As industry has made humans rich, we have become more self-indulgent. But while we might each prefer to be self-indulgent, we are less thrilled by the self-indulgence of those around us. For example, Kay Hymowitz
I'll admit that it may be harder to prove that demand for video games pushed forward 3D graphics in the distant past, but I would have thought the '00s along proved that it has happened before: look at the Xbox 360 or PS3.
I don't know if you're serious, but that's a good example of zero-sum bias - just because I have more "power" due to my marriage does not mean that my wife has less. Sometimes people will offer things that are mutually beneficial.
One might say that having had enough sex withheld, many men are turning to video games and porn as good enough substitutes. In other words unlike Charlie Brown lots of young men have figured out that the odds of having the football removed are too high to attempt to play the game.
The current whining is women starting to realize that in their rush up the status ladder they're quickly running out of datable men.
I can see a problem with almost everybody being self indulgent, but what's the problem with specifically me being self indulgent? Value judgements of some about others are pretty self indulgent in themselves. The self indulgent gamers and serial monogamists may not be saving the world, but they aren't fanatically scheming to roll back 50 years of social progress while waging endless wealth draining wars for no discernible reason.
And men still out-earn women on average at all ages, mostly because women tend to choose self-fulfilling majors and careers over high paying ones. So those higher fem GPAs are more a sign of self-indulgence than social contribution, at least if we measure contribution by income.I seem to detect the hidden assumption that high pay is somehow equivalent to social contribution, which has to be the stupidest thing I've seen today, unless you believe people like Lloyd Blankfein contributes many orders of magnitude more to society than, say, a scientist working on a malaria cure.
And speaking of stinking, the odor of aggrieved males whining about imagined unfair female privilege has to be the most status-lowering thing imaginable. Really guys -- is the awesome status accorded to female English majors some sort of threat to your own self-esteem?
1) Because you'd like to spend your life with and raise kids with some person, and marriage offers the best way to make the situation minimally messy if things don't go as planned.
2) The downside risk isn't very great if you don't have kids. There's plenty of downside risk to having kids with someone, but if you're taking that on, far better to be married.
3) Many people think it's good self-indulgent fun to publicly celebrate their romantic relationship, and people generally like celebrating their friends' relationships. This extends beyond the wedding ceremony to the whole extralegal side of marriage, and is probably why gay marriage is a political issue. Citizens symbolically participate in what the state does.
4) Absent kids, adopting *some* risk contingent on the relationship not working is an effective way of signalling that you think the relationship will work, and that you and your partner can adequately trust each other enough to make medium-range sacrifices for its sake.
Marriage is not in any meaningful sense a guarantee of sex (what could be more of a mood-killer in any event?) any more than individual marriages are primarily about sex. Marriage is about reducing intra-household transaction costs (alimony) and guaranteeing mother's rights to force fathers to provide financial support to children and fathers' rights to continue providing emotional support for their children.
If these behaviours make men less desirable to women, then shouldn't we expect them not to do it? Through withholding sex, women get to define what a "good man" is. If today's women have a "freer" disposition toward sex (and this is their prerogative), then what incentive do men have to produce in the economy? Why not enjoy oneself in between lays, all the while practicing the social skills that will get one laid again, instead of committing countless hours to production that will go essentially unrewarded?
There's no longer any need for women to trade sex (be used) in exchange for sustenance, and Hymowitz is sure that this is a bad thing for women?
I'll admit that it may be harder to prove that demand for video games pushed forward 3D graphics in the distant past, but I would have thought the '00s along proved that it has happened before: look at the Xbox 360 or PS3.
Not at all -- while video games or creative writing may waste the time of the player or writer, creative writing also wastes the time of the reader.
Re: Aron -
I don't know if you're serious, but that's a good example of zero-sum bias - just because I have more "power" due to my marriage does not mean that my wife has less. Sometimes people will offer things that are mutually beneficial.
One might say that having had enough sex withheld, many men are turning to video games and porn as good enough substitutes. In other words unlike Charlie Brown lots of young men have figured out that the odds of having the football removed are too high to attempt to play the game.
The current whining is women starting to realize that in their rush up the status ladder they're quickly running out of datable men.
Depends on who you roll with.
And video game fanfic? Yeesh.
I can see a problem with almost everybody being self indulgent, but what's the problem with specifically me being self indulgent? Value judgements of some about others are pretty self indulgent in themselves. The self indulgent gamers and serial monogamists may not be saving the world, but they aren't fanatically scheming to roll back 50 years of social progress while waging endless wealth draining wars for no discernible reason.
And men still out-earn women on average at all ages, mostly because women tend to choose self-fulfilling majors and careers over high paying ones. So those higher fem GPAs are more a sign of self-indulgence than social contribution, at least if we measure contribution by income.I seem to detect the hidden assumption that high pay is somehow equivalent to social contribution, which has to be the stupidest thing I've seen today, unless you believe people like Lloyd Blankfein contributes many orders of magnitude more to society than, say, a scientist working on a malaria cure.
And speaking of stinking, the odor of aggrieved males whining about imagined unfair female privilege has to be the most status-lowering thing imaginable. Really guys -- is the awesome status accorded to female English majors some sort of threat to your own self-esteem?
Yes.
1) Because you'd like to spend your life with and raise kids with some person, and marriage offers the best way to make the situation minimally messy if things don't go as planned.
2) The downside risk isn't very great if you don't have kids. There's plenty of downside risk to having kids with someone, but if you're taking that on, far better to be married.
3) Many people think it's good self-indulgent fun to publicly celebrate their romantic relationship, and people generally like celebrating their friends' relationships. This extends beyond the wedding ceremony to the whole extralegal side of marriage, and is probably why gay marriage is a political issue. Citizens symbolically participate in what the state does.
4) Absent kids, adopting *some* risk contingent on the relationship not working is an effective way of signalling that you think the relationship will work, and that you and your partner can adequately trust each other enough to make medium-range sacrifices for its sake.
Marriage is not in any meaningful sense a guarantee of sex (what could be more of a mood-killer in any event?) any more than individual marriages are primarily about sex. Marriage is about reducing intra-household transaction costs (alimony) and guaranteeing mother's rights to force fathers to provide financial support to children and fathers' rights to continue providing emotional support for their children.
Also - "There’s no longer any need for [men] to trade [support] (be used) in exchange for [sex]."
"Where have all the good men gone?"
If these behaviours make men less desirable to women, then shouldn't we expect them not to do it? Through withholding sex, women get to define what a "good man" is. If today's women have a "freer" disposition toward sex (and this is their prerogative), then what incentive do men have to produce in the economy? Why not enjoy oneself in between lays, all the while practicing the social skills that will get one laid again, instead of committing countless hours to production that will go essentially unrewarded?
There's no longer any need for women to trade sex (be used) in exchange for sustenance, and Hymowitz is sure that this is a bad thing for women?
Is marriage good protection against adultery?
I didn't understand what you're saying.
Enjoy. 5:40 min. in length.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
LOLOLOLOLOLwifey earns the money in this house hold...