Another Texashiker, "I don't know anything about sex," thread.
How is it that the affluent don't have the time to raise kids. They have money but not time. Thats not really affluent. The truly affluent have both.
It isn't that sex becomes less important as entertainment. It's that sex becomes practical with other women, with whom it is not wise to have children lest the wives pop caps in they asses and take half of what ass is left behind.Their Affluence affords them activities that are not available to the poor. Thus sex becomes less important as entertainment.
It isn't that sex becomes less important as entertainment. It's that sex becomes practical with other women, with whom it is not wise to have children lest the wives pop caps in they asses and take half of what ass is left behind.
Their Affluence affords them activities that are not available to the poor. Thus sex becomes less important as entertainment.
Bullhockey. You two are suffering a disconnect on the definition of "affluent." Really "affluent" people have more children than the average middle class American. Billionaires worldwide blow away the average American middle class birthrate, and even American billionaires have more than the average number of kids.
But as I said, the number of people who fall into that category are exceedingly small. The problem we're seeing is that the halfway point of the middle class on up to the "middle upper" class are seeing far below replacement rate birthrates. They're more likely to see it as a choice between children and financial security\independence. The people above and below that don't worry about finances as they relate to children, though for different reasons.
You're a stupid libtard who can't contribute.
Sex < > Babies
Rather than highjacking a thread about the Japanese birthrate in OT, I decided to start another thread in P&N.
Is political correctness feminizing men to the point where men do not want a family?
Over the weekend there was a news article talking about how sexism is still a problem in society. If you want an example, just type "women can not" into google and look at the suggested popular searches.
Article - http://mashable.com/2013/10/18/google-autocomplete-sexism/
In my opinion, being sexist helps sex drive. If a man looks at a woman as a sexual object he is more likely to have sex with her. Sex is likely to lead to marriage and children.
But if the man looks at a woman as an equal, he will not want to have sex with her. Much less marry and want to have kids.
The traditional family of the man working and the woman staying at home has been dying since the 1960s.
In my opinion again, women demanding equal rights, and equal economic opportunity is a turn off to men. This turn off is forcing men to rethink getting married and starting a family.
~ EDIT ~
On the flip side of the coin, are careers driving women away from being married and having children?
To live up to the standards for a modern woman, she should be college educated, and have a high paying job. So where does a family fit into those plans?
What an utter nonsense of an OP.
BREAKING NEWS: "Man views a woman as a sex object."
Quickly, somebody get CNN on the line!
Men who have normally filled manual labor rolls may feel intimidated asking a female accountant or lawyer out on a date.
So women should feel content with not fulfilling their potential because some people have an inferiority complex.
Texashiker's message: Women, be what men want you to be. What you want doesn't matter. Be an empty vessel and wait for a man to fill you, because that's all you're worth.
So women should feel content with not fulfilling their potential because some people have an inferiority complex.
Texashiker's message: Women, be what men want you to be. What you want doesn't matter. Be an empty vessel and wait for a man to fill you, because that's all you're worth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/b...rican-women-is-it-enough-to-lean-in.html?_r=0Perhaps. Alternatively, many women will work until they have children and leave, at least until their children are well on their way in their schooling. Studying survey data on personal well-being, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago found that college-educated mothers with careers were no more satisfied with their lives, and might be less so, than stay-at-home college-educated mothers.
In 1991 there was another accident where a 9 ton piece of steel fell on a man and cut him in half. The incident happened on a saturday, and I just happened to be off that day. The piece of steel caught him across his mid-section. Eye witnesses told me the only thing holding the guy together was where the steel pinched his flesh.
Who is the privileged class? The man who was pulled out in two parts, or his wife who was at home?
The courts are responsible for that. Most guys don't seem to mind spending money and resources on women and children because that has been the norm since the dawn of civilization. What's different about modern America is that courts punish men for trying to do the right thing. Date a single mother? Hell no. The courts could force you to pay for her children. Letting a single mother live with you is a terrible idea because she could try to claim common law marriage and still take half a guy's stuff. Several of the guys I've dated said they had no plan to ever get married because they had seen friends or family members get destroyed in divorce court. On top of all that, add in the stat that women get child custody about 90% of the time. With a divorce rate around 50%, that means there's roughly a 45% chance of a man being forced to pay for kids that he rarely sees. (0.9)(0.5) = 0.45. Of those 45%, some of them will even go to debtor's prison because child support and alimony have been ruled to be criminal matters rather than civil matters. Dave Foley was on Joe Rogan's podcast explaining how the court ordered him to pay more than 100% of his income. This is not unusual at all. The Young Turks covered a story a few years ago where a man was thrown in jail for failing to pay child support for someone else's kids. Men might be stupid, but even the dumb ones can see this trap from a mile away. Men are protesting by going Galt.Women may have simply priced themselves out of the family market.
I think Hillary Clinton said it best:
Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in todays warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.
(she openly admits how much she hates life and would rather die than be forced to move or be a parent)
How can you seriously say that men exist merely as cannonfodder and then try and claim male privilege exists?
The courts are responsible for that. Most guys don't seem to mind spending money and resources on women and children because that has been the norm since the dawn of civilization.
<snip>
This law by itself strongly encourages women to get divorced even if a marriage is relatively healthy. Going back to that 45% I mentioned earlier, men have very little reason to want marriage or children. Your marriage will likely end, your children will likely be taken away, and you'll lose the stuff you owned before you got married.
lol. Now nehalem has moved to denying male privilege in its entirety. Your stupidity truly knows no boundaries.
Is this what privilege looks like bro?
Basically the whole idea of male "privilege" rests on the idea that power has tended to be held by a small minority of people that happen to be male and therefore the 99% of men without real power should take solace in knowing that they are being sent to their deaths by people with similar looking genitals.
lol. 'A tiny fraction of men die in wars, therefore the privilege that men exhibit in the rest of society on a continuing basis doesn't count.'
It is always fun to see the knots you twist yourself in to justify your hatred of women.