Low fertility rates and why Men and Women Can Never Be ‘Just Friends’

[Deleted]

Far left by US standards perhaps.

But Tennis has a major hardon for monogamy, I wouldn't really call that particularly "left wing".

"...and the mere sight of a devout loving couple, Oh Lord it sets my pants on fire!!"

[Doctor Amadeus]

I didn't say shit about that.

So any city you pick noo doesn’t not need to be yours. I’m going to get 2 dates. No money just my charm. I can date any Nordic woman any town you pick and I’ll prove it.

[yoma]

Well clearly not always, as there can be mitigating circumstances like infertility, or you've some other vocation that is in of itself devoted to betterment others like physicians, social workers, clergy etc. or I'll even accept of you've a special skill that provides a such a unique contribution to society that we'd be lesser as a people if you were devoting your energies to parenting i.e. you're an artist or scientist of particular renown. Those circumstances however, are by far more the exception than the rule.

Far more often, people choose to stay single and childless because sharing their time and income with others and having others depend on them seems unpalatable. They'd rather, as I said before, live in perpetual adolecence free from obligations to other people. That's pretty much the definition of selfishness. What get's me is when people will simultaniously tout those same reasons as why they'll never get married and have childeren but then balk at being called selfish for it. If you proudly state your focus on self, why does it bug you so much to be described as selfish?

Answer me this then:

Are you happy rearing you're (6) children?

As a secondary question, would you have been happy rearing only one child and, if so, why did you pursue more children?

I realize these are personal questions so you can keep things broad and ambigious of course, but I'm not trying to be facetious. What I'm getting at is, having children is selfishness in its own way, so labeling others as selfish for not having kids seems misplaced.

[Calfredd]

"...and the mere sight of a devout loving couple, Oh Lord it sets my pants on fire!!"

More like you are sad and pathetic if you aren't married so hurry up and marry young.

[Tennis]

See I don't feel lonely, and I'm pretty happy with what I have and what I'm doing. Why does that bother you so much? Is it hard for you to understand someone else's perspective? You might want to take some time and realize people are different and have a variety of passions in life.

Oh maybe right now. But who's to say you won't regret it later.

Don't we see it all the time? Lonely middle aged men and women who wished they'd settled down?

It doesn't bother me. I'm just looking out for you. I don't want you to be miserable later on.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Answer me this then:

Are you happy rearing you're (6) children?

As a secondary question, would you have been happy rearing only one child and, if so, why did you pursue more children?

I realize these are personal questions so you can keep things broad and ambigious of course, but I'm not trying to be facetious. What I'm getting at is, having children is selfishness in its own way, so labeling others as selfish for not having kids seems misplaced.

They're valid questions, but I'll instead of answering specifics I'll get at the thrust of your point, which is does an act of selflessness remain selfless if the person takes enjoyment or personal satisfaction from the act? I'd say yes, it does. No doubt Mother Theresa took enormous enjoyment from her life of service to the poor, otherwise why would she have done it? It's the fact that she took enjoyment from a live of service vs say a life of pursuing personal wealth, that we credit her for her selflessness.

Please don't mistake my intention. I'm not saying people don't have the right to live their life in a way that satisfies them personally. I'm saying it's a poor reflection upon our culture that for so many of us self-fufillment precludes something as basic to life as reproduction.

[yoma]

They're valid questions, but I'll instead of answering specifics I'll get at the thrust of your point, which is does an act of selflessness remain selfless if the person takes enjoyment or personal satisfaction from the act? I'd say yes, it does. No doubt Mother Theresa took enormous enjoyment from her life of service to the poor, otherwise why would she have done it? It's the fact that she took enjoyment from a live of service vs say a life of pursuing personal wealth, that we credit her for her selflessness.

Please don't mistake my intention. I'm not saying people don't have the right to live their life in a way that satisfies them personally. I'm saying it's a poor reflection upon our culture that for so many of us self-fufillment precludes something as basic to life as reproduction.

That's all well and good as far as it goes. This may be branching too far off-topic (not that this thread was really going places anyway - I digress), but the Earth currently has 7.6 billion people living on it with projections by the UN showing a growth to 11.6 billion in less than 90 years. There are many avenues to explore with that fact alone, but let me focus on just one.

How many of those 7.6 billion live the same quality of life here in the US or other first world countries? Even within so-called first world countries, we have homeless wandering the streets/dying of hunger and disease.

The crux of the question then: is it really responsible to be bringing more humans into the world when so many are already suffering? Yes, many can provide a happy life to their children for the most part. Going back to your reference of Mother Teresa though wouldn't the only real way to avoid selfishness, even in just producing new children, be to either adopt or provide aid to the already existing humans in such need?

That's all pretty philosophical I know, and I'm not putting anyone down for having kids of course. I'm just still not seeing the inherent selfishness of not creating more humans, or the selflessness of creating more for that matter.

[Underverse]

They're valid questions, but I'll instead of answering specifics I'll get at the thrust of your point, which is does an act of selflessness remain selfless if the person takes enjoyment or personal satisfaction from the act? I'd say yes, it does. No doubt Mother Theresa took enormous enjoyment from her life of service to the poor, otherwise why would she have done it? It's the fact that she took enjoyment from a live of service vs say a life of pursuing personal wealth, that we credit her for her selflessness.

Please don't mistake my intention. I'm not saying people don't have the right to live their life in a way that satisfies them personally. I'm saying it's a poor reflection upon our culture that for so many of us self-fufillment precludes something as basic to life as reproduction.

I would go further and say that our hyper-focus on career and self-fulfillment is greedy and shortsighted.

[Deleted]

Oh sod off and go get married and have kids or STFU!

The human race doesn't need more kids

How little you know. We desperately need more kids.

[yoma]

How little you know. We desperately need more kids.

Please explain, or add the /s to the end of your post.

[Tennis]

Oh sod off and go get married and have kids or STFU!

The human race doesn't need more kids

Riiight. So out of the blue healthcare and social services are gonna pay for themselves? Go read up on the aging population bruv.

[Underverse]

That's all well and good as far as it goes. This may be branching too far off-topic (not that this thread was really going places anyway - I digress), but the Earth currently has 7.6 billion people living on it with projections by the UN showing a growth to 11.6 billion in less than 90 years. There are many avenues to explore with that fact alone, but let me focus on just one.

How many of those 7.6 billion live the same quality of life here in the US or other first world countries? Even within so-called first world countries, we have homeless wandering the streets/dying of hunger and disease.

The crux of the question then: is it really responsible to be bringing more humans into the world when so many are already suffering? Yes, many can provide a happy life to their children for the most part. Going back to your reference of Mother Teresa though wouldn't the only real way to avoid selfishness, even in just producing new children, be to either adopt or provide aid to the already existing humans in such need?

That's all pretty philosophical I know, and I'm not putting anyone down for having kids of course. I'm just still not seeing the inherent selfishness of not creating more humans, or the selflessness of creating more for that matter.

A big problem is that wealth and resources are incredibly concentrated in the hands of a few. If it were more distributed, a lot more people would be a lot better off. But a major reason driving this inequality is the fact that people who are wealthy have fewer kids than people who are not wealthy, so that wealth has far fewer avenues for natural distribution. An ideal scenario would see wealthy people (or those in strong socioeconomic positions) having more kids and less fortunate people having fewer kids. This way you would get less suffering overall, and a greater distribution of resources. In this context, having kids would only be innately moral for a subset of the population.

[yoma]

Riiight. So out of the blue healthcare and social services are gonna pay for themselves? Go read up on the aging population bruv.

Problem: Too many people drawing from social services and not enough people contributing.

Solution: Create even more people to contribute to social services.

Catch: Now you have even more people headed down the aging pipeline in need of social services.

Solution: Create EVEN MORE people to contribute to EVEN MORE social services.

Catch: Earth is finite in its resources. Go back to start, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

[Underverse]

Problem: Too many people drawing from social services and not enough people contributing.

Solution: Create even more people to contribute to social services.

Catch: Now you have even more people headed down the aging pipeline in need of social services.

Solution: Create EVEN MORE people to contribute to EVEN MORE social services.

Catch: Earth is finite in its resources. Go back to start, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

We'll escape Earth in time, if we don't destroy ourselves first.

Of course, that's begs the question of what the purpose of life is, and why bother maximizing propagation.

[Amerrol]

While there is a clear problem with women in the Western world, putting guys in the "friend zone" is not one of them. Compliance from both parties is required for friendship, and if a guy thinks friendship is a way to get into her pants, that's on him. While some women will purposefully manipulate men for attention, if it's a genuine friendship then there is nothing wrong with a man and woman being friends.

I would love to hear one of those calls that the author is suggesting though, with that exact wording, and the response it gets.

[Nalorakk]

Bahahahahaha, is this what late stage neoliberalism has become?

[Deleted]

Please explain, or add the /s to the end of your post.

If you pay me. I don't educate for free.

[ringpriest]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/04/...-just-friends/



What do you think about this hard hitting article?
It does make some really solid points.

I'm so tired of these threads on here, reddit elsewhere where you have someone whining about being put in the friend zone. Like really? You knew what you were doing.

Also, it's certainly true that it is a drag on the fertility rate. You end up with single people who are older and struggle to get married. Many have remorse about not settling down earlier.

Such a modest proposal! There are too many human beings on earth now - not rising above replacement rate on reproduction is one of the most humane ways to control the myriad major problems related to global overpopulation.

As for what I think of it... a load of arrant nonsense that compares unfavorably to contents of the outhouse at a Tauren bean-eating competition; it reeks of that uniquely American brand of patriarchal and utterly selfish and shallow fake-Christianity - a pathetically transparent set of justifications for those whose real motivation is a combination of: can't hook up, don't understand or empathize with their fellow human beings (including women), aren't interested in bettering themselves or their understanding so that they can hook up, hate seeing women as equals, and who hate women having autonomy (especially reproductive autonomy) and also, who are usually deeply, deeply resentful that growing up to be Tony Stark hasn't been handed to them on a platter (and are looking for someone to blame, and will never blame the person they can see in the mirror every day). All it lacked was a, "For the Race and the Fatherland!" line to make the connection to strengthening American theocratic "alt-right" fascism even more apparent (and it's pretty damned apparent).

[Endus]

Problem: Too many people drawing from social services and not enough people contributing.

Solution: Create even more people to contribute to social services.

Catch: Now you have even more people headed down the aging pipeline in need of social services.

Solution: Create EVEN MORE people to contribute to EVEN MORE social services.

Catch: Earth is finite in its resources. Go back to start, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

This isn't accurate. The issue with social services is a demographic bubble, due to the large number of retiring Baby Boomers and the relatively low birth rates since the Boomer generation's, well, boom. If the birth rates were stable over a few generations, without such a bubble, social services would be fine in terms of funding.

[Garnier Fructis]

So Reddit shut down r/incels, and The Federalist hired them.

At least the article is hilarious.