It was more common in the 1950s relative to today. It was shamed back then, not that it made a difference.
If I could prove this, would you be willing to hear me out?
DESPICABLE!!!
JAIL!!! FOREVER!!!
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but I think you would be hard pressed to find something that proves this.
(wasn’t looking to delineate by race, that’s just how the graphs came up)
It does have to do with dating. There is a fairly large swath of women nowadays who outright refuse to go out with men who think in a particuar manner
Hence another reaaon to watch your p’s and q’s so to speak. How many modern women of my generation do you think will be happy to go out with me if I were to tell them they ought to have little to no control over their body provided they fall pregnant? That and they ought to be deprived of the barriers that can prevent pregnancy for them?
Sometimes incels tend to be alone as a byproduct of their voilition.
That’s not what I was getting at. I was stating both sides are tyrranical, however it appears to me as if what you’re proposing is tyrannical, albeit the tyranny resides within different variables. Rather tyranny within a given framework is the “acceptable” form of tyrrany. I wholeheartedly disagree as this seldom works out long term.
Just as the far left are tyrranical over covid policy, critical race theory, political correctness etc you’ve chosen a select few variables to which you believe society ought to clamp down on in a manner that is unreasonably harsh.
I don’t think you’ll save the modern dating scene in doing so. From my perpsective boredom and uncertainty mediates a portion of what we see unfolding today.
Actually my reference to the creation of a regulated sexual marketplace has everything to do with dating. This is dismissive
Yes it is… sociopolitical divide is going to ensure many men and women remain alone unless people can put some of their differences aside. It shouldn’t be the end of the world as we know it if a democrat goes out with a republican. My folks have opposing political views, it isn’t a dealbreaker for them… so why are Americans so irritating about this?
Healthy societies don’t and never will revolve around one sole political outlook. Deepening the divide isn’t going to lead to the outcome that you want. From my perspective longing to add fuel to this fire is immature… and this is coming from someone who represents the pinnacle of immaturity @BrickHead
Teen birth rates
Keep in mind median age to get married here was early 20s
Yes.
Yeet! @BrickHead
so the only metric you’re going by is teen birth rates and in absolute numbers? Respectfully, I think this is a poor explanation
I suppose shotgun marriage is no longer considered born out of wedlock?
I think this is missing the picture.
in 1960, about 6% of births were out of wedlock. You’re explaining that away by saying “well, 35-65% (lowest and highest %'s on your chart) of those 6% got married right after though”.
I mean, sure, so maybe 3% (median 50% applied to 6% of births out of marriage) in 1960 never had a nuclear family (excuse my rough math).
Lets look at 2008 then. 40% of babies are born to unwed women, and anywhere from 2.5% of them to 15% of them (lets just say 10% avg for easy numbers) got married after. Now let’s subtract 10% from the 40% unmarried births (meaning 90% of births are still unmarried)… how many are left? 36% without a nuclear family?
This is why I say it’s a poor explanation.
Perhaps this is a better graphic:
1 Like
Likely a few. But then again I generally don’t look at women as people to talk politics with including who would be a prospective mate if I were single. I would not put much importance on their political views so long as these views do not shape child raising in a negative manner or have her wrapped up in bizarre and destructive movements and ideologies.
Sounds right. 25 percent of homes are fatherless.
1 Like
The degree to which children are born out of wedlock is strongly correlated to the degree by which an individual has been educated.
No, I’m stating a substantial portion of peoole got hitched BECAUSE of unwanted pregnancy. Thus a quick marriage before signs come to fruition = child isn’t born out of wedlock
And… the degree to which children are being born out of wedlock is currently on the decline
Nowdays accidental pregnancy is no longer grounds for getting married. However by looking at the sheer numbers pertaining to teen pregnancy back in the day coupled with the high prevalence of shotgun marriages (happened in my extended family numerous times) and I wouldn’t go as far as to say people were less impulsive back then.
Rather accidental pregnancy forced your hand into marriage.
That’s a point, and I’m all for it.
I’d like to bring up another point
The belgian waffle is a variety of waffle with a lighter batter, bigger squares and a fluffier texture relative to the American waffle!
Provided you weren’t built like a greek statue, how much success do you think you’d have in the modern dating scene?
I don’t understand what this has to do with the subject at hand. You’re ignoring the majority for the minority.
Right… so the child wasn’t born out of wedlock and they likely didn’t divorce either (given the frowning upon divorce at that time), meaning the father is present at LEAST 50% of the time in these 6% of cases…
You mean right here?
Lol in reference to the ~1% decline and 2nd lol at this being pointed directly at a MASSIVE financial crisis timeframe in which people had to be real sure they wanted a baby.
Neither would I, but your argument was:
So are you changing your position or forgetting it?
This is better than the alternative of pumping and dumping (a common practice in these times), no?
Yes
Births out of wedlock peaked in the early 2000s
The pendulum is going to swing back so to speak.
In pure terms I’ll admit I’m wrong. If I’d forgotten my initial contention it’d be inferring I’m brain damaged or retarded.
I don’t believe I’m wrong in that a substantial portion of women fell pregnant prior to marriage by which falling pregnant forced them into marriage as to avoid being shamed or publically humiliated.
Not born out of wedlock per se, but only because the revelation of being pregnant forced ones hand into marriage.
Whether that worked or not? I’d have to look into it. Married without a forseeable way out due to stringent divorce laws doesn’t =/= happy marriages.
There’s a reason valium was syntheised and marketed towards housewives en masse.
1 Like
No comment as there is an alternative.
Two alternatives actually
Putting child up for adoption is one of them, albeit far from optimal for the child.
Agree with the rest of your post here.
@unreal24278 Thank you. Although I don’t think I have such genes, and I’m only average looking in height and face. I am also not rich or tall and don’t come from a powerful family. I also don’t do or have things that are fashionable in the current day. I guess that is not bad because I wouldn’t be interested in a woman who is overly fashion conscious.
Are you asking me how I would do as a 43-year old average single man in 2022 if I were unmarried?
When I hear that someone “does well with women” or is “successful with women” I assume this means this man attracts women, goes through a series of “girlfriends”, can go on dates and “hang out” with women, none of which I would care much about in a certain context.
For me, doing well would be ultimately finding a wife. I think I would be able to if I were single, and for me that would be “doing well.” I think I could do it in this current scene but it might not be done easily or quickly.