Peter Barton said:
It's connected to intelligence. That's why all the dumbass mouth breathing rednecks reproduce a shit ton while smart people don't reproduce.

Idiocracy demonstrates it perfectly.

Actually it's also biology, and economic in nature.

The post feminist sexual revolution world sees many male sexual losers because we're basically reverting to animal sexual behavior where most women only want to mate with a minority of men. The state even further helps them via welfare and the like. This is the biology aspect. This is why you see these lower class guys that have 15 babies from almost as many women who are all on welfare. These guys are all young aqnd poor but good looking and able to bed many women and spread that seed.

The cost of living has gone up as well. This makes it less of a good idea for someone who isn't content living in welfare and in squalor to have multiple children, if any at all. This is the economic part.

the-envoy said:
Just so you know I'm not spouting some theoretical nonsense, I actually know some RL examples

[b]- You can have a long time sex partner/lover/life companion w/o being married or having kids[/b]
My "step-cousin" (not related by blood or marriage, but I consider him a pseudo-relative) has a long time gf (10 years+ at least I think), not likely to get married or have kids (both his and her decision). In this time, he went from being a hikikomori leeching off his parents in his late 20s (early 30s?) to a IT repairman and now he's a manager; during the period of the relationship. And no, he hasn't shot anyone yet.

[b]
- You can have a long time sex partner/lover/life companion and have kids together w/o being married (in some countries only)[/b]
My ex-lecturer. He's in an open relationship, has a baby daughter whom he loves. Fully functioning member of society. Never shot anyone.
Another example: uncommonly otaku. (not sure if shot anyone)

[b]- You can get married and not have kids.[/b]
I know a few middle aged couples (still married) and never had kids. None of them shot anyone either.

I would do one of these but the Canadian government jackboots you into marriage after living together for a couple years and thus entitles whoever you're living with to half or more of your shit.

I also don't think you understand what is meant by these single unmarried men. In men and in men only, due to the so-called sexual revolution, the unattractive bottom ~30-35% of men are either virgins or cannot get regular sex (as in less than once a year…)

Edit: Old sankaku mainpage article– 25% Japanese men virgins.

http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/10/13/japans-sex-gap-25-now-middle-aged-virgins/

yourfriend said:
Staff at a rape crisis center claim that there is a lack of emergency calls:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

A male concerned with false accusations elaborates the above link:
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/01/views-of-prominent-member-of-sexual.html

Those are proof of the feminists lies of “rape culture”, yes.

Sukunai said:
Made this choice 25 years ago.

My son is 16, great kid.

There are many good reasons to get married, a few reasons some offer against it.

I don’t support growing old alone. The government will tell you you are legally married after a point especially if you have kids with the person. So the license is more of a personal statement deal to the one you marry than anything else.

For those of you still young, it’s hard to explain, as it’s more a stage of growing up and getting older. No one really ‘wants’ to get married and have kids much while they are still one themselves to some extent. The urge isn’t all that strong till you hit your mid 20s.

It’s very rare I meet anyone that truly manages to maintain a desire to remain single or childless. It’s part of being human to want to have a family.

You are an Old Person. Things were different when you grew up. The women were more respectable.

As someone young, let me explain what marriage is to a young man today.

In short, it is playing Russian Roulette with 4 chambers loaded.

>50% divorce rate. 3/4 of these are initiated by women for reasons that are pretty much “I’m bored” (I want to fuck other guys)

When a man is divorced, he will probably be kicked out of the house, lose the kids, lose 70%> of his assets since some can’t be divided and he will have to pay alimony and child support leaving him with barely enough money from his own paycheck to live mired in poverty for years. She even gets this money and all of these assets plus the children (mother is awarded custody almost every time because on virtue of gender)… she even gets these things if you catch her fucking your best friend. No, I’m not kidding. It’s called “no fault divorce.”

When it comes to children, DNA testing laboratories prove 25 to 33% of all of their tests come back saying the man is not the father. This is because women nowadays cheat a whole lot. More than men by far. No, the “You are NOT the father!” line is not just hilarious made up drama on daytime television, though I have to admit that Maury is a genius for taking advantage of and making money off of this sad and disturbing fact.

So I figure if you combine the marriage failure rate with the rate of bastard children, it’s like playing Russian Roulette with 4 chambers loaded. What sane man wants to gamble with those odds?

Canada is just as promiscuous as any other western first world country. Same shocking illegitimacy rate, similar ghastly single mother rate.

I refuse to marry under the current family law system which is inherently anti-male.

Neat Hedgehog said:
I don't really get why monogamy became a standard. I mean, if you can actually manage to maintain a stable relationship with more than a single person at a time, I don't see why it shouldn't be a good thing.

Allow me to explain:

Advanced civilizations do not appear and continue to exist without monogamy and high-investment parenting. You will not be able to convince men to build it, and continue to work to maintain and possibly improve it when you do not allow them to have certainty that:

A) Their children are actually theirs and not bastard children that their cheating partner is cuckolding them with.

and

B) That these is certainty that their family will stay together.

Would YOU want to start a family knowing that there is a high chance that any children your wife has may not be yours (cuckolding, paternity fraud) and that she may at any time leave you and force you into financial slavery with the full force of the state behind her? I don't think so.

And make no mistake, men are the ones who have built civilization and nearly everything within it.

We are currently seeing the effects of the breakdown from severing the contract of the sexes. Things will get worse.

ashita said:
…but polygamy is illegal IRL!!! I'm a conformist so monogamy.

Yes, but virtual polgyny/harems aren't. And guess what? That's what happens.

The top 10-20% of men get about 80% of the sex.

As for what I think, I'd say "Monogamy" but "Serial Monogamy" is more realistic.

Unfortunately we live in a society with zero sexual morality. There no social or legal controls. So feral animal style mating is what's going on. This leaves lots of lonely dudes because men display, women choose.

Even marriage is no guarantee of monogamy and the law won’t enforce any adultery laws.

So the problem is life itself, even that of animals and plants?

Let's face it. Life without the modern escapism would be… a form of suffering. You would be born, labor intensively and for little purpose until you die. There are the rare geniuses and the upper class leeches who get to enjoy life as we structure it by being rich, but for the rest of us, it's not so great. In a world of vampires, life is only great if you're a vampire. Not if you're the one being drained by the vampires, like so many are today with a small percentage of the world's population owning most of the wealth.

So, life is suffering. Someone is born, grows up, likely suffers a lot, and then dies. Those left behind also suffer and repeat the cycle of suffering, urged by their biology to bring more into the world who will also suffer. To end all life is to end all suffering. That is the basis of nihilism and similar to the concept of "Nirvana" in Buddhism, though Buddhism's been watered down recently to make it "more accessible" to trendy newage hipster retards as such people are too simple to grasp the fatalist concepts.

yourfriend said:
It might fall into place eventually, but the transition might be rough enough to cause a collapse of the civilization that enables high-tech contraceptives.

Here's the problem: if women are scared and desperate, they can be coerced into monogamous marriage. This arrangement is pretty miserable for women, but it allows 80% of male losers to have a woman. Thus 80% of male losers work hard so that they can feed their kids. Those jealous male losers teach their kids uptight values. Cuckolding is the fastest way to destroy a monogamous civilization.

Bingo. The large sexual underclass, that is, most males who are excluded by feral female sexual selection, have no incentive to produce. This is being sped up by all of the outsourcing. I have no doubt at all that there will either be a major societal collapse or another world war in my lifetime.

The “ideal” (or rather most natural) human society (IMO anyways) would be humans remaining as small hunter-gatherer bands worldwide.

I don’t agree that this is ideal. Most natural, yes, but not ideal. I would not want to live in a primitive small hunter-gatherer tribe setting.

I would rather a nihilist-end to humanity where we create an even more horrific weapon of mass destruction that could literally eradicate all life on earth than return to living like an animal.

lol if you don't think that it's just asia that's bad and that america isn't socially engineered and on its way to being a totalitarian shithole.

Here is an example of social engineering in America: Did you know that both Gloria Steinem and Ms. Magazine were paid by the CIA to get things started with feminism?

Why, you ask? Simple. By telling women that it is in their best interest to work, there were more taxpayers. This also works in favor of the corporate elite, for which the US government has waged war for in the middle-east under mostly false pretenses. That's right, Support Are Troops so they can die to help make the rich just that much richer.

It also works in the corporate elite's favor by providing them a labor excess which drives down the amount they will have to pay their workers. Seem a little too unbelievable? Look at the wages most classes made in the 1970s and now compare them to today. Looks like almost the same… except for the rich, who are making much more today. Keep in mind there has been inflation and the cost of living has raised significantly in the past 40 years, so what you are seeing is a literal case of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer

I hope this has been informative. Cheerio, old chaps.

It makes perfect sense. I’m cool like that.

I’m a heteronormative bicurious gay dad virgin.

giascle said:
Please stop posting.

reading your posts. Damn.