Article Re: Declining Interest in Marriage (by Men)

[Ahab]

On 12/2/2020 at 7:38 AM, smac97 said:

Growing up, getting married, and taking on the responsibilities inherent in husbandhood and fatherhood is a mark of maturity.  Avoiding these things to have an endless, responsibility-free adolescence is a mark of immaturity. 

What you did not mention, unless I missed it, was that most men want to be able to provide very well for the woman/women they marry and make that a very high prerequisite.  Right up there with trying to find the right kind of woman to marry.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Isn't there a difference, though, between what lies behind society at large's trending away from marriage, and what lies behind trending away from marriage in LDS culture?

I think the former certainly has elements in common with the latter.  

1 hour ago, rongo said:

It's cropped up in this thread more than a few times where people have simply made a 1:1 correlation between what's going on in society and what's going on in "normative" LDS culture (by which I mean, among active, believing members. I think it's a given that very inactive or disaffected Mormons probably mirror society's underpinnings). 

Maybe not 1:1.  I think some of the factors described in the article in the OP are applicable to the Latter-day Saints.  Do you?

1 hour ago, rongo said:

For singles who believe in LDS truth claims and try to live the fulness of the gospel as taught in the Church, I don't see how women or men feeling liberated from marriage would drive their difficulty marrying.

I guess we need to examine what "feeling liberated" means in this context.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

There are a number of factors we're discussing here, but I don't think that's the driving force in normative LDS culture and society. I think the vast majority of singles want to progress towards and succeed at getting married, and where that's not currently in the cards, I don't think it's because they are exulting in feeling liberated from marriage. 

I don't understand this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, poptart said:

Actually, you can opt out, at least in Germany.

https://wwkn.de/en/about-german-taxes/church-tax-kirchensteuer/

Yeah, but if you opt out, you're technically no longer a member of the church in question. The process is called "austreten" or "stepping out".

Interestingly, the LDS church in Germany is a Körperschaft des Öffentlichen Rechts, or Corporation under Public Law (just like the Catholic and Evangelical (Protestant) Churches) and therefore has the right to ask the government to collect church tax from its members. But the LDS church declined to do anything of the sort. 

 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Quote

Growing up, getting married, and taking on the responsibilities inherent in husbandhood and fatherhood is a mark of maturity.  Avoiding these things to have an endless, responsibility-free adolescence is a mark of immaturity. 

What you did not mention, unless I missed it, was that most men want to be able to provide very well for the woman/women they marry and make that a very high prerequisite. 

Certainly.  But what does "be able to provide" mean?  Having started college?  Having graduated?  Having started a career?  Having advanced in a career?  Having a house?  Having a house mostly or entirely paid off?  Having all debt paid off?  

To be sure, marriage and parenthood are daunting responsibilities.  But there are endless ways to justify postponing the assumption of those responsibilities, most of them being pretty darn reasonable.  And yet the Church continues to exhort the young adults in the Church in this regard: 

• Delaying Marriage: The Trends and the Consequences
• Making the Marriage Decision
• Reluctant to Marry
• The Faith to Marry
• Elder Holland on Delaying/Fearing Marriage

I recognize, of course, that there is no specific timeframe for such things.  Each of us must use our wits and the Spirit to pursue obedience to the general precepts given to us in scripture and by the General Authorities.  Nevertheless, those precepts generally militate toward viewing the creation of a marriage and family as a time-sensitive thing.

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Right up there with trying to find the right kind of woman to marry.

I had every intention of "be{ing} able to provide very well for" my prospective wife and family.  However, I did not delay (for my circumstances) the process of finding and pursuing and marrying my wife, nor did we delay (again, for our circumstances) having children.  In hindsight, I am grateful that I did not delay.  Having a wife and children have been strong motivators for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Certainly.  But what does "be able to provide" mean?  Having started college?  Having graduated?  Having started a career?  Having advanced in a career?  Having a house?  Having a house mostly or entirely paid off?  Having all debt paid off?  

To be sure, marriage and parenthood are daunting responsibilities.  But there are endless ways to justify postponing the assumption of those responsibilities, most of them being pretty darn reasonable.  And yet the Church continues to exhort the young adults in the Church in this regard: 

• Delaying Marriage: The Trends and the Consequences
• Making the Marriage Decision
• Reluctant to Marry
• The Faith to Marry
• Elder Holland on Delaying/Fearing Marriage

I recognize, of course, that there is no specific timeframe for such things.  Each of us must use our wits and the Spirit to pursue obedience to the general precepts given to us in scripture and by the General Authorities.  Nevertheless, those precepts generally militate toward viewing the creation of a marriage and family as a time-sensitive thing.

I had every intention of "be{ing} able to provide very well for" my prospective wife and family.  However, I did not delay (for my circumstances) the process of finding and pursuing and marrying my wife, nor did we delay (again, for our circumstances) having children.  In hindsight, I am grateful that I did not delay.  Having a wife and children have been strong motivators for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was simply trying to share what I see as one of the major reasons why it is taking so long for most men to get married, whether or not those men are members of the Church.  This is a very materialistic world and the idea that men should provide for their wives and families is very pervasive in most societies, and most men want to be able to provide very well for a wife or a child before they seriously consider actually taking on that provider role.  

But sure, it can help men to know they don't need to focus so much on materialistic ideas, that it's perfectly okay to "struggle" to provide for their wife or children even if they don't have much to provide for them when they take on that role.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Maybe not 1:1.  I think some of the factors described in the article in the OP are applicable to the Latter-day Saints.  Do you?

1. You’ll lose respect. [No, I don't think this thought factors in with LDS men and women at all as far as getting married, delaying marriage, etc.]

2. You’ll lose out on sex. [Ditto. To the extent that LDS YSAs have heard anecdotes about bad sex lives from adults in their lives, I don't think anyone expects this to happen them in their marriage, and I don't think that this factors into decisions to delay or not marry. If this is referring to people not wanting to marry because they want to sleep around, then they are by definition not normative LDS. They don't want the LDS life, and are consciously deciding to align with the non-LDS world].

 3. You’ll lose friends. [If this is a major factor in many LDS YSAs choosing not to marry, we're in worse shape than I thought. This could be a factor with some, I guess].

 4. You’ll lose space. [This is worse than #3. I don't think people really think about how marriage will affect a man cave or a scrapbooking den. I think most assume that they will figure out their space needs, whatever happens].

 5. You could lose your kids and money. [It is possible that a fear of divorce might factor in with some people --- especially if they have bad experiences with divorce affecting their family growing up].

 5b. You could lose in court. [But, even then, I don't think people really think much about how heavily-skewed the court system is against fathers. Everyone is aware of it, but I don't think it drives decisions].

 6. You’ll lose your freedom. [This is definitely a consideration for some. How widespread is it, though, among LDS YSAs who struggle to get married?]

6b. Single life is better than ever. [Ditto. If this is the primary consideration, then this person lies outside of traditional, mainstream Mormonism. Those for whom marriage is delayed or not happening do the best they can, and live their lives fully, but to set out with and persist with the mindset to stay single, because single life is best? That's on the fringes of Mormonism, at best].

[quote]I don't understand this[/quote]

I think that overwhelmingly, the points in the article do not describe the vast majority of LDS YSAs. Or even SAs, for that matter. I think that the vast majority of LDS men and women want to be married and have families, even if it doesn't appear to be on the horizon for them. And even if they aren't living church standards --- most people I know who aren't living standards but still believe wish it were otherwise and view the alternative as "best." 

My sister is twice married and has a son on a mission, and marriage is not on her horizon. But, she fully agrees with traditional teachings about the family and marriage. She's not rejoicing because "single life is better than ever." 

Edited December 3, 2020 by rongo

[pogi]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm not angry, depressed, or violent. I don't play computer games. I'm good with money. I work hard. I cook well and keep a clean and tidy house. I'm fit and healthy. I love spending time outdoors -- camping, climbing, etc. I've been told that I'm both patient and kind...

Yes, but do you like Pina Coladas, and getting caught in the rain...?

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, but do you like Pina Coladas, and getting caught in the rain...?

...and are you willing to walk 500 miles to fall down at the door of someone you love?...

 

[rodheadlee]

"He whom love touches not walks in darkness"

Plato

[poptart]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah, but if you opt out, you're technically no longer a member of the church in question. The process is called "austreten" or "stepping out".

Interestingly, the LDS church in Germany is a Körperschaft des Öffentlichen Rechts, or Corporation under Public Law (just like the Catholic and Evangelical (Protestant) Churches) and therefore has the right to ask the government to collect church tax from its members. But the LDS church declined to do anything of the sort. 

 

My experience here is tithing parishioners get farther, esp. if the church has a school and the kids are enrolled.  My understanding is with the LDS church their tithing requirement/commandment is quite a bit stricter so big suprise they don't need the gov't help.  Here's the thing with the Lutheran and Catholic church, esp. the latter still does a ton for Germany, they're supposedly the second largest employer in the country.  Money talks. 

I know people complain if they opt out that they can no longer get sacraments at the church, that always confused me.  I says right in the bible to tithe, pay your fair share.  People are entitled.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

 3. You’ll lose friends. [If this is a major factor in many LDS YSAs choosing not to marry, we're in worse shape than I thought. This could be a factor with some, I guess].

The couples whom I know who have the strongest, healthiest marriages have always made space in their homes, hearts and lives for other people. This is one of the things that I covet the most as a single man: the ability to create an organisation (family) and place (home) that has such an abundance of goodness that it can be shared with other people. I try to do my best in this regard, and certainly my home has been a refuge to people in a number of ways, but I can't help seeing how much more this could be the case with one or more collaborators/assistants.

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, but do you like Pina Coladas, and getting caught in the rain...?

No (see Word of Wisdom) and no (there are many good reasons people generally remove their clothing before getting wet). But thanks for helping me to finally realise what my issues are!

Edited December 4, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[esodije]

I can’t help recalling Boyd K. Packer’s comments about how the male libido had to be both strong and “more or less” constant, or else men would be disinclined to take on the responsibility of a wife and family. The reciprocal implication—that a woman who wouldn’t indulge a husband’s sexual desires risked, possibly deserved, to be single and alone—was unspoken but, to my mind, unmistakable.  I can’t even imagine an apostle nowadays leaving that sort of impression. Now that adult female members of the church are largely better-educated and more gainfully employed than much of the pool of potential husbands in the church, why wouldn’t they have more leverage in the age-old “sex in exchange for support” dynamic in a marriage? And why wouldn’t that ultimately make marriage less-palatable to both parties? Nineteenth-century general authorities offered various practical reasons why polygamy was superior to monogamy. Heber C. Kimball noted increased vitality and contentedness among men in polygamous marriages, with the subtle suggestion that being intimate with a different, willing marital partner every night made life oh, so much more fulfilling. I’ve heard polygamous wives say they appreciated having sister wives to share in the burden of servicing the patriarch sexually. I also have a good friend whose wife found sex distasteful and gradually completely denied it to him (twelve years and counting).I don’t have a clear point to make other than that world has changed and it’s unlikely that attitudes toward marriage would remain static despite the influence of church teachings.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, esodije said:

Heber C. Kimball noted increased vitality and contentedness among men in polygamous marriages, with the subtle suggestion that being intimate with a different, willing marital partner every night made life oh, so much more fulfilling. I’ve heard polygamous wives say they appreciated having sister wives to share in the burden of servicing the patriarch sexually.

And what happens when it's the guy who loses interest in sex?

https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/loss-of-libido-in-men#1

Edited December 4, 2020 by Calm

[katherine the great]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

And what happens when it's the guy who loses interest in sex?

Polyandry. Obviously. 😊

[rongo]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

And what happens when it's the guy who loses interest in sex?

That exists, too, but it's less common. 

There is just a lot of general sexual and relationship dysfunction across the board, everywhere, in these times. Ideally, the restored gospel and church of Jesus Christ would enable people to live life "more abundantly," but there are clearly roadblocks for many in our time. 

Something my wife and I have found interesting is that there is (anecdotally) a lot of sexual dysfunction where one normally wouldn't expect it. Her sister and her husband are active members, but are liberal (Salt Lake area). She was just released as a primary president after several years, and her husband is currently the ward mission leader. Her husband is a convert who really took fire and has blossomed in the gospel. Wonderful people (we're really close, despite our conservative/liberal split). He works in the international fashion and cosmetic modeling industry, and pre-Covid, he travelled a lot internationally for photo shoots. She told my wife about lots of her LDS friends who also move in "hipster/yuppie" circles (how I would describe it), and they all have sex very infrequently. Many of the wives will only do it on their husbands' birthdays (they talk about things like this more openly with others than I would, apparently). She says the same appears to be true of their non-LDS friends as well, and she was asking my wife, tongue-in-cheek, but also sincerely, if there was something wrong with them (both have healthy and above average sex drives). I thought that was interesting --- I would expect liberal, "hipster" 20 somethings to be more sexually active than conservative "less worldly" homebodies. 

As a bishop, I was always surprised with how frank and open people were in seeking counsel (if it were me, I would keep my cards tight to my vest and suffer in silence, if necessary, rather than talk about things like that with others). It runs the gamut: women whose husbands don't want to have sex, and vice versa; women who are concerned that healthy sex drives are a sin (a lot of guilt there), etc. It appears to me that parents, primarily, and the church, secondarily, need to be much more intentional and frank in addressing these things before they become issues. We've tried to with our kids. 

I also have thought a lot about Alma's counsel to Shiblon ("bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love"). I definitely think that not keeping the law of chastity, including in thought, is having a ripple effect in a lot of things, some obvious and intuitive, and others not so much. I think it's more important than ever to keep ourselves free of the blood and sins of this generation, and I think we're seeing the effects in our relationships, marriages, etc. 

[mgy401]

It seems to me that one factor at play here may be an apparent disconnect between the reasons we (culturally) justify women getting divorced, versus men getting divorced.

”He had unrealistic expectations in the bedroom” is, culturally, an acceptable reason to dissolve a marriage; “she wouldn’t put out” is not.

”He wouldn’t hold a job” is an acceptable reason for divorce; “She wouldn’t do her share of the housework” is not.

”He had a bad temper” is an acceptable reason for divorce; “she was prone to irrational outbursts” is not.

”He had PTSD” is just grounds for divorce.  “She had debilitating depression” is not.

”He wouldn’t quit playing video games and focus on the marriage” is legitimate cause for divorce.  “She wouldn’t set her books aside for a little while and focus on her man” just sounds silly.

”He hit me” is practically a mandate for a divorce; “she hit me” makes a divorced man the butt of jokes.

”He didn’t want kids” makes a divorcing woman seem laudably empowered over her own procreative destiny; “she didn’t want kids” makes a man a Neanderthal and an ogre.

We talk of the importance of “equality” in marriage, but by and large—even the most progressive of us don’t really mean it.  At least, not completely.

Edited December 4, 2020 by mgy401

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

That exists, too, but it's less common. 

15% where it is 30% in women, that is a very significant number of men when you are talking a medical issue, 3 out of 20 men. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

seems to me that one factor at play here may be an apparent disconnect between the reasons we (culturally) justify women getting divorced, versus men getting divorced.

I think you are really overstating the different expectations, just substitute she for he and the reverse and it works the same imo. It is your language that makes something unacceptable, not the sex of the person doing it.  And the issue with kids is the same for both from what I have seen in the media and church. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

It seems to me that one factor at play here may be an apparent disconnect between the reasons we (culturally) justify women getting divorced, versus men getting divorced.

”He had unrealistic expectations in the bedroom” is, culturally, an acceptable reason to dissolve a marriage; “she wouldn’t put out” is not.

I dunno.  Problems with the sexual dimension of a marital relationship can and do affect both men and women.  Surely there are plenty of instances of the wife having "unrealistic expectations," with the husband not "put{ting} out," etc.

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

”He wouldn’t hold a job” is an acceptable reason for divorce; “She wouldn’t do her share of the housework” is not.

Again, these concerns are not gender-specific.  There are women who can, but fail to, contribute to the finances of the family.  There are husbands who fail to help around the house.

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

”He had a bad temper” is an acceptable reason for divorce; “she was prone to irrational outbursts” is not.

Still not gender-specific.  A woman can have "a bad temper," and a man can have "irrational outbursts."

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

”He had PTSD” is just grounds for divorce.  “She had debilitating depression” is not.

Same as above.  Women can have PTSD, and men have have depression.

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

”He wouldn’t quit playing video games and focus on the marriage” is legitimate cause for divorce.  “She wouldn’t set her books aside for a little while and focus on her man” just sounds silly.

Women can be overly distracted by trivialities, too.  Gaming.  Gambling.  TV.  You name it.  Nothing gender-specific here.

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

”He hit me” is practically a mandate for a divorce; “she hit me” makes a divorced man the butt of jokes.

Now here you might have a point.  There does seem to be a big discrepancy with how we as a society treat and view domestic violence.  Husband-on-wife violence is per se wrong in every respect, but wife-on-husband violence seems to be treated differently.

Violence should be like sexual fidelity: A bright line rule.  For the husband.  For the wife.  Zero sexual contact with a non-spouse.  Zero violence against the spouse.

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

”He didn’t want kids” makes a divorcing woman seem laudably empowered over her own procreative destiny; “she didn’t want kids” makes a man a Neanderthal and an ogre.

I dunno.  "She didn't want kids" sounds just as reasonable as "he didn't want kids."

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

We talk of the importance of “equality” in marriage, but by and large—even the most progressive of us don’t really mean it.  At least, not completely.

I hope that's not so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[esodije]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

And what happens when it's the guy who loses interest in sex?

https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/loss-of-libido-in-men#1

There are those cases, of course, although past generations of LDS women seemingly were expected not to enjoy sex or to instigate it. My wife, to whom I’ve been married 36 years, seemed to enjoy our romantic encounters in the early years at least as much as I did, often initiating them with zero self-consciousness. In the years since that time, however, she’s gradually fallen back into the Molly-Mormon prudery she acquired as a teenager, treating any overture by me as unreasonable.and quasi-sinful, and never acknowledging any interest or pleasure on her part.

As for men losing interest in their wives, it could be for various reasons (e.g., adultery, porn/masturbation, obesity, low T, neurological issues, an addiction to gaming or otherwise to a smartphone, etc.). What’s doubtful is that very many men would simply decide that sex with a spouse is—despite the marriage covenant—carnal, devilish, and to be avoided. Sex isn’t the be-all, end-all of marriage, but when it falls out of the marital relationship, its absence affects the calculus in sometimes-unpredictable ways.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, esodije said:

What’s doubtful is that very many men would simply decide that sex with a spouse is—despite the marriage covenant—carnal, devilish, and to be avoided.

I think it is pretty doubtful that very many women in the Church go to that extreme as well.  Certainly it is contrary to anything taught in Church.  Perhaps Bluedreams will have a chance to share her insights from her work in this area. 

[katherine the great]

22 minutes ago, esodije said:

What’s doubtful is that very many men would simply decide that sex with a spouse is—despite the marriage covenant—carnal, devilish, and to be avoided.

I’ve never heard a woman express that. What I do hear is women desiring their husbands to pay plenty of positive, undivided, non-sexual attention to them before the “boom boom”. 

[why me]

What is missing is the interest in porn. Porn has allowed men to delay marriage. In the past marriage was a way for sex or sexual intimacy. But now, men go to porn for enjoyment. This allows them to postpone marriage for a later date. Eventually, they do get married but usually in their late thirties. This puts pressure on women who wish to marry and have children.

https://www.covenanteyes.com/2015/12/29/how-porn-is-keeping-men-from-marriage/

https://www.foryourmarriage.org/blogs/does-pornography-affect-mens-decision-whether-to-marry/

There has been studies that support my statements.

[why me]

1 hour ago, esodije said:

There are those cases, of course, although past generations of LDS women seemingly were expected not to enjoy sex or to instigate it. My wife, to whom I’ve been married 36 years, seemed to enjoy our romantic encounters in the early years at least as much as I did, often initiating them with zero self-consciousness. In the years since that time, however, she’s gradually fallen back into the Molly-Mormon prudery she acquired as a teenager, treating any overture by me as unreasonable.and quasi-sinful, and never acknowledging any interest or pleasure on her part.

As for men losing interest in their wives, it could be for various reasons (e.g., adultery, porn/masturbation, obesity, low T, neurological issues, an addiction to gaming or otherwise to a smartphone, etc.). What’s doubtful is that very many men would simply decide that sex with a spouse is—despite the marriage covenant—carnal, devilish, and to be avoided. Sex isn’t the be-all, end-all of marriage, but when it falls out of the marital relationship, its absence affects the calculus in sometimes-unpredictable ways.

Humans losing interest in sex is quite usual and normal. It can happen naturally. However, these days, with the event of porn at the tip of the finger, men can go there and have their enjoyment without having a relationship which can be quite expensive and very time consuming. And very complicated. But they do get married eventually but at a much later date. However, for women who are on a time meter because of children are left with a dire circumstance. Have a child at a much later date than they may wish. The LDS church has spoken about porn and marriage for decades now. And many critics of the lds church  mocked the church stance on pornography. In fact I remember it being discussed on these boards when FAIR owned the site. And on other sites which were critical of the church.

[rodheadlee]

It's plain to me what the problem is. We don't brink enough mild barley drinks, beer.

 

One beer