...if you can keep from seething with contempt for his lack of ambition and intellect.

Right on point. In nearly every article I've read about stay-at-home husbands, the women are paragons of wisdom, intellect, character and positive ambition, while all the problems are due to the sullen, sulking man's inability to accept and support his wife's success and excellence. As you say here, the truth is the exact opposite: the wives are petty, resentful, and deeply, corrosively angry about not landing an Alpha Male. And when they don't divorce the men, that's ascribed to their infinite patience and personal strength. The real reason is that they'll end up paying alimony and dividing up the assets, including a half-interest in her business if she owns her own company. Here's a snip from the web:

"I feel financially raped," says Rhonda Friedman, the former wife of Mr. Castellanos. So distasteful are the monthly payments she makes to him that after filling out the check she used to spit on it. Especially galling, she says, is that she was required to pay a substantial portion of the legal fees he racked up while securing a lucrative divorce agreement.

- and another -

A lot of women are indignant now that the shoe is increasingly on the other foot, says Carol Ann Wilson, a certified financial divorce practitioner in Boulder, Colo. "There's this sense of, 'What's yours is ours, but what's mine is mine,'" Wilson says. "My first response to that is, 'All these years we have been looking for equality; well, this is what it looks like.' I think women get angrier about having to pay than men do."

...But Wilson emphasizes that it's not just actresses or the wealthiest women who are seeking prenuptial agreements or paying spousal support. "I've seen thousands of clients," she says, "and almost every time I've seen a stay-at-home dad seek alimony, the wife--she's usually a software executive--goes ballistic."

Lastango nails it!

I hear "It's not fairrrrrrr!" in the background.

Deer Feministas

A free clue: make him get up off the couch and go to work, and you won't have worry about alimony so much. Sure, your kid(s) will be raised by strangers who may or may not share your values, but your precious financial resources will be safe from a couch surfing, game playing, stud service providing moocher.

And that's what's important.

I went through a phase in which I was reading novels in the mystery genre (noir detective type stuff - Chandler, McDonald, Parker, etc.). At some point, I began reading female authors (Peretsky, Muller, etc,). Their novels featured what were supposed to be strong, independent women who operated much like their male counterparts, i.e., anti-authoritarian loners. Since these types of books usually feature a fair amount of rumination by the protagonists, I thought it would be interesting to get a female perspective on the genre.

As time went on, however, the female novels degenerated into romance novels. The heroines invariably started dating "romance novel perfect guy." He was rich (software billionaire), tough and protective (usually former special forces), mysterious (contract work for the CIA), good looking (eliciting lecherous comments from other female characters), smart (invariably a genius), and, of course, artistic. In addition, the female protagonists collected a coterie of characters to whom they acted as den mother and who worshipped her, the women telling her she was their role model, the men desiring her from afar.

Male protagonists of the genre, of course, dated women they described as beautiful (it is, after all, fantasy), but the validation the female protagonists seemed to require was not present in the male authors' books.

Each of these authors would have described herself (and did through her writing) as a feminist. Nonetheless, they quickly reverted to the female romance stereotype.

As soon as I noticed a female author's books going down that road, I stopped reading her. Today, I mostly read history and biography, but I still occasionally pick up a "beach read," but not from those authors (whose books are more romance novel than thriller).

From the movie, As Good As It Gets:

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man. And I take away reason and accountability.

What I've observed is that a lot of young women do prefer less dominant men UNTIL they start wanting kids. Then their preferences often change dramatically.

This was the underlying cause of a lot of the break-ups and divorces I'd seen among my friends as we got into our late 20's, early 30's. The women 'outgrew' their partners, and then the next guy they got together with was often very different and not their 'type'- but consistently more affluent and settled.

There was a study which had young people rate pictures of the opposite sex for attractiveness. The men rated nicely on a bell-curve, with most girls average, some above, some below. The women however, rated most men as below average. How could most guys be below-average? I think it is baked in to the genes for women to be more selective, to want the best. But, the result is that men do not complain that their wives are unattractive, women frequently seem to have complaints that their husband is inadequate, not rich enough, not helping enough, not enough enough. As for the money thing, for women the scale of "good" is always whatever is above their level. He has to be taller than them, stronger than them, richer than them (not just than average)--but then she isn't feeling equal, and if she has to "settle" for a guy who isn't rich, she is unhappy. Guys for some reason are a little baffled by all this.

@chewy:

I've seen it start the cycle from the opposite side too. She is highly attracted to a dominant man, has a child with him cuz that's what evolution dictates. A year or two pass, he's still the charming jerk, and she is really, really expecting him to settle down and be a father. She divorces him, then goes all provider-hunter and finds her a nice beta-boy to raise the child. Aaaaand...Ctrl-Home to begin again.

Yeah, but seriously, I have vague memories of you giving the opposite advice to guys, that they shouldn't evaluate honestly and should go for women out of their league.

Aiming high is good but there aren't enough 10s of either sex to go around.

Of course women rate most men as "below average."

Men have no concept of how much contempt most women have for men in general. Aside from close friends and family members one the one hand, and "rock stars" on the other, most women think that most men are icky and creepy -- when they deign to consider them at all.

Men have no concept of how much contempt most women have for men in general. ~ Jay R at April 15, 2016 12:20 PM

When girls grow up in a society in which women roll their eyes and sigh "men" whenever men get together, where men are relegated to man caves like dogs to a dog house, and where the idea of a single father raising a child is greeted with horror, you cannot expect girls to grow up with respect for the things men bring to the table.

Someone in another thread mentioned Eric Idle and his regret about normalizing the mocking of the middle class, "Upsetting apple carts is fun, but afterward, where do you go for apples?"

When we've emasculated the last man, where will we go when we need those things men bring to the table?

When we've emasculated the last man, where will we go when we need those things men bring to the table?

ISIS?

The fastest way for a woman to calm my occasional raging boner is to simply whisper I'm a feminist!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJxCdh1Ps48

There is no such thing as a 10 with a bad attitude. Personality matters.

Can being a feminist survive in a host body w/a 'ticking time for a baby' clock?

Sure there can be MarkD. That's why no matter how hot she is there is a guy who is tired of her shit. Looks are immediate, personality takes time to wear that 10 down to a 2.

And yes Bob I have seen baby crazy feminists. It can get pretty weird and crazy. A lifetime of denial vs. overwhelming hormones, talk about a rock and a hard place. Best to run.

But oddly, women who don't HAVE a ticking clock (they're childfree, in other words) often complain about not being able to find men who don't want kids either. Go figure.

Well, men have that same ticking clock too Lenona.

I have to admit I don't see much point to a relationship without kids. But I don't think like most people enough that it could just be me.

I understand the desire to secure future sexual relief, but that isn't part of the relationship package anymore. I hear women talk about companionship and whotnot. But as a man that just is of no interest. And as an American man it sounds like an advertisement for going deaf. Hanging out with the guys drinking and playing games is far more appealing. There is some appeal to having someone to help you when you are older. But there is no reason that person has to be of the opposite gender. And I really don't trust most American women to keep up their side of the bargain. So I really can't see what is in it for a man Lenona. Help me out if I'm wrong. I'm a happily married man but I have plenty of MGTOW friends. So I would welcome arguments to improve their lives.

Ben is right by my experience. At a certain point I could see the end of my need for a "mate".

My son was getting close to be old enough that having a live-in Mother was no longer a "necessity".

My financial situation was resolving to a level of nice enough car/housing vs. "you drive that?" (Yes, I preferred my Harley and I did not have money for two nice vehicles.)

My dating options were just about out of the "ticking clock" zone. Close but you had to keep an eye on things.

Doing favors, being the "guy to call" if you needed a guy (dance partner mainly but other things as well) provided enough options that dating was becoming easier.

So a decision had to be made as to do I date women looking/needing a "mate"? OR date "friends" that might/might not provide "benefits".

That was a tough decision but I personally went w/a woman who LIKED me and NEEDED me. It has not been the best due to kid problems, but I have been in worst relationships for sure.

To Ben: Plenty of people, male and female, would simply like a partner to help them toward their big goals in life, whether that's climbing all available mountains, running your dream business, revolutionizing science, politics, religion...etc.

And it's been said more than once that birth control has helped lower the divorce rate (AND crime rate) significantly. (Of course, that doesn't always mean having no children at all.)

But, as Sylvia Lucas once wrote in her blog, some men say they want kids but really want the woman to do most of the dirty work. Many women won't settle for that anymore.

Nothing you said Lenona responds to anything I said. Yet another nonsequitur.

MUST I spell every little thing out?

(If the following doesn't correspond to what you said, maybe YOU could spell out what you mean? I really don't get the bit about "drinking and playing games" - women can enjoy doing those things too, sometimes. I admit I would never want to go to a casino, but I understand plenty of women do.)

Of course a woman should not assume that a man will settle for a sexless marriage just because she might lose her libido over time and not be able to revive it. (Though Dan Savage would say that for plenty of heterosexual - and gay - couples, this is often solved, for both sides, by having an open marriage - that is, a wife often finds that her libido comes back when she can sleep with other men. But again, she shouldn't be surprised if the man doesn't want to stay in that kind of marriage.)

My point was that so long as sexual needs are met, children are very often simply not necessary for a fulfilling life or for a good marriage; in fact, they can be very detrimental to those goals. This is why better birth control - and good ACCESS to it - has helped save many a marriage. Even people who WANT one or two children often don't want four or even three.

And, it seems that when more and more people in Third World countries get access to TV and see how other families are managing to live more happily after bucking the pressure to have large families, the viewers want to do the same.

From Sept. 2013, Conservation Magazine, by Fred Pearce:

http://conservationmagazine.org/2013/09/tv-as-birth-control/

Finally, if MGTOW are truly happy with no commitments in their lives, fine. But if they find themselves getting increasingly unhappy and bitter because they secretly want kids and can't find anyone who wants to stay at home and do all the dirty work for them (and anyone knows that letting your truly profitable marketable skills wither, as a SAHM, is just plain risky), OR if they don't want kids but would like wives, maybe they need to rethink their priorities.

As many have said, an awful lot of men seem to think that women are behaving badly - i.e., scaring off all potential husbands - whenever their wishes and future goals in life pose even the slightest burden to the men - that is, when the women don't act like their absolute servants all the time, or when they don't get pregnant on command or abort on command. If that's what men want, what's in it for the women?

P.S. Here's one tip that I think most dating Americans ignore - one needs to buck the pressure, as much as possible, to be a careless spender, and then, one needs to look hard for a frugal mate, since money fights are among the most common reasons for breaking up. Even if both of you love being careless spenders, that "compatibility" is likely to destroy both of you in the long run.

Thank you for spelling it out Lenona. It show how you completely missed my point.

"... women can enjoy doing those things too ..."

Sure women can enjoy drinking and games. When my point is that men can get companionship without women pointing out that women can offer companionship is irrelevant.

"Plenty of people, male and female, would simply like a partner to help them toward their big goals in life ..."

I mentioned this. I also mentioned there is no reason that the other person has to be of the opposite gender. So this doesn't support your argument.

"this is often solved, for both sides, by having an open marriage"

You advocated for sexually open marriage. I have to admit, what is the point? Why get married? Why not be roommated and fuckbuddies? You want commitment but not sexual commitment? You only want financial commitment?

"My point was that so long as sexual needs are met, children are very often simply not necessary for a fulfilling life or for a good marriage ..."

Ok. For starters that 'sexual needs' bit is a big claim. But let's set that aside for now. Your initial complaint was that women who don't want children can't find mates. Claiming not wanting children is a superior position doesn't resolve the issue. It comes off as advertising.

"Finally, if MGTOW are truly happy with no commitments in their lives ..."

Nope. MGTOW is driven by hopelessness and despair (ignoring gays, sorry Patrick you don't get to join the depressed looser group ;D). Men go MGTOW when they give up on women. You've noted that men who go MGTOW tend to be poor. That is 95% true for a simple reason. For men the display of wealth is a sexual display. Once you give up on women there is no longer a need to generate or accumulate wealth. The majority of men have very spartan needs absent that sexual display. A bed or pallet (heck even blankets will do), a single bowl and cup, a source of entertainment (mainly internet games). That's it. You're done. Easily paid for by a minimum wage job. Why try any harder?

"... when the women don't act like their absolute servants all the time ..."

Don't know where you are getting this from. Yes scumbags exist. In fact they exist in both genders. Though women tend to like dating scumbags more than men do.

On a related note, men become more scumbaggy as society becomes more accepting of polygyny. Are there more women chasing fewer men in your social circle?

For your last point I agree with you 100%. Frugality is where it's at.

My point is you cannot separate rights and responsibility or ownership and control without significant consequences. I've revealed I own an A/B style corporation. If I am sued people can take ownership of that corporation from me but they cannot take control. This type of organization has an iconic name, a poison pill corporation. You have to be either stupid or incredibly trusting to eat that poison pill. In the US children generate the same legal situation. Men are financially responsible but they have no effective rights. So men increasingly are not interested in eating that poison pill. Same with marriage.

I'm in my 30s. Roughly 50% of my parent's generation went through divorce. So 99%+ of my generation know someone who's parents went through divorce. The sexism currently enshrined in law is well known. So it should be no surprise many men are not interested. Why gays want to joint this failed institution I don't know.

"Plenty of people, male and female, would simply like a partner to help them toward their big goals in life ..."

I mentioned this. I also mentioned there is no reason that the other person has to be of the opposite gender. So this doesn't support your argument.
___________________________________

Maybe I should have said "a loving sex partner who is also a good partner in general."

Business partners are often not that emotionally fulfilling or even that friendly, unless you're talking about straight men "choosing" to turn gay. But I doubt you were. Besides, if THEY get married, things can change drastically in YOUR life.
_____________________________________

"this is often solved, for both sides, by having an open marriage"

You advocated for sexually open marriage.
______________________________________

I did not. As I hinted, chances are it wouldn't work anyway, since a husband might want girlfriends but not want his wife to sleep around too. Dan Savage is the one who said that it can work, for SOME couples - but he doesn't talk much, that I know of, about what to do when both sides are sexually unhappy but both sides are also opposed to extramarital sex or divorce. Besides using sex toys and getting therapy, of course.
_____________________________________

Your initial complaint was that women who don't want children can't find mates. Claiming not wanting children is a superior position doesn't resolve the issue.
____________________________________

You love to twist things. I'm not complaining; I said OTHER women are complaining. (I haven't witnessed their problems personally.) I was pointing out that men who WANT kids are not as uncommon as the smug anti-feminists want to believe - so if "baby rabies" (as some describe it) is the Achilles' heel for many women, well, it is for a lot of would-be dads too, apparently, since they seem to have trouble avoiding childfree women, when you'd think it would be easy enough. (Or they already have kids and want a stepmother for them, not grasping that childfree women don't want stepkids either.) I never said anything about CFness as a superior position.
__________________________________________

"Finally, if MGTOW are truly happy with no commitments in their lives ..."

Nope. MGTOW is driven by hopelessness and despair (ignoring gays, sorry Patrick you don't get to join the depressed looser group ;D). Men go MGTOW when they give up on women. You've noted that men who go MGTOW tend to be poor. That is 95% true for a simple reason. For men the display of wealth is a sexual display. Once you give up on women there is no longer a need to generate or accumulate wealth.
_______________________________________

Sure there is - if you don't have kids (and even if you do), you can't count on anyone's being alive, able, and willing to support you when you're old, so you have to not only SAVE a lot of money, you have to EARN it. Maybe not as much as you would have needed to raise and put two kids through college...but you never know how long you'll live.

BTW, I only said "if" regarding happiness. I.e., some MGTOW, certainly not all. Besides, just as most of the childfree choose that lifestyle because, deep down, it's what they wanted all along, not because they find kids hateful or even annoying in small doses, so too most MGTOW, I'll bet, were never eager to have a wife and kids for 20 to 30 years instead of partying, playing cheap video games or backpacking around the world. I freely admit that once you know you don't really want kids, it's easy enough not to marry - or to postpone marriage indefinitely. (In my own experience, silence and solitude are VERY addictive - it leaves more time to read, for one.) For others, not having a long-term relationship at least would just feel lonely.
___________________________________

"... when the women don't act like their absolute servants all the time ..."

Don't know where you are getting this from.
_____________________________________

I was thinking of MRAs, who certainly complain of obviously nasty, entitled women, but who also complain whenever women don't respond like robots to commands - especially regarding unplanned pregnancies. (When are people going to admit that those can happen even when TWO contraceptives are used?) Women might be dumb enough to date men like that (I don't know any) but I would hope they wouldn't marry them. (MRAs often complain about that too.)
____________________________________

Are there more women chasing fewer men in your social circle?
_____________________________________

No.
_____________________________________

For your last point I agree with you 100%. Frugality is where it's at.
_____________________________________

I should have added that time is money too, so it's important for couples to talk about the need for useful hobbies vs. useless hobbies; the latter are often costly and time-consuming. If one partner has hobbies that save or earn money and the other one only watches TV, that will likely cause resentment.
________________________________________

I'm in my 30s. Roughly 50% of my parent's generation went through divorce.
_________________________________________

Don't forget that many of those parents married before the mid-1970s, when NOT getting married eventually and having children was practically unthinkable. So it's safe to assume that many of the divorces had to do with the individuals' realizing that they never should have married ANYONE in the first place. It's been said, too, that the divorce rate IS going down now - again, due in part to birth control.
_______________________________________

Why gays want to joint this failed institution I don't know.
_________________________________________

I'm sure the gay Dan Savage talks about this in his book "The Commitment." (He's married - and he talks about his siblings, too, at least one of whom is not.)

"Maybe I should have said "a loving sex partner who is also a good partner in general.""

Sorry, I don't see it. Maybe it is a woman thing. Maybe it is a not-Ben thing. But I know a number of guys who feel the same way. Once you give up on sex and kids there doesn't appear to be any reason to get personally involved with a woman.

"I did not. As I hinted, chances are it wouldn't work anyway..."

Classic. You don't get to present someone else's argument and then disavow it later. It is your argument since you presented it even if someone else said it first.

You are correct that it work for select cases but does not work in bulk. Polygyny brings a whole host of problems.

"You love to twist things. I'm not complaining; I said OTHER women are complaining."

Apologies. I should have said the complaint you presented. And you are correct, men can get baby rabies. But like many things they manifest it different than women. While I don't have any hard numbers my impression is men want children roughly as much as women do.

"Sure there is ..."

You don't get it. Most of my MGTOW friends don't mind homelessness. A minimum wage job till you die is just fine with them. And baring that welfare pays far more than they really desire. We are at the point where basic sewage facilities may be optional. Your wealth expectations are several orders of magnitude greater than most MGTOW men.

"I was thinking of MRAs ..."

And that is the problem. MRAs appear to be very injured people. You've already heard my views on them. You get the same crazy from the feminazis with the gender reversed.

"It's been said, too, that the divorce rate IS going down now - again, due in part to birth control."

The divorce rate is down but birth control has nothing to do with it. People increasingly are uninterested in marriage and hence they incapable of divorce. The stats are quite clear that men are leading this change. Current marriage and child care laws are still very gender biased. So it is very difficult to get a man to commit. And feminists pushing hookup culture really doesn't help either.

"I'm sure the gay Dan Savage talks about this in his book "The Commitment.""

The most common reason I've heard is for respect. Which is a fairly stupid reason. I don't know of anyone who has increased respect for same sex marriages. People either respected their long term relationship or not. The paper is irrelevant.

I have a friend who is MGTOW who looks like he might be willing to turn back from that decision. So I'm looking for convincing arguments to offer him. Unfortunately I have many more who will probably never turn back. And more unfortunately I have several with relationship which justify going MGTOW.

You don't get it. Most of my MGTOW friends don't mind homelessness.
_____________________________________

And why shouldn't I assume that only YOUR friends don't mind homelessness? Sounds suspicious.
_____________________________________

A minimum wage job till you die is just fine with them.
______________________________________

As if they can't get laid off after a certain age and thus become unemployable for decades. Most people prefer not to be homeless when they get old - or on welfare.
______________________________________

"It's been said, too, that the divorce rate IS going down now - again, due in part to birth control."

The divorce rate is down but birth control has nothing to do with it.
_______________________________________

Nothing? Even counting within the married population only?

From journalist Claire Cain Miller, in 2014:

The Divorce Surge Is Over, but the Myth Lives On

"...But here is the thing: It is no longer true that the divorce rate is rising, or that half of all marriages end in divorce. It has not been for some time. Even though social scientists have tried to debunk those myths, somehow the conventional wisdom has held.

"Despite hand-wringing about the institution of marriage, marriages in this country are stronger today than they have been in a long time. The divorce rate peaked in the 1970s and early 1980s and has been declining for the three decades since.

"About 70 percent of marriages that began in the 1990s reached their 15th anniversary (excluding those in which a spouse died), up from about 65 percent of those that began in the 1970s and 1980s. Those who married in the 2000s are so far divorcing at even lower rates. If current trends continue, nearly two-thirds of marriages will never involve a divorce, according to data from Justin Wolfers, a University of Michigan economist (who also contributes to The Upshot).

"There are many reasons for the drop in divorce, including later marriages, birth control and the rise of so-called love marriages. These same forces have helped reduce the divorce rate in parts of Europe, too. Much of the trend has to do with changing gender roles...

"...The marriage trends aren’t entirely happy ones. They also happen to be a force behind rising economic and social inequality, because the decline in divorce is concentrated among people with college degrees. For the less educated, divorce rates are closer to those of the peak divorce years...

"...Some of the decline in divorce clearly stems from the fact that fewer people are getting married — and some of the biggest declines in marriage have come among groups at risk of divorce. But it also seems to be the case that marriages have gotten more stable, as people are marrying later...

"...(People who married before the 1970s) had married someone who was a good match for the postwar culture but the wrong partner after times changed. Modern marriage is more stable because people are again marrying people suitable to the world in which we live...

"...The delay in marriage is part of the story, allowing people more time to understand what they want in a partner and to find one. The median age for marriage in 1890 was 26 for men and 22 for women. By the 1950s, it had dropped to 23 for men and 20 for women. In 2004, it climbed to 27 for men and 26 for women.

"Perhaps surprisingly, more permissive attitudes may also play a role. The fact that most people live together before marrying means that more ill-fated relationships end in breakups instead of divorce. And the growing acceptance of single-parent families has reduced the number of shotgun marriages, which were never the most stable of unions..."

One reader comment:

Lily
Nassau County, NY December 2, 2014
"Don't forget to consider today's social acceptance of homosexuality, making it now unnecessary to marry to protect one's sexual identity from the world, avoiding grief to both spouses that was resolved by divorce."
_________________________________

"I'm sure the gay Dan Savage talks about this in his book "The Commitment.""

The most common reason I've heard is for respect. Which is a fairly stupid reason. I don't know of anyone who has increased respect for same sex marriages. People either respected their long term relationship or not. The paper is irrelevant.
________________________________

Give it time. As Quentin Crisp wrote in 1968: "It is not the simple statement of facts that ushers in freedom; it is the constant repetition of them that has this liberating effect. Tolerance is the result not of enlightenment, but of boredom."

That would make sense, given that teens seem to be more likely to approve of gay marriage than those people a generation older.

(I realize, of course, that there's a distance between "tolerance" and respect.)

"And why shouldn't I assume that only YOUR friends don't mind homelessness? Sounds suspicious."

Nope. Talk to some. Get a feel for how those men think. A part of MGTOW is giving up.

Mind there are variations of MGTOW. You can go full tow where you've given up on women entirely and become a shutin living a monastic life. Living in a cave in the woods or a small room in a church is how guys used to do it. Now you get an efficiency apartment, make homemade alcohol (just like the monks), and play Halo.

And then there are the half tows. They still date and have sex with women. They just aren't ever going to marry one. Those guys still acquire wealth for the sexual display. Though they rarely keep any of it around long. Use it or lose it is part of the philosophy, for obvious reasons.

The guy I'm working on is a half tow. He found a girl he likes and appears to want marriage. Personally I don't think he is capable of long term marriage. But with a little work I think he could get there. He also has to accept that this is what he wants.

Full tows on the other hand are a lost cause. They've completely given up, so they don't even look, so they never find something they want.

"Nothing? Even counting within the married population only?"

Best I can tell, nope. What you quoted was full of perhapses and maybes, i.e. they don't know and are just saying stuff. Best I can tell, people just aren't marrying so they can't get divorced. The marriage rate should keep dropping till it hits 10-25%. The drop in the divorce rate tracks with the drop in the marriage rate, with an understandable time lag. We've already passed 50%.

Significantly, the divorce to marriage rate pre-1970 was 20-25%. Post-1970 it went up to ~50% and has held steady there. Mind this doesn't mean what it seems to at first glance. It just says that since 1970 for every couple divorcing there have been two marrying in the same year. Both numbers are affected by serial marry-divorcees.

The gay bit is fairly irrelevant. They don't have the population numbers to significantly change things.

In the end marriage will likely be just for the rich and the religiously devout.

Thinking on it a bit more, if the pill did anything it increased the divorce rate. The pill came out in the 60s and there was a corresponding jump in the marriage/divorce rate from 25% to 50% from the 70s to the 80s. Mind the pill wasn't the only thing that happened at that time. But claiming birth control reduced the divorce rate doesn't appear to be supported.

I'm not opposed to birth control. This is just what the number are.

And after the mid-1980s or so, why couldn't the divorce rate have fallen with the HELP of birth control? I've already mentioned at least one big likely factor for the rise in divorce in the 1970s - the fact that it was almost unthinkable not to get married before then (sort of like not graduating high school), which created a lot of unhappy marriages. Married couples that CHOSE -and managed - not to have even one child were pretty rare too, even in the early 1970s. So why would birth control aggravate the divorce rate, back then?

If birth control caused a fall in the divorce rate after 1980 then it had a similar effect on the marriage rate. The stats show they track together. Since 1980 the ratio of divorces to marriages has held constant at 50%. Most likely the pill had no statistically significant effect on marriage or divorce.

I agree with you that prior to 1970 getting married and just as important staying married were strongly culturally enforced. Back in 1960 over 70% of all Americans age 15 and up were married. When you break it down by income poor people were actually more likely to be married. Since the 1970s this has dropped. Today we are under 50%.

If you had to ask me why this happened changes in welfare and child support laws are the obvious culprits. But no matter how plausible it seems to you the data doesn't support a claim that birth control reduced the number of divorces.

I can't comment on how happy those marriages were. This isn't something we can objectively measure.