Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Dr. Helen, call your office

US marriage rates hit all-time low:
According to the latest available census data, the percentage of U.S. adults who have never been married has hit a new, all-time high.

In 1960, about one in ten adults over the age of 25 fell into that category.

By 2012, the number had jumped to one in five.
Combine disincentives to marry with incentives to not marry, and unsurprisingly, the result is half as much marriage. The solution is simple. End no-fault divorce. End asset-stripping. Ban the pill. Prosecute adultery and punish it with severe fines. Harshly slut-shame non-virginal women.

It will work. We know it works from history. But instead, societal decline, soft totalitarianism and feral children are preferred because women are short-sighted. Imagine what US society will be like when those rates fall to one in two.

43 comments:

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Those are all very sensible solutions, Vox, but, short of revolution or coup, I have a hard time imagining them being enacted.

kurt9 said...

Eliminating contraception is silly. Not everyone wants to have kids. Pushing people who don't want kids into having them is one of the most silly, non-productive ideas I have ever heard of. People should not have access to a "social life" be conditional on the willingness to have kids. this simply is not acceptable at all. Some of us enjoy lives of travel, adventure, or other pursuits and simply have no interest in kids. You will never get us on board with your proposals without accepting this reality.

The problem is not the lack of marriage itself. The problem is single parenthood. It is women giving birth to kids without having a father to help raise them. Focus on efforts to reduce this problem directly rather than attacking the liberties of those of us who do not want kids. I guarantee you will get a lot more support this way (and have much more success).

The best way to reduce single parenthood is to develop more effective male contraception (which is forthcoming in about 5 years) . I will bet you donuts to dollars that this will radically reduce the amount of single parenthood as well as the abortion rate.

Crowhill said...

One other thing. Gives fathers custody of their children whether or not the man and woman are married.

SirHamster said...

Eliminating contraception is silly. Not everyone wants to have kids.

Everyone not having kids is a cultural and societal dead-end. Which also means it doesn't matter if you're on-board or not. You're gone in a generation.


The best way to reduce single parenthood is to develop more effective male contraception (which is forthcoming in about 5 years) . I will bet you donuts to dollars that this will radically reduce the amount of single parenthood as well as the abortion rate.

That assumes that all the people who use those technologies to get extra sex will make the choices to not end up as single parents. If single parenthood is more a function of a hyper-sexualized culture, as opposed to accidental failure of contraception, you're still going to have plenty of single parenthood.

It only takes one guy who likes creating a lot of baby mamas, or one guy selling his sperm to desperate ladies.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

You can't ban the pill. The likely result will be an underground crime ring to provide it to women, like with cocaine and marijuana.

Then again, I've never been a fan of government issuing marriage licenses. And the Churchian cowards who insist on making it a political rather than a moral issue.

cailcorishev said...

The way people talk about the male pill, you'd think men have no effective contraceptive choices now.

everybodyhatesscott said...

The best way to reduce single parenthood is to develop more effective male contraception (which is forthcoming in about 5 years) .

Has better contraceptive stopped birth at all? Stupid people don't use them. Contraceptives are dysgenic.

Everything the Catholic church predicted contraceptives would do has come true

http://frwest.blogspot.com/2009/07/prophets-for-our-time-pope-paul-vi-vs.html

Keef said...

I agree with a lot of this post, just not the parts about using government to deny people freedom. While I have never used contraception and certainly don't champion it, I think it is totalitarian to ban it.

Ending no fault divorce is good, but I really thing getting gov't out of the marriage license business would be optimal.

One Fat Oz Guy said...

The problem is that people read those numbers and take away what they already believe:
People aren't getting married? They're not being held to tradition.
... They're focusing on career / personal development.
... They're enjoying dating.
These are cause for concern for people until society starts going downhill.
I personally don't think we'll see Vasalgel in the near future because too many men would get it done and the number of 'unplanned pregnancies' (currently about 50%) would drop significantly and the Western birth rate would drop far below what it currently is.
Governments do things for the country and I can guarantee that, whether they ever say it or not, the government needs to hide the fact that people aren't having children. They already do it by immigration of people who are known for their large families.
That's where I think countries like India could make a killing in the contraceptive tourism market. Enter the "it's dangerous to go to India for medical procedures" warnings to try to get people to stay away.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Left unmentioned in the piece is the (growing?) refusal of men to marry, which can be attributed to: female obesity, masculinization of American women, easy availability of sex, and financial/health risks.

Eric said...

The best way to reduce single parenthood is to develop more effective male contraception (which is forthcoming in about 5 years) .

I've been hearing that for at least 30 years.

And anyway you're proceeding from a false assumption. Birth control is already nearly 100% effective if you use it.

Matamoros said...

Given Vox's program, and Crowhill's addendum to return primary custody of children to the father, as per old common law, would indeed restore a responsible society.

Kurt9 notes: Eliminating contraception is silly. Not everyone wants to have kids. But this is the sole purpose of women, and the reason for sex. As SirHamster comments: Everyone not having kids is a cultural and societal dead-end. Which also means it doesn't matter if you're on-board or not. You're gone in a generation.

This is a fact. The pro-abortionists have aborted their future generations and are extinct. The future belongs to the Patriarchy and those of us who procreate and raise our children to be good Catholics/Christians and believers in Christendom/Western Civilization.

Read: Return of Patiarchy - http://newamerica.net/node/8092

Eric said...

That assumes that all the people who use those technologies to get extra sex will make the choices to not end up as single parents. If single parenthood is more a function of a hyper-sexualized culture, as opposed to accidental failure of contraception, you're still going to have plenty of single parenthood.

The reason the culture is hyper-sexualized is people have convinced themselves there are no negative consequences to extramarital sex. But culture follows facts on the ground - I think you would find the culture drifting away from sexualizing everything if birth control wasn't readily available and single parenthood wasn't rewarded with government benefits.

kurt9 said...

Guys, if you want to get people to have kids who don't want them, you need to pay them. The way to do this without taxation is to take all of the federally owned lands (mostly western states and Alaska) as well as the potential offshore oil/gas leases on all three coasts and place them in a trust. The revenues from this trust (which would probably be several trillion a year) would then be used to pay people to have kids. I proposed this as a means of financing a UBI (universal basic income) that was being discussed on Brian Wang's NextBigFuture blog. the amount of compensation a couple receives per child per year would be based on the BLM's estimates of annual child raising costs. Of course the scheme would be limited to stable two-parent marriages and immigration strictly limited.

I think this is a sensible proposal to promote birthrates in the U.S. without having to strip away civil liberties in the name of "patriarchical religion" or any other such fantasy non-sense.

Everyone not having kids is a cultural and societal dead-end. Which also means it doesn't matter if you're on-board or not. You're gone in a generation.

Actually this might not be the case. There are seriously funded efforts to cure aging (SENS, etc.) that could lead to 1,000 year plus youthful life spans within the next 2-3 decades.

SirHamster said...


Guys, if you want to get people to have kids who don't want them, you need to pay them.


Nah, they'll just be replaced by the people who do want to have kids. Self-correcting problem as long as there is a remnant of humanity who want to raise a new generation.


Actually this might not be the case. There are seriously funded efforts to cure aging (SENS, etc.) that could lead to 1,000 year plus youthful life spans within the next 2-3 decades.


Heh. I'll believe it when I see it. They're still tinkering on the edge of man's genetic code. To accomplish what you're describing requires a complete reverse engineering of DNA and understanding the current bottlenecks to lifespan.

Seriously ... order of magnitude longer lifespan? Let's see them add 10 years, first.

therationalmale.com said...

I can hardly wait for the HUS spin on this one.

Obviously it's deh evul red pilz mensophspheres guyz ta blamez fer ruinin' it all…

jimmy-jimbo said...

Change "Combine disincentives to marry with incentives to not marry"

To "Combine disincentives to marry with incentives to not REMAIN married"

I think this is more accurate.

Nothing to say about banning gay marriage? Which I believe trivializes marriage even more.

1sexistpig2another said...

Nothing to say about banning gay marriage? Which I believe trivializes marriage even more.

"Gay marriage" isn't marriage at all, but if it were possible I would stop the hemorrhaging (divorce) before applying the disinfectant.

Cataline Sergius said...

Imagine what US society will be like when those rates fall to one in two.

Oh there is no need to imagine at all. You can find the future here, take a long hard l look.

How Black America Has Predicted Our Future.

"Are you concerned about the rise of anti-male attitudes among women? You’d likely already know the end game were you a black American male. The manosphere’s archetype for the worst-case scenario of western womanhood is already normal in Black America.

“Backbreaker”, an African-American male who posts on the SoSuave.net forums, broke this down quite well (emphasis is mine):

“The thing is, and this isn’t race bating or racism in the least bit, but because African Americans in the 70′s and 80′s were more single parent house holds than their Caucasian counterparts, most African American women today were raised not only without 2 parents around, but are fully convinced they don’t need a man. we kinda like have a 20 year head start on this whole feminism thing.

Black women have been telling black men they aren’t s**t, weren’t s**t and never will be S**T well before their Caucasian counterparts thought it was cool.“

…and well before any white woman decided to crow about “The End of Men”.


The corrosive effects of statism combined with totalitarian feminism are creating Andrea Dworkin's dream world.

2870b918-77c0-11e3-b9bd-000bcdcb8a73 said...

Ban the pill. Prosecute adultery and punish it with severe fines.

Even if these measures would increase the marriage rate (and I have my doubts on that), you don't get to trample on people's rights even if it creates a good outcome for everyone else. After all, we could drop the crime rate to almost nothing if we locked up every male at 16 and let him out at 25.

And is a drop in marriage necessarily bad? I think it depends on who's getting married and who isn't. There are people who should never marry, and incentivizing them to do so does no one any good. Me, for example: I've been married for 36 of my 65 years, and if I'd stayed single, I'd be happier, my wife and my ex-wife would both be happier, and no one else would be any the worse off.

LAZ said...

@ 2870b918-77c0-11e3-b9bd-000bcdcb8a73: Birth control and adultery are NOT rights. Try again.

Bill Solomon said...

"Prosecute adultery and punish it with severe fines." Im liking public execution at least for wominz any way, true love cant be tamed by fines.

2870b918-77c0-11e3-b9bd-000bcdcb8a73 said...

Birth control is a right in the same way that any other commodity is. If someone is willing to supply it, you're willing to pay for it, and your use of it violates no one else's rights, then you have a right to it.

Adultery is, at worst, a tort. If your marriage contract specifies that you will not cheat and that you will pay a specified penalty if you do, then that should be enforced. Otherwise it's nobody's business but yours and your spouse's.

2870b918-77c0-11e3-b9bd-000bcdcb8a73 said...

And by the way, I say this (about adultery) as one whose wife has been having an affair for three years.

Daniel Gilson said...

The west is dying from its contraceptive mentality. If you don't think it's legitimate to restrict its use for the common good, you have no idea how society works. Individuals do not exist in a vacuum.

SirHamster said...

Adultery is, at worst, a tort. If your marriage contract specifies that you will not cheat and that you will pay a specified penalty if you do, then that should be enforced. Otherwise it's nobody's business but yours and your spouse's.

Nobody's business but you, your spouse, the other person the cheating spouse got it on with, possible spouse of the other person, and any children involved. And then some side effects on the communities involved. ("The Mayor was sleeping with who?")

LAZ said...

"Birth control is a right in the same way that any other commodity is. If someone is willing to supply it, you're willing to pay for it, and your use of it violates no one else's rights, then you have a right to it."

That's not a right, that's a commodity.

Vincent Castrillo said...

2870b918-77c0-11e3-b9bd-000bcdcb8a73

Why don't you keep your cuckolded libtardian views to yourself?

2870b918-77c0-11e3-b9bd-000bcdcb8a73 said...

I dunno, Vince, maybe because I wanted to see who was enough of a dillweed to cast the first insult.

vashine said...

Adultery is a serious crime against the community at large, not to mention God Himself. It should be punished severely.

Once again we see here in human history, right before our very eyes, that we can choose the mercy of Christ and the God of Abraham, or the savagery of all the other options. Feminists and rebellious women all over the West choose to spit in the face of God, in the name of their perverted and non-sensical notion of "freedom". What they will end up with is the savagery of Islam. Which they invite with their own unleashing of their base desires from the holy , noble, and rational limits which God placed upon them.

They, unknowingly, are choosing stoning. For they have spit in the face of the man, the god, Jesus, who gave them mercy, who lessened the punishment. They wanted their own path. They have reaped its wages. Now they will be raped by savages. And then hung for the crime of having had sex with the man who raped them.

Solipsism kills.

SarahsDaughter said...

I dunno, Vince, maybe because I wanted to see who was enough of a dillweed to cast the first insult.

Adultery is, at worst, a tort


The first insult...that was you. Though I suspect you're a long way from understanding why.

2870b918-77c0-11e3-b9bd-000bcdcb8a73 said...

A crime against the community at large? Not sure what that even means.

A crime against God Himself? Doesn't God have eternal punishment ready for those? Do we really need to pile on down here?

2870b918-77c0-11e3-b9bd-000bcdcb8a73 said...

I suspect you're a long way from understanding why.

You're right, SD. Enlighten me or not as you choose.

The Remnant said...

The comments by 2870b918-77c0-11e3-b9bd-000bcdcb8a73 are a perfect example of why I ceased being a libertarian. He is a materialist and perceives harm as only immediate and physical; he cannot grasp how something as despicable as adultery harms everyone and cripples society's ability to survive into the future. Force is justified to protect society from harms to its body AND to its soul. Indeed, the latter types of harm are often more serious.

Eric said...

Nobody's business but you, your spouse, the other person the cheating spouse got it on with, possible spouse of the other person, and any children involved. And then some side effects on the communities involved. ("The Mayor was sleeping with who?")

That would be true if you could kill your wife and her lover without being prosecuted.

Brad Andrews said...

> Crowhill's addendum to return primary custody of children to the father

Many of the baby daddies of today would not even want to raise children. It might solve frivorce issues, but not he large out-of-wedlock birth problems, especially when the fathers are thugs or druggies.

> Adultery is, at worst, a tort.

You can't get out of student loans, but adultery is no big deal. Yeah, right.

>

Crowhill said...

@Brad Andrews, yes, that's true, and many women don't want to raise their children either.

Here's an excerpt from my Eggs are Expensive, Sperm is Cheap that is relevant.

***

Today, if a woman gets pregnant she can decide to abort the child, keep it and raise it on her own, or give it up for adoption. She can also choose whether she wants to force the man to pay child support. He has no say in any of her choices, although of course he can contest child support in court. And probably lose.

Let’s switch things around and make the child the legal responsibility of the man and see how that might play out.

The woman would still have the right to an abortion, to give the child up for adoption or to keep it and raise it herself. All she has to do is make no claim about who the father is, and that would be that. The child is hers.

However, if she wanted to get child support, she would have to identify the father, and then he would have legal custody of the child. He could choose to take the child into his home. He could choose to pay the woman to raise the child (i.e., child support). Or he could offer to marry the woman.

Just in terms of simple fairness, doesn’t that make more sense?

(As an aside, don’t confuse my recognition of the legal fact that women have a right to abortion with support for abortion.)

***

xandohsa said...

From studying the rise of gay marriage in Scandinavian countries, journalist Stanley Kurtz predicted a long time ago that gay marriage's advance correlates strongly with a decline in marriage rates across the board. Let's face it, marriage has stopped being the social compact of family creation a while ago, and now it's a weaponized instrument of social justice for feminist and gay agendas. How unattractive is that to a straight guy? The institution has become so punishing and pointless for men that I've told my sons, "If you marry for religious reasons, I'll respect that. And if you marry a heiress who's loaded, well good for you. But if you get married for any other reason, you're a fool. Don't make the same mistake that I did. I was fool."

2870b918-77c0-11e3-b9bd-000bcdcb8a73 said...

You can't get out of student loans, but adultery is no big deal. Yeah, right.

Never said it wasn't a big deal. A tort can be a VERY big deal, compensation for victims can run into hundreds of millions. It just doesn't involve jail time.

Akulkis said...

Those are all very sensible solutions, Vox, but, short of revolution or coup, I have a hard time imagining them being enacted.

Every divorce court judge who screws over a man for being a man should have his or her house burned down...with the judge and the judge's spouse and children in it.

This rape of men in divorce court will only end when judges start paying for their rapacious decisions with their lives, and their spouse's lives, and their children's lives.. and not a moment sooner.

If a judge destroy's a man's life for no other reason than wanting to side with the greedy bitch of an ex-wife, then that judge should likewise have their own life destroyed.

Akulkis said...

By the way, no, I'm not divorced. Never been married, in fact.

rahmatul syukri said...

Thank you for your very nice article, do not forget to read my articles also Kata Kata Galau, and many other interesting articles on my blog that.

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.