The good things about the Church

[Benjamin McGuire]

31 minutes ago, Chum said:

Okay, I don't often challenge non-political assertions so directly but I have to say - this is nonsense. Men want younger women because men are dogs. It really isn't much beyond that.

*shrug*

The discussion here really is not interested in what people want - it's interested in what people do. And there, the numbers tell a different narrative than the one you share. Most men do not marry women that are significantly younger than they are. The most significant factor today for those who marry tends to be similar education levels. This is what people look for in a spouse. But, you are welcome to your opinion ...

[DT_]

8 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 This study indicated that a number of job related features could be used to predict the likelihood of entering into a first marriage. Men with higher than average fringe benefits from their employer had a significantly higher chance of getting married (a standard deviation higher than the average translated to a 15% greater chance). Company provided health insurance (especially with dental insurance) and life insurance also increased the chance of marriage substantially. For women, it was a little different. Having higher than average fringe benefits actually increased the chances for women by 19%.

Two questions. What is the likelihood a college-educated woman enters a marriage? What are the odds a college-educated has children out-out-wedlock?   

[DT_]

8 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't think the article is particularly interesting or valuable. Then again, I am not single, and I have never used a dating app. The article only loosely explains why there is an increasing supply of single men. It isn't that there are fewer single women. The number of single people is growing in the United States at a relatively linear pace that goes back to the 1960s. In the last decade (according to the Census Bureau), the number of single person households grew from 33 million to 37 million (28% of all households in the US are single person households).

I think it's a really big concern. We are living in dangerous times. A growing percentage of young single men (especially 18 to 20) can't be a good thing.   

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by DT_

[DT_]

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

People are waiting to start looking for marriage until their education is completed - and then they are looking for someone who is in a similar place.

Is college preventing people from going out on a date? What would explain the rise of young men who are not in a romantic relationship? The study below controls for economic circumstances.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34836481/

 

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by DT_

[3DOP]

8 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I haven't been apart of this conversation and may have a slightly different take than what's been apparent. FWIW, I don't think the WOW describes alcohol as universally bad. We also have the BoM, that strongly infers that both nephites and lamanites drank alcoholic beverages, with stories similar to the bible that act as cautionary tales against overdrinking and the effects of too much strong drink. But no real condemnation of moderate drinking.

Rather than universally condemning alcohol from the beginning of time, the WoW starts off for why it's being given by stating "showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days 3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. 6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make."

Bolds give the context. This is likely a unique take from both the baptist and catholic position. It's basically saying in our current context and day, strong alcoholic drinks aren't good for you most of the time and generally not "good for the belly." This is due to the fall out it likely will have on the weak saints as well as evil design of conspiring people who will use it and promote it for their own purposes that may negatively effect others. It also gives one  exception, though that would later fall out of practice in later years for the saints.  

Our time, our general health, our drinks, and likely our drinking habits are not comparable to what it was like 2-6k years ago. There's indications that quite often wine was diluted with water and was a better alternative than straight up water or other drinks that were more likely to have problems with contamination. In that context, a little wine was likely a little better for the body and was worth celebrating considering the alternative may give you water born disease and could kill you faster than the alcohol would. Depending the community it may have been more seasonal and more likely to be used carefully, as there wasn't a never ending supply and general storage was likely not as good at preserving wine for long periods. Our context

So we don't need Jesus to be a teetotaler or one who insists that others never imbibe while he lived on earth. That's not what's claimed in the WoW. We just need to know that for us NOW, most forms of alcoholic beverage are best avoided and not good for our general health in our day of purified water and several other drinking options that weren't as readily available then. 

 

With luv,

BD   

 

Blue Dreams, Hi.

Thank you for your reply. My only point in all of this is that there is such a thing as moderation, in this thing, and others. I said above that "I am fine with the Word of Wisdom in its prohibitions of alcohol and hot beverages, until it's practitioners begin to imagine that these prohibitions are in place because these things are evil." "These things", in my quote were about all alcohol beverages everywhere and at all times. I sometimes sense among my LDS friends here, what I sensed among my Baptist friends years ago. Any use of alcohol is always and everywhere evil. I cannot defend that view. It is over-rigorous in my opinion, based on Scriptures that are accepted by Protestants, LDS, and Catholics. I am all in favor of prosecuting the drunk driver, but without making the drunk driver a poster boy or girl for proposing that alcoholic beverages are always and everywhere bad and should be outlawed. We should not declare war on that which is good because some abuse that good. All goods are abused. 

I must take issue with your suggestion that "...our drinking habits are not comparable to what it was like 2-6k years ago. There's indications that quite often wine was diluted with water and was a better alternative than straight up water or other drinks that were more likely to have problems with contamination."

The reason for my disinclination to accept this idea is that it doesn't account for how rip-roaringly drunk people in our Scriptures became under this alleged diluted mixture. Alcohol was easily abused 6,000 years ago, and still is today. My argument can not be that alcoholic beverages were safer thousands of years ago. No. There was the same potential abuse. My argument is that the value of using alcohol moderately, so that it may cheer the heart of man, is, according to my understanding, worth the very real risk of abuse. Alcohol is an admittedly dangerous good. A good to which God approves in moderation, warning His servants they must use it only in a responsible, reasonable manner. No drunkard inherits the kingdom of God. 

_____

My LDS friends, don't blame me for my position! We share the same Scriptures. Your God and my God, different though I think they are in key respects, are in agreement that a certain amount of liberty to fall, is worth the risk of allowing the possibility of success in managing our way to virtue, and strength, and fortitude, in the face of terrible temptations.

Thanks again Blue Dreams, regards to all.

Rory (3DOP)

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, DT_ said:

Two questions. What is the likelihood a college-educated woman enters a marriage? What are the odds a college-educated has children out-out-wedlock?   

These are difficult questions to answer. Why? Because they need more parameters. By the time they are aged 65, nearly all women (94%) have been married at least once. But, the group that is turning 65 this year would have completed college back in the early 1980s. We won't know how many of the women entering college today will be married by the age of 65 because we won't be able to actually look at that data until the mid 2060s. This is the complication of this kind of sociological research. We can only hope that the research we do today will be relevant to the questions people are interested in asking decades from now. The parameter that is most used is marriage by the time they are 40.

So this study has marriage rates based on education from 1968 to 2014. Beginning in 1992, it was also able to track marriage rates for women with post-graduate educations. It looks at women aged 40-45, their education level and whether or not they had been married. In 1968, all categories (did not complete high school, diploma, some college or associate's degree, four year degree) were relatively close - between 80% and 85% in each category. Those not completing high school were the least likely to be married (this trend continues by the way - women who do not complete high school tend to get married very early - and when they don't only very rarely get married later). For college graduates, this percentage drops along with every other group until the mid 1980s, after which, it has seen small gains - while every other group has seen continued loss. In 2014, college graduates had a 75% chance to be married by age 40-45, those with some college are just under 65%, those with just a diploma are below 60%, while those who never finish high school are close to 55%. With data on post graduate studies, women with a professional degree or a PhD have a more than 80% chance to be married by this age. The other important statistic that should be mentioned is that educated women get divorced at a much lower rate than their uneducated counterparts. They get married and they stay married.

To answer the second question, we can look here. As of 2016:

In 2016, the percentage of children born to unmarried women can be broken down by education levels as follows: 4 year degree - 10%, some college - 43%, High School diploma - 59%, and never finished high school, 62%. The difference the degree makes is significant. Additionally, when women with four year degrees who had a child before being married have a second child, there is a high probability (depending on the study it ranges between 46 and 54 percent) that the woman will be married by the time she has a second child. This is much higher than any other group for this question as well. 

This does mean that college educated women are generally waiting to have children until marriage. It also means that these children are raised in fairly stable nuclear families. Less educated women tend to cohabit - which less and less frequently converts to marriage - and even when it does, it is usually followed by divorce.

2 hours ago, DT_ said:

I think it's a really big concern. We are living in dangerous times. A growing percentage of young single men (especially 18 to 20) can't be a good thing.   

Are you sure this isn't a typo - and you meant "18 to 29"? I would think that a growing percentage of young single men aged 18-20 would be an especially good thing ....

2 hours ago, DT_ said:

Is college preventing people from going out on a date? What would explain the rise of young men who are not in a romantic relationship? The study below controls for economic circumstances.

I don't think so. Although, as I noted earlier, we are in a transition period where our societal expectations of courtship are changing (and not always in what most of us would think of as good - swipe left). I am not sure what your experience is, or how old you are - but my children's experience in relationship building was quite different from my own. My grandchild(ren) will probably experience something quite different from their parents as well. Eventually (in the next few decades perhaps) this may stabilize and we may move into a post-postmodern society (whatever that will look like), where these institutions have reoriented within our society and we have developed a new pattern for people to follow as they work through them.

A final note. One notion that I have seen discussed in several places is that this shift in marriage has also come with a shift in the expectation of marriage and what people's current status should be when they are ready to get married. This study is an example. This study connects student debt to delayed marriage and delayed childbirth - beyond graduation. My personal thought on this is that we really do need to extend free public education from K-12 to K-12 + 4 year degree. Doing so would help keep our young people across the board in a more stable economic condition - and would help make getting a degree more of a certainty for those that are motivated. This could have the effect of higher marriage levels (more college graduates across the board) as well as starting to bring down that marriage age, and prevent delays in child birth linked to economic concerns. The problem, of course, is that such a policy cannot (at least in our current environment) be separated from the ongoing political and culture wars we are experiencing. We can take the data we have and identify avenues to help reduce the problems that you are seeing - but these problems exist are caused by changes in our society - changes that have both occurred pervasively across our entire society and that are large enough that we will not be able to reverse them. We will need to work with these trends, identify barriers to marriage and earlier childbirth and remove those barriers so that we make marriage and family growth appealing and not costly.

[DT_]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Are you sure this isn't a typo - and you meant "18 to 29"? I would think that a growing percentage of young single men aged 18-20 would be an especially good thing ....

A growing percentage of young single men 18-20 don't have a girlfriend and are not going out on dates. It's scary.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/19/opinions/masculinity-toxic-men-boys-education-galloway/index.html

 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by DT_

[DT_]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 In 2014, college graduates had a 75% chance to be married by age 40-45

 college educated women are generally waiting to have children until marriage.

Do you think 10 to 20% of college-educated women are going to miss the opportunity to be mothers? Would that be a valid concern?

Edited August 30, 2022 by DT_

[DT_]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 This study is an example. This study connects student debt to delayed marriage and delayed childbirth - beyond graduation.

Interesting.

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't think so. Although, as I noted earlier, we are in a transition period where our societal expectations of courtship are changing (and not always in what most of us would think of as good - swipe left).

Would you agree young men are going out less and are dating less today compared to young men in previous generations? 

[DT_]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So this study has marriage rates based on education from 1968 to 2014. Beginning in 1992, it was also able to track marriage rates for women with post-graduate educations. It looks at women aged 40-45, their education level and whether or not they had been married.

Very interesting.

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, DT_ said:

A growing percentage of young single men 18-20 don't have a girlfriend and are not going out on dates. It's scary.

It's pretty normal within a global/historical context. Across many societies, men have preferred the intellectual/emotional company of other men, and marriage has therefore required significant cultural pressure and/or incentivisation. In areas near where I did my PhD research, it was only in the 1980s that men stopped living in all-male compounds even after marriage and began living in nuclear family units. It required a massive reordering of almost all cultural norms and structures: gender, sexuality, housing, labour, land-ownership, etc.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[DT_]

21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It's pretty normal within a global/historical context. Across many societies, men have preferred the intellectual/emotional company of other men, and marriage has therefore required significant cultural pressure and/or incentivisation.

Interesting. Is the growing percentage of young men who don't have a girlfriend or a steady partner normal? 

Edited August 30, 2022 by DT_

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, DT_ said:

Interesting. It's pretty normal for young men not to have a girlfriend or a steady partner?

Across many societies and time periods, yes. This expectation is culturally bound and socially constructed.

[DT_]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Across many societies and time periods, yes. This expectation is culturally bound and socially constructed.

I did not know that. Okay, so maybe the growing percentage of young single men is not a concern after all.

Is/Was it the same with women? 

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Blue Dreams, Hi.

Thank you for your reply. My only point in all of this is that there is such a thing as moderation, in this thing, and others. I said above that "I am fine with the Word of Wisdom in its prohibitions of alcohol and hot beverages, until it's practitioners begin to imagine that these prohibitions are in place because these things are evil." "These things", in my quote were about all alcohol beverages everywhere and at all times. I sometimes sense among my LDS friends here, what I sensed among my Baptist friends years ago. Any use of alcohol is always and everywhere evil. I cannot defend that view. It is over-rigorous in my opinion, based on Scriptures that are accepted by Protestants, LDS, and Catholics. I am all in favor of prosecuting the drunk driver, but without making the drunk driver a poster boy or girl for proposing that alcoholic beverages are always and everywhere bad and should be outlawed. We should not declare war on that which is good because some abuse that good. All goods are abused. 

Personally, I have a strong aversion to drinking alcohol. It has little to do with the word of wisdom. Except for maybe the fact that I've never drunk alcohol. Not once. The closest was kombucha when I bought it out of curiosity, not fully knowing what it is. Turns out I'm very sensitive to alcohol and even that mild fermented drink made me feel different enough to finally check the bottle to see what I'd just bought.

No, the strong aversion is more that because I've never had a moment of really pleasant memories with it, all I've had are vaguely neutral ones (friends or family having a beer or 3 at parties/get togethers ranging from buzzed to tipsy to likely drunk). Or overtly negative one...and they were not mildly so. An on-again off-again relationship that was caustic and included at one pointed an unwanted advance while he had obviously imbibed that led to me slapping him across the face hard to get the advances to stop.  And one of my earliest memories grieving my g-grandfather being hit by a drunk driver and dying likely fairly painfully (it wasn't quick at the very least). If I go back a couple generations, my grandmother likely had to deal with someone with an anger problem that mixed poorly with drinking. My other grandfather likely had a massive heart attack from a pair of bad habits: consistent drinking and smoking. 

I know you keep mentioning the scripture that the drink bring cheer to the heart of man. But I find profound cheer in a finished project or beautiful art. I find reprieve with quiet moments in nature, a cup of mint and catnip tea to ease my tension, the smell of freshly picked chamomile and garden herbs in my hands. Enrichment comes from my husband, a good convo with a close friend, petting my animals, the sense of my daughters small hand against my neck as I carry her. Peace comes from seeking God and healing. In short, it comes in clearly experiencing life around me. So for me alcohol is just superflous at best. I worry when people turn to a bottle for comfort in difficult experiences. That's a formula that increases abuse of a substance. I get that there is scripture that mentions that much. But again, it matters to me about as much as the talk that compares the beauty of a woman to a female deer. Kuddos to them. I understand the context, what wine may have meant to their context, I take from it the message, and I move on. I can get the symbolism and message without having to personally partake. I can appreciate seeing God in what they had and using cultural references to understand God without assuming the cultural practice must continue to be replicated in full 3-5k years later. 

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I must take issue with your suggestion that "...our drinking habits are not comparable to what it was like 2-6k years ago. There's indications that quite often wine was diluted with water and was a better alternative than straight up water or other drinks that were more likely to have problems with contamination."

The reason for my disinclination to accept this idea is that it doesn't account for how rip-roaringly drunk people in our Scriptures became under this alleged diluted mixture. Alcohol was easily abused 6,000 years ago, and still is today. My argument can not be that alcoholic beverages were safer thousands of years ago. No. There was the same potential abuse. My argument is that the value of using alcohol moderately, so that it may cheer the heart of man, is, according to my understanding, worth the very real risk of abuse. Alcohol is an admittedly dangerous good. A good to which God approves in moderation, warning His servants they must use it only in a responsible, reasonable manner. No drunkard inherits the kingdom of God. 

It's not that they were safer. It's that the context meant that there were more benefits that may have been at a better counterbalance to alcohol's problems. Such as an cleaning agent to their water v a drinking source that may get you sick if this or that little nasty was hiding in it. the benefit of more b vitamins and aminos from the fermentation process v the long term problems with it health wise that may not happen anyways since so many other means of death were more prevalent. A source of local income and sustenance in a very limited diet/economy that was a general problem for the first non-nomadic peoples. Etc. Wine, minus among the most wealthy in hierarchical cultures, also had its limitations based on season and resources (depending the era and storing tech). This would still likely lead to a reduced timespan/access for abuse and a reduced amount of the population that could regularly abuse it. Most of the abuse reported in the bible happened in exceptional experiences: among the elite, after bleak apocalyptic events, after major celebrations, after receiving gifts or from a conquering. There is less "Jehoboam thus saw that his sheep were not following his guidance that day. He grew frustrated, looked to the heavens and said, Lord I could us a drink tonight; today hath vexxed me." You may disagree with me and that's fine, but that's personally what I see from my very non-drinking oriented life. A context that post WoW would rapidly shift to be virtually unrecognizable to the experiences of the people who penned that psalm millenia ago.

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

My LDS friends, don't blame me for my position! We share the same Scriptures. Your God and my God, different though I think they are in key respects, are in agreement that a certain amount of liberty to fall, is worth the risk of allowing the possibility of success in managing our way to virtue, and strength, and fortitude, in the face of terrible temptations.

Thanks again Blue Dreams, regards to all.

Rory (3DOP)

I don't blame you for your position. Or the people in my life who do drink. I get that for you there are positive memories and reasons for it. Traditions that it carries, sacred moments in ancient rites, memories of joyous occasions, a few relaxed moments at the end of the day or while on a vacation. It does hold positive associations and apparently big enough ones that it continue to justify or allow space for some of the problems it can incur. But again, that's not my experience. I have similar experiences without the alcohol and I feel no missing from it. I mention to give a differing perspective, that's not condemnatory to those who like alcohol but that deeply values the WoW and personally finds no value in the drinks beyond maybe cooking (?....I'm not a fan of a lot of their flavors in food)

 

With luv,

BD

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, DT_ said:

Is/Was it the same with women? 

Yes.

Though I should emphasise that such observations are not value judgements. Is it better for men (and older boys) to live in all-male compounds and only visit their wives in the women's compound occasionally for the purpose of procreation? I'm not sure that's what God had in mind.

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 hours ago, DT_ said:

A growing percentage of young single men 18-20 don't have a girlfriend and are not going out on dates. It's scary.

A friendly bit of advice ... stop using opinion pieces that are primarily about things like the existence (or non-existence in this case) of toxic masculinity. These are not useful articles. Google is not your friend here.

You keep wanting to bring up problems - but you aren't discussing anything resembling solutions. You ask in the next post:

5 hours ago, DT_ said:

Do you think 10 to 20% of college-educated women are going to miss the opportunity to be mothers? Would that be a valid concern?

Not without context. All groups of women in the United States are seeing declines in birthrates. These declines are higher in college educated women than in those with little education. But children born to women without a college education have high risks of being impoverished, have a high risk of living in a non-traditional family model, have a high risk of not achieving higher education themselves (multi-generational poverty is a real problem right now). What is an acceptable trade-off for better outcomes in other areas?

5 hours ago, DT_ said:

Would you agree young men are going out less and are dating less today compared to young men in previous generations? 

Sure - but I think the comparison doesn't work. Why? Because the entire courtship model today is completely different than it was a generation ago. My father (who is in his 80's now) upset his parents by not consulting them over who he should be dating (and marrying). They were very unhappy about it. You could say a similar thing about the dating scene in his generation compared to the previous one. Courtship is a social game (for lack of a better term at the moment) whose purpose and function is defined culturally. And this shifts. In an even earlier period, many marriages were simply arranged, right? So the question is, in light of our current cultural trends, how do we create a useful model of dating and what will its end purpose be? If we think that marriage and childbirth are important, then how do we promote them within our society in a meaningful way? Right now, we are disincentivizing marriage and child birth. We have prioritized economic growth over families - we want to have women in the workforce (that was part of the whole point of the Morgan Stanley research you presented earlier). And the problems you are raising about older women having children and men who aren't getting married are merely symptoms of that larger issue. If men are going out less and dating less - and you see this as a problem - the only way to correct this may be to make structural changes in our society to re-emphasize the importance of marriage as a foundational part of society instead of as a capstone achievement. And this is not a small task. It will mean redefining what is necessary to be a successful husband. This of course goes completely in the opposite direction of the opinion piece you linked last night (Galloway's opinion piece is arguably a part of the problem as opposed to a part of the solution).

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, DT_ said:

A growing percentage of young single men 18-20 don't have a girlfriend and are not going out on dates. It's scary.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/19/opinions/masculinity-toxic-men-boys-education-galloway/index.html

 

 

My youngest fits this picture. I think the world is changing rapidly it isn't the 60's 70's 80's and so on, any longer. Not sure the cause, maybe it's in the air, maybe youth see much differently than the old geezers like me. I long for the old days, the goals that were get married, have children, create a beautiful life together. I guess this isn't the norm and this isn't for everyone and who am I to think it should be. My son is a caretaker though, he bought a home, has room mates to help him pay the mortgage and is currently taking care of some kittens and the mother who randomly showed up under a back porch. His one room mate just lost his mother, and previous to this lost his brother to suicide and the guy is in such a deep depression from it all, and my son is so worried for his welfare and called us for advice. In my mind I was thinking how I wish he'd be able to find a wife, have kids and live the typical model that once was. But no it doesn't happen like that I guess. And I am such a loser to have thought it should. He's young still at 25, but doesn't date so not sure how it could happen, that dream I had for all of my children. Or maybe they don't want to bring children into this world the way it is, and the way it may become. 

[DT_]

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Not without context. All groups of women in the United States are seeing declines in birthrates. These declines are higher in college educated women than in those with little education. But children born to women without a college education have high risks of being impoverished, have a high risk of living in a non-traditional family model, have a high risk of not achieving higher education themselves (multi-generational poverty is a real problem right now).

I understand, but would you agree that about 10% of college-educated women won't have any children?

On 8/29/2022 at 2:12 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This is not exactly how it works. With every polygamous species that we know of (going back to the book that I referenced earlier), there is an observable difference between genders in the direction of the polygamy. Let me quote a bit from it (page 10):

I was talking about human evolution. The first humans appeared about 2 million years ago.

Edited August 30, 2022 by DT_

[DT_]

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

A friendly bit of advice ... stop using opinion pieces that are primarily about things like the existence (or non-existence in this case) of toxic masculinity. These are not useful articles. Google is not your friend here.

Would this be much better? "Young, single, idle males are dangerous. Work and wedlock can tame them...The reasons are biological. In all cultures, the appetite for mayhem peaks in the late teens or early 20s"

https://www.economist.com/special-report/2016/01/21/of-men-and-mayhem

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29856763/

Are you sure the increasing number of young men who don't have a steady partner is a good thing? 51% of young men are single compared to 32% of young women.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by DT_

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, DT_ said:

Would this be much better? "Young, single, idle males are dangerous. Work and wedlock can tame them...The reasons are biological. In all cultures, the appetite for mayhem peaks in the late teens or early 20s"

https://www.economist.com/special-report/2016/01/21/of-men-and-mayhem

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29856763/

Are you sure the rise of young men who don't have a steady partner is a good thing?

I thought you were quoting Brigham Young for a second there.  That sounds an awful lot like the Brigham Young quote which states that "young men over the age of 25 who are not married are a menace to society", which he never actually said.  I have never heard this sentiment come from outside the church, but there it is. 

George Q Cannon did say something similar:

Quote

“Our boys, when they arrive at years of maturity and can take earn of a wife, should get married, and there should not be a lot of young men growing up in our midst who ought to be, but are not married. While I do not make the remark to apply to individual cases, I am firmly of the opinion that a large number of unmarried men, over the age of twenty-four years, is a dangerous element in any community, and an element upon which society should look with a jealous eye. For every man knowing himself, knows how his fellow-man is constituted; and if men do not marry, they are too apt to do something worse. Then, brethren, encourage our young men to marry, and see that they are furnished employment, so that they can marry.” – George Q. Cannon, Annual Conference at Salt Lake City, Sunday morning, April 7, 1878. Reported by George F. Gibbs, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, p. 7.

I don't see where MR. McGuire said that the rise of young men without a steady partner is necessarily a good thing.  In fact, he said:

Quote

And the problems you are raising about older women having children and men who aren't getting married are merely symptoms of that larger issue. If men are going out less and dating less - and you see this as a problem - the only way to correct this may be to make structural changes in our society to re-emphasize the importance of marriage as a foundational part of society instead of as a capstone achievement. And this is not a small task. It will mean redefining what is necessary to be a successful husband. This of course goes completely in the opposite direction of the opinion piece you linked last night (Galloway's opinion piece is arguably a part of the problem as opposed to a part of the solution).

 

[DT_]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 He's young still at 25, but doesn't date so not sure how it could happen, that dream I had for all of my children.

It's not going to get easier for young men anytime soon. Relationship standards are too high right now. However, it gets easier for men who are a bit older to attract women over 30 or single moms.

I'm very concerned about the fact that 30 and single is the new normal. It contradicts two million years of human evolution and I'm also concerned about the increasing incidence of gestational diabetes.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by DT_

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, DT_ said:

I'm very concerned about the fact that 30 and single is the new normal. It contradicts two million years of human evolution and I'm also concerned about the increasing incidence of gestational diabetes.

Any particular reason why?  It seems possibly personal for you. 

[DT_]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Any particular reason why?  It seems possibly personal for you.

I try to take the research literature seriously.  "Diabetes UK is warning that children born to women with gestational diabetes are six times more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes later in life."  https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about_us/news/gestational-diabetes-and-children "Many babies whose mothers had gestational diabetes have no related health problems. But research has suggested that your baby may be at greater risk of developing obesity and or diabetes in later life. "  https://www.tommys.org/pregnancy-information/pregnancy-complications/gestational-diabetes/long-term-implications-gestational-diabetes 

I can't get gestational diabetes because I'm a guy : )  

 

 

 

[Chum]

1 hour ago, DT_ said:

I'm very concerned about the fact that 30 and single is the new normal. It contradicts two million years of human evolution

For marriage focused dating, they'd need some hope of affording a life together. My sons have done the math. The only one in any kind of relationship is the one that has forgone Church teachings.