Life Has Changed - Get Over It

About a year and half ago, someone named Ankush Bahuguna had something published at a site I wasn't familiar with, mensxp.com under the title of  "Why Modern Relationships Are Falling Apart So Easily Today".

We're not prepared. We're not prepared for the sacrifices, for the compromises, for the unconditional love.

A lot of people aren't prepared. But some people are unwilling to make the sacrifices, the compromises, and to put in all of the effort, because they do not see the potential benefits to be worth it. In many cases, they are right.

Unconditional love is an interesting term. Most people don't really mean it when they use it, and some people who do are being foolish. For example, a woman who "loves" her husband after her rapes her child and remains unrepentant is sick.

We're not ready to invest all that it takes to make a relationship work.

Right, a lot of people aren't, and one reason is that there is no assurance it will actually work. Someone can choose wisely, treat kindly, and still get screwed over because the other person can suffer, for example, a brain trauma that changes their attitude and moods.

We want everything easy.

A lot of people do. Other people are willing to work hard, but for many men, there is no benefit to work hard for a relationship with a woman, especially not a marriage. For these men, it isn't that they want things easy; they don't want them unnecessarily and unreasonably difficult or disadvantageous.

We're quitters.

If someone is hitting their head against a wall, they should quit.

We don't let our love grow, we let go before time.

What does this even mean?!? It's one of those things people say and others might nod their heads, but almost none of them can offer a coherent definition.

It's not love we're looking for, only excitement and thrill in life.

Well, if love is "awe, admiration, and respect", as Dr. Laura says, then yes, a lot of people do want to be loved and to love someone.  If love is defined by action, fewer people are looking for that.

And a lot of people don't want much excitement or thrills, at least outside of sex. Some people very much want stability, predictability, and tranquility, and that is precisely why they don't place their fate in the hands of a spouse, shack up, or children.

We want someone to watch movies and party with, not someone who understands us even in our deepest silences.

Someone can do that without relying on us to pay their bills.

We don't want a partner for life, just someone who can make us feel alive right now, this very instant.

What, objectively, is wrong with that? Some religions demand lifelong marriages. I get that. But this is not presented as a sectarian essay appealing to the Lord. According to our secular culture, what exactly is wrong with the approach that says "we'll be together for as long as it works for both of us"?

We immerse ourselves in the inconsequentials of the city life, leaving no space for love.

Again, what does this mean?

We don't have time to love, we don't have the patience to deal with relationships.

A lot of people don't have the patience or the design to deal with relationships beyond the short term. But what is wrong with that?

We're busy people chasing materialistic dreams and there's no scope to love.

Materialistic dreams can be different things to different people. There's nothing wrong with someone seeking to secure enough wealth to ensure their needs will be met if they live a long life or have serious health problems for an extended period of time.

Relationships are nothing more than convenience.

Really... what have they ever been? They weren't about convenience when we were living on rural farms, in isolated villages? Of course they were!

We look for instant gratification in everything we do – the things we post online, the careers we choose, and the people we fall in love with.

There's nothing wrong with seeking instant gratification as long as you're also willing to work long and hard for something you really want that takes longer.

We want the maturity in a relationship that comes with time, the emotional connect that develops over years, that sense of belonging when we barely even know the other person.

Who is this "we"? Plenty of people don't want any of that. A growing percentage of men are actively avoiding it.

We'd rather spend an hour each with a hundred people than spending a day with one.

It's called... choices. They're often good things.

We believe more in meeting people than getting to know them.

If we like what we see when we meet them, then we'll be interested in getting to know them.

We're greedy. We want to have everything.

It is important to realize that our time is limited and everything in life is a trade off.

We get into relationships at the slightest attraction and step out, the moment we find someone better.

Again, what is objectively wrong with this?

We don't want to bring out the best in that one person.

People who try to change others for the better are always going to be frustrated.

We want them to be perfect.

No, we just don't want them to be financial or emotional leeches or impede our lives.

We date a lot of people but rarely give any of them a real chance.

On the contrary, the problem is people still see someone even when they shouldn't. As soon as it is determined that there isn't fundamental compatibility and a serious mutual attraction, it should end.

Our physical presence has been replaced by texts, voice messages, snapchats and video calls. We don't feel the need to spend time together anymore.

Technology changes life. Fathers and sons used to go with other fathers and sons to hunt game. With better hunting techniques and domestication of livestock, that changed. There was a trade-off there. Go join the Amish if you don't like technology.

We're a generation of ‘wanderers' who wouldn't stay at one place for too long.

You mean we can travel and migrate. That's a good thing.

Everyone is commitment phobic.

Ah, yes. This is the real reason for this essay. I'll just leave this link here.

We believe we're not meant for relationships.

Paying a woman's way through life isn't the only kind of relationship, but no, most men aren't meant for that kind of relationship.

We don't want to settle down. Even the thought of it is scary.

Wrong! All wrong. Plenty of marriage strikers are settled down, and like it. They've done the same work for a long time, they've owned their home for a long time, so on and so forth. Getting married is not synonymous with settling down, as is made obvious with the divorce rate.

We cannot imagine being with one person for the rest of our lives.

Not when we look at most women in the Anglosphere, no.

We despise permanence like its some social evil.

Wrong again. Many of us like permanence. We don't like sticking around paying the bills of an ingrate who makes our life a living hell.

We're a generation that calls itself ‘sexually liberated'.

You knew that was coming right? Did this person take a purity pledge, only to look around and be envious of other people enjoying sex?

We have sex first and then decide if we want to love someone.

Again, based on our secular values, what is wrong with that? Sex is pleasurable and important. If someone  spends a lot of time getting emotionally invested in someone only to find they are sexually incompatible, that's a big problem, isn't it?

We wouldn't take a flight to a far-off land just to see someone we love. We'd break up because, long distance.

Good!

There's nothing we couldn't conquer in this world, and yet, here we are ham-fisted at the game of love – the most basic of human instincts.

No, the basic instincts are to eat, drink, eliminate waste, and have sex.

It has never been easier at any time in history to live alone, especially considering gender roles have been tossed out the window as outdated. If a man is going to be expected to do everything that used to be considered "women's work", why does he need a woman, especially one financially dependent on him?

People used to be stuck. They had to get married and have kids and stay married, because that is how they could run a farm and have food. People aren't stuck anymore. They can move. The can live somewhere with highly advanced division of labor. And they can have a full life living alone.

The big problem is that many people rely on government to take care of them. Most of those people could and should take care of themselves or arrange for mutually beneficial voluntary personal alliances.

The essay is a lament. But it reinforces the position I've taken: Most men should not marry and should  not have children. Like it or not, most men are not prepared to be good husbands and fathers and are not going to find a compatible, loyal woman who is prepared to be a good wife and mother.