offer more to both parties.

Remember that lefty never complains about a headache, it can't claim******the next morning if you had a couple of drinks and it has a zero set of odds of destroying you both mentally and financially.

Maybe, just maybe, a bit of a more-honest look at the situation is called for, and perhaps one should consider that the "total package" has to be more attractive on balance than the alternatives -- which of course include no partner at all.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
A One-Sentence Bill To Force The Health-Care Issue

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.