Not Tonight, Honey, I Have a Penis
The sitcom stereotype goes like this: Guy is always horny, guy tries to have sex with girl, girl shoots him down. But as Siobhan Rosen tells it, the script’s been flipped. And now there’s an awful lot of young, perfectly sex-capable dudes who won’t get off their asses to, well, get some
Well, you didn’t know that would happen? It is not exactly new. The phenomenon was identified some years ago, in a slightly different context and in a different country, in 2006, in Japan. The Japanese call it “herbivore men (草食(系)男子 Sōshoku(-kei) danshi?) or grasseaters, a social phenomenon of men who shun marriage or gaining a girlfriend.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore_men
Let there be no mistake about it, the phenomenon involves not just men in heterosexual relationships that refuse to have sex with women. Grasseaters don’t want to have relationships with women (or with men, for that matter). Not only that, but grasseaters want nothing to do with being categorized, classified or assigned to the traditional roles of providers, protectors and being all-around gophers and sacrificial pariahs of corporate society.
The claim is (the obsession with maintaining the myth of female innocence most certainly is a factor in making it) that women have an even greater disinterest in having sex with the other sex or anyone else than men do. Of course, as to opting out of being the prime movers of society, there, too, women are way ahead of men, although they are apt to blame men, naturally, for being the cause of that. Much has been written about the grasseaters phenomenon, but none of the pundits writing about it in the media spectrum ranging from The Wall Street Journal to the Huffington Post mentioned much about the deeper root-causes of it, that women have priced themselves out of the market and are being seen as far too much of a risk to health and the quality of life of men to be worth making a commitment, let alone having sex with.
Without a doubt, the driving force for it all is the all-out effort to abolish marriage and to reduce the size of the world population, and what better way to achieve that than to make marriage, even sexual relations, unpalatable. Daniel Amneus had a pretty good handle on the fundamental cause of the phenomenon, when he wrote “The Garbage Generation” (Nov 1990): http://www.fathersforlife.org/culture/ideology.htm#Amneus_on_matriarchy
To achieve that in China took coercion through the full force of the government, but all it took in the developed nations was to promote self-interest or, if you wish, greed. The results are the same. They can be measured and expressed very accurately through the TFR (total fertility rate – the number of children born to the average woman of fertile age). Depending on average life expectancy in a nation, it takes a TFR of 2.1 to 2.2 children to maintain a nation’s population level. A TFR smaller than that will cause the population of a country to die out in more or less short order. The deaths of nations will not be pretty.
Here are TFRs (2014 est.) of a few countries of interest:
Hong Kong 1.17
South Korea 1.25
Czech Republic 1.43
Who wants to plow, sow, harvest, build, manufacture, work in the mines — unless the work, unsatisfying and unfulfilling in itself, is made meaningful by a man’s knowledge that it must be done if he is to provide for his family?
The ratio of funding for and against families is 1:1000
The US Senate would do well to note what is being said in the Heritage Foundation report by Patrick Fagan and Robert Rector The Effects of Divorce on America, a report that identifies beyond any doubt that the epidemic of divorce is destroying society.
Each year, over 1 million American children suffer the divorce of their parents; moreover, half of the children born this year to parents who are married will see their parents divorce before they turn 18. Mounting evidence in social science journals demonstrates that the devastating physical, emotional, and financial effects that divorce is having on these children will last well into adulthood and affect future generations.
Fiscal conservatives should realize that federal and state governments spend $150 billion per year to subsidize and sustain single-parent families. By contrast, only $150 million is spent to strengthen marriage.
Thus, for every $1,000 spent to deal with the effects of family disintegration, only $1 is spent to prevent that disintegration.
—Source: The Effects of Divorce on America (June 2, 2000)