[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Walkaway, you could think of it like this. Let’s assume you’re stranded on a desert island.
Your life can look like Swiss Family Robinson, where you’ve got a wife and a few kids, maybe even some strapping sons who can help you drag some logs around to make a shelter. Assume you actually really like these people, and the wife is nice to curl up with at night. You could even repopulate the island if you wanted to, or have fun trying.
Or you can be like Tom Hanks in Castaway. Talking to a damn volleyball and knocking your own tooth out with a rock. [/quote]
Meh, old news about income/fertility. Basically, educated people with access to birth control prefer to have only as many children as they can comfortably caretake and educate. They also, men and women alike, prefer pleasant, easy lives. I would say the trend follows working mothers (so duel-income families). NOT men opting out because they’re able to score hot chicks into old age with their $115K/year.[/quote]
But nowadays people aren’t even having enough to replace themselves and this hasn’t always been the case. My personal observation is there has been a cultural shift where being a dual income no kids, or dual income 1 kid is a new symbol of status. If having a large family were “in” people would be doing it. The amount we can afford line is only true to an extent.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Which leads to your value question. I would say that most people negatively judge sluts and that most people subscribe to the notion that men who endlessly hook up are basically the same as their female equivalent. What value do they provide the world?
[/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
But nowadays people aren’t even having enough to replace themselves and this hasn’t always been the case. [/quote]
True, big picture.
How are the number of kids you have a status symbol and what does that even mean?
I’ve been married for 8 years and don’t have kids, I must be banking some serious status. Whatever that implies…
Besides, those who are monetarily wealthy (which is, I assume, what you mean by status?) aren’t worried about keeping up with the Jones’ so to speak. Status won’t/doesn’t factor into the number of kids they’ll have generally speaking. Lifestyle is a far more important factor, imo, and is why those with more money tend to, in recent times, have less kids. It allows them to maintain or improve their lifestyle. It’s why my wife and I have not had kids up to this point. Financial stability is by far our number 1 reason though and another factor.
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Walkaway, you could think of it like this. Let’s assume you’re stranded on a desert island.
Your life can look like Swiss Family Robinson, where you’ve got a wife and a few kids, maybe even some strapping sons who can help you drag some logs around to make a shelter. Assume you actually really like these people, and the wife is nice to curl up with at night. You could even repopulate the island if you wanted to, or have fun trying.
Or you can be like Tom Hanks in Castaway. Talking to a damn volleyball and knocking your own tooth out with a rock. [/quote]
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Walkaway, you could think of it like this. Let’s assume you’re stranded on a desert island.
Your life can look like Swiss Family Robinson, where you’ve got a wife and a few kids, maybe even some strapping sons who can help you drag some logs around to make a shelter. Assume you actually really like these people, and the wife is nice to curl up with at night. You could even repopulate the island if you wanted to, or have fun trying.
Or you can be like Tom Hanks in Castaway. Talking to a damn volleyball and knocking your own tooth out with a rock. [/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Choosing not participate in reproduction vs choosing not to participate in sex/dating are 2 VERY different things.
Sexually desirable men will always have the highest value whether they choose to reproduce or not.
[/quote]
Female sexual attraction is highly contextual. I’m not sure what distinction you are making between choosing not to participate in sex and choosing not to participate in reproduction. Invitro aside, the two are highly correlated. Dating is another thing entirely, but assuming you aren’t into rape, you have to somehow convince women to have sex with you. That implies a certain amount of effort, which could be classified as dating (regardless of whether it’s monogamous, polygamous, serial, etc.).
For an attractive man who simply wants to have lots of kids with his sperm running around marriage may not be a great idea (although given contraceptives and abortion, the cad strategy of reproduction is probably not as successful as it used to be). But for the majority of men who either want to have a significant role in the lives of their children or simply can’t get casual sexual access to women who want to have their children (or both), marriage still remains a good plan.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I skimmed the articles you posted - they focus on the uber rich top 1.3% from what I can tell. Not particularly statistically significant.
Statistically the more money you make, the less kids you have.
"In a related paper, Alice Schoonbroodt and Michele Tertilt say that, â??There is overwhelming empirical evidence that fertility is negatively related to income in most countries at most times.â?? They are right. Whether you cut the data across countries, through time, or across people at a point in time, the same fact arises: The richer you get, the fewer kids you have. "
[/quote]
But your argument is that the affluent don’t have any kids at all. All of these articles show that in fact the wealthy do have kids.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
But beyond that, not having children is simply admitting that you are not fit enough in this civilization to successfully reproduce. [/quote]
In modern times where contraception is ubiquitous this is simply not true.
Let’s say a guy never has sex but donates a lot of sperm to sperm banks which eventually leads 10+ kids. He has his own mini-tribe but again never has sex.
Now another man never reproduces by choice but has a life filled with dalliances one after the next.
Who is more valuable?
[/quote]
I’m honestly not sure what you are asking in terms of “valuable.” Neither of the above individuals contributes much of value to society. Sperm is pretty cheap and finding a man to have sex with her is not difficult for any woman of even passing attractiveness. The second man is likely more attractive, but that’s rather superficial.
However, you bring up an important point that in a world with contraceptives and abortion, ability to have sex with women is probably poorly correlated to number of offspring and probably even more poorly correlated with number of offspring with good opportunities themselves. I’d liken a successful PUA to a fat person. People are driven to consume food to the extent possible insofar as in the past, before food was as plentiful as it is today, consumption of food was likely correlated with good health. Today, people eat too much and the basic appetite, hunger, is fed by those who have lost sight of why it exists: to improve health.
Similarly, a PUA has become prolific at satisfying his sexual appetite but has lost sight of why it exists. Admittedly, it’s likely much more difficult to gain sexual access to a variety of attractive women than it is to obtain enough food to consistently gorge yourself and get fat. However, the PUA has become obsessed with obtaining sex to the extent that it almost certainly inhibits his ability to actually have and raise quality children.
Now, it’s true that having good children is not the only good benchmark of success in life. But if you’re trying to argue that seducing and having sex with a variety of women is a better course than finding one good woman and raising a family with her, I pity you.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Harold Hamm has not quite a billion reasons he should have not gotten married.[/quote]
I am honest to god having trouble comprehending that that check represents cash, and not assets. One fucking billion. That is a number I have never associated with any form of liquidity that could be written on a fucking check.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Harold Hamm has not quite a billion reasons he should have not gotten married.[/quote]
I am honest to god having trouble comprehending that that check represents cash, and not assets. One fucking billion. That is a number I have never associated with any form of liquidity that could be written on a fucking check.[/quote]
Lol, ya no kidding. I’m sure if Ol’ Harold can write a billion dollar check he’ll survive, somehow…
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Harold Hamm has not quite a billion reasons he should have not gotten married.[/quote]
I am honest to god having trouble comprehending that that check represents cash, and not assets. One fucking billion. That is a number I have never associated with any form of liquidity that could be written on a fucking check.[/quote]
Lol, ya no kidding. I’m sure if Ol’ Harold can write a billion dollar check he’ll survive, somehow… [/quote]
I know Harold reasonably well. She actually refused this check, then oil prices dropped, and she took it.
His new girlfriend is not very pretty.
He told me once, “If it flies, floats, or fucks, RENT IT.”
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Harold Hamm has not quite a billion reasons he should have not gotten married.[/quote]
I am honest to god having trouble comprehending that that check represents cash, and not assets. One fucking billion. That is a number I have never associated with any form of liquidity that could be written on a fucking check.[/quote]
Lol, ya no kidding. I’m sure if Ol’ Harold can write a billion dollar check he’ll survive, somehow… [/quote]
I know Harold reasonably well. She actually refused this check, then oil prices dropped, and she took it.
His new girlfriend is not very pretty.
He told me once, “If it flies, floats, or fucks, RENT IT.”
Perhaps he should have taken his own advice.[/quote]
That’s funny. I didn’t realize you know him personally. We discussed his situation a page or so ago. Any insight into the situation? His advice is pretty spot on, lol.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Harold Hamm has not quite a billion reasons he should have not gotten married.[/quote]
I am honest to god having trouble comprehending that that check represents cash, and not assets. One fucking billion. That is a number I have never associated with any form of liquidity that could be written on a fucking check.[/quote]
Lol, ya no kidding. I’m sure if Ol’ Harold can write a billion dollar check he’ll survive, somehow… [/quote]
I know Harold reasonably well. She actually refused this check, then oil prices dropped, and she took it.
His new girlfriend is not very pretty.
He told me once, “If it flies, floats, or fucks, RENT IT.”
Perhaps he should have taken his own advice.[/quote]
That’s funny. I didn’t realize you know him personally. We discussed his situation a page or so ago. Any insight into the situation? His advice is pretty spot on, lol. [/quote]
No, not really. I only know him from various business transactions and some parties (e.g., Kentucky Derby). Although we have a lot of mutual friends, I would not list him as a personal friend, nor he, me.
I’m in the “happy to have a King Air” crowd. While he is in the “picking out his new jet” crowd.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Harold Hamm has not quite a billion reasons he should have not gotten married.[/quote]
I am honest to god having trouble comprehending that that check represents cash, and not assets. One fucking billion. That is a number I have never associated with any form of liquidity that could be written on a fucking check.[/quote]
Lol, ya no kidding. I’m sure if Ol’ Harold can write a billion dollar check he’ll survive, somehow… [/quote]
I know Harold reasonably well. She actually refused this check, then oil prices dropped, and she took it.
His new girlfriend is not very pretty.
He told me once, “If it flies, floats, or fucks, RENT IT.”
Perhaps he should have taken his own advice.[/quote]
That’s funny. I didn’t realize you know him personally. We discussed his situation a page or so ago. Any insight into the situation? His advice is pretty spot on, lol. [/quote]
No, not really. I only know him from various business transactions and some parties (e.g., Kentucky Derby). Although we have a lot of mutual friends, I would not list him as a personal friend, nor he, me.
I’m in the “happy to have a King Air” crowd. While he is in the “picking out his new jet” crowd.
[/quote]
Gotcha. Well, I understand Jet Salesmen are real assholes so I guess we’ve got that going for us…
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You have to create incentives for men to want to have children/get married.
[/quote]
No, we really don’t. Civilization depends on men to function. However, men are also expendable. If men were somehow able to form a union like structure and all go on strike, then perhaps they could make demands. By choosing not to participate, you simply increase the value of the men who do participate.[/quote]
Choosing not participate in reproduction vs choosing not to participate in sex/dating are 2 VERY different things.
Sexually desirable men will always have the highest value whether they choose to reproduce or not.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
In modern society incentives for the opposite are occurring. Nowadays, having no children is a symbol of affluence.
[/quote]
This made me laugh.
These articles actually suggest that children are a sign of affluence:
I skimmed the articles you posted - they focus on the uber rich top 1.3% from what I can tell. Not particularly statistically significant.
Statistically the more money you make, the less kids you have.
"In a related paper, Alice Schoonbroodt and Michele Tertilt say that, �¢??There is overwhelming empirical evidence that fertility is negatively related to income in most countries at most times.�¢?? They are right. Whether you cut the data across countries, through time, or across people at a point in time, the same fact arises: The richer you get, the fewer kids you have. "
[quote]Silyak wrote:
But beyond that, not having children is simply admitting that you are not fit enough in this civilization to successfully reproduce. [/quote]
In modern times where contraception is ubiquitous this is simply not true.
Let’s say a guy never has sex but donates a lot of sperm to sperm banks which eventually leads 10+ kids. He has his own mini-tribe but again never has sex.
Now another man never reproduces by choice but has a life filled with dalliances one after the next.
Who is more valuable?
[/quote]
Meh, old news about income/fertility. Basically, educated people with access to birth control prefer to have only as many children as they can comfortably caretake and educate. They also, men and women alike, prefer pleasant, easy lives. I would say the trend follows working mothers (so duel-income families). NOT men opting out because they’re able to score hot chicks into old age with their $115K/year.
Which leads to your value question. I would say that most people negatively judge sluts and that most people subscribe to the notion that men who endlessly hook up are basically the same as their female equivalent. What value do they provide the world?
[/quote]
Uhh… I think we clearly defined the “chicks a come runnin” number at $114k a year.
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Walkaway, you could think of it like this. Let’s assume you’re stranded on a desert island.
Your life can look like Swiss Family Robinson, where you’ve got a wife and a few kids, maybe even some strapping sons who can help you drag some logs around to make a shelter. Assume you actually really like these people, and the wife is nice to curl up with at night. You could even repopulate the island if you wanted to, or have fun trying.
Or you can be like Tom Hanks in Castaway. Talking to a damn volleyball and knocking your own tooth out with a rock. [/quote]
…
but im not stranded on a desert island. [/quote]
It’s a metaphor.
[/quote]
and one that is completely and utterly non-applicable
But they’re viewed very differently in terms of their desirability as partners.
[/quote]
First, let me state for the record that I have no issue with promiscuous women. If meaningless sex is for them, then God bless.
But I don’t think their promiscuity is impressive or desirable - a “hot” woman pulling the top guy at a bar has nothing for me to envy. No offense, but I don’t think a guy who prides himself on being able to pull hot women at bars is particularly desirable either, regardless of income or looks.
You distinguish between them (men/women) because it suits you to do so.
But they’re viewed very differently in terms of their desirability as partners.
[/quote]
First, let me state for the record that I have no issue with promiscuous women. If meaningless sex is for them, then God bless.
But I don’t think their promiscuity is impressive or desirable - a “hot” woman pulling the top guy at a bar has nothing for me to envy. No offense, but I don’t think a guy who prides himself on being able to pull hot women at bars is particularly desirable either, regardless of income or looks.
You distinguish between them (men/women) because it suits you to do so.
[/quote]
No, its different.
You dont get respect for being able to break an egg with a hammer, which is more or less what a slut is doing.
You get respect, albeit mostly in the form of envy, if you pull something off that most men cant, which is what a stud is doing.
