First time I went on a date I was 23 years old. Before that with all the studying and work I had no time whatsoever for any kind of a relationship.

Some people on this thread bring up that dating let's you develop a skill. In my experience dating is pretty easy if your goal is a long-term relationship, you just need to be yourself. If the other person likes you for who you are and not appear to be it's a very good sign. It is also incredibly easy being yourself, less mental gymnastics. If you are after casual hookups... Here you do need a skill (unless nature gifted you with good looks). I suck incredibly hard at this.

Another thing is that once girls get older (25+?) they start to value other things, so all these hookups you missed in your younger years don't matter that much.

Being yourself is a good idea- but who are you? What do you really want? What do you need to work on in yourself?

As for any potential "skill gap", I'm just as socially awkward as I was at 21, but my wife doesn't mind. I think conscientious people can usually recognize attempts at conscientiousness.

FWIW, most of conscientiousness is the intent anyway

So, you need to be yourself... but you actually don't.

It gets worse. This is just copium we give to men to make them think it gets better. The stats show that it doesn’t get better. If you’re single now and have never been on a date - the only thing that increases is your time on the market. Your value though - it will continue to plummet unless you do something about it.

Often the stories about men who didn’t do well in their early 20s but managed well later are due to weight loss, fashion sense, not being poor, etc. If you didn’t catch on already - none of these are unsolvable at 22. You can fix them at 22 and be much better off than a 28 year old.

The quality of people you’ll be able to date will also vary even more wildly. You’re going to get far more jaded people who used their 20s to burn every emotionally healthy neuron they had in their brain, people who are desperate to settle down but are bad at making long term choices with it (thus high risk of divorce), and many single parents. (40% of children are born out of wedlock today)

It does not get better as you age. This is a myth. If you’re a shit candidate at 22 - you will be a shit candidate at 28 unless something markedly changes about yourself. (Which - again - can happen at 22 - there’s no reason to wait)

If the only change that occurs to a person until the more advanced age, is only physical decline, then they're certainly "less valuable" than their younger counterpart.

However, there are people (I hope most) that actually do have many other (inner) qualities that grow with them, and compensante and exceed the physical decline, thus, their "value" is higher than their younger counterpart.

This is why if you're not getting dates now - you will not get them later unless you change something about your most superficial appearance.

Were we talking about online dating? Afaics it hasn't been mentioned anywhere in the chain you're replying to.

That's a pretty darn big reason when women select for financial stability rather aggressively and with the "do your dues" mentality the job market has combined with prolonged studying. By far most people would not point out "just age" as the cause, but the things which come with age to most men naturally.

Besides - when it comes to online dating and getting first dates - not looking poor just means don't appear homeless.

If you're going to argue being financially stable is in fact a pretty big deal, aging and gaining experience to remain financially stable is a pretty obvious perk that comes with age. Especially outside SV and the US. If only as simple as to afford going to places with more prospects and bringing someone home to your place without hassle or worries. It doesn't need "rich" money but it sure as hell needs "money" spent in an effective manner.

For many men, it works the other way. You become smarter. More confident. More emotionally, psychologically, and financially stable. All those make you more attractive. Your prospective partners are the same. Everybody has more experience, and doesn't freak out and act self-destructively like they did when they were 23. People are more aware of what a relationship entails.

Simply, relationships are just more pleasing.

At least for some subset of those growing older.

All of this is also true for women.

How often do you see women in their 30's dating 22 year old men? If youth is what they are after I feel like you would see that a lot more often.

I actually don't. I keep seeing these meme constantly repeated and I actually made a list of unattractive males... and they, mostly, have never had luck with relationship. Physical attractiveness is very important, whatever the consensus du jour say about it.

It's amazing how your mindset can make the world look completely different. That mindset also makes you completely unattractive to women. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The information is out there to help, if you want it. The short version is to socialise more and think less.

At no point have I heard multiple women say they are falling head over heels for a man due to his personality alone. Almost always - the man is physically attractive to them as well.

Which can also be another can of worms.

I'm single, in my mid-late 30s, and a lot of the women I encounter of compatible age seem to want kids yesterday, and that kind of rush doesn't work well for establishing a healthy relationship.

Procrastinators aren't really a thing - IMO. I think people who have too high of standards are the main issue. They try to get someone who isn't going to ever settle down with them and constantly chase that. By the time they realize they cannot get that person and will constantly get non-committal relationships with them - they are past their prime and will slowly settle (or just get a dog and be alone while having sex with random people to boost self-esteem here and there).

So, character traits I'd say that lead to being single at that age as a lady are ones where someone has an inflated ego, doesn't work on themselves, and/or is generally expecting more than what they offer. That's what I've noticed a lot. (I know a lot of women - most of my friends are women)

PSA: To anyone struggling with this please try and ignore any advice online that focuses on the opposite sex and their inherent value (or lack thereof). Actually talking to the opposite sex even in a casual way is a really good way to get over this type of thinking.

The point shouldn't be to get over this type of thinking per se, but rather to determine which type of thinking is most consistent with reality and subsequently dispense with the rest as chaff and empty platitudes. If "man-o-sphere logic" is ineffective or counterproductive, then the only way to find out is to scrutinize it or apply it and observe the outcome.

Women want the genuine article with qualities of X, Y, Z.

They do not want a guy who doesn't have those qualities innately. Naturally, upon receiving the information that these qualities are sought after, guys will try to best of their ability to fake them. The fact that a guy has to be told what to do in the first place is very unappealing in itself.

Shortly -it is against their best interests to be open and honest about what they desire.

Because 1) you will get a lot of fakes and 2) it can be dangerous as it can upset some undesirable guys

Consequently the way to understand woman - if we are following along with this logic - is by observing how they act and react and not by listening and believing to what say necessarily.

Or to rephrase - they want you to be a MAN and act like a MAN, and not to be told to be a man and act like a man.

If you have to be told to be more like a man, you're not it obviously.

On top of it, these desires contain certain "manly physical and appearance" qualities that can't really be faked either way.

Unfortunately, this kind of logic and thinking has already entered mainstream internet consciousness via memes and such, and the only way to address it is to face it head on.

And if you can't then what does it mean?

I don't think we're talking about the same concept though. You're touching on preferences and in general attraction which is just a normal part of being and doesn't represent some kind of value system where you have high-value and low-value people.

Talking to the sex you're attracted to will result, at best, in what people of that sex think they want, not what they actually want and do to get it, at worst, in some unempathetic platitude or even outright insults.

Yes, it's not what I typed but this is what I meant. I think from there it's just the normal process of getting to know people. Much better than seeing it as a transaction and a push/pull of low-value and high-value system.

Most people I know dating aren't trying to optimize for the number of dates they go one with different people but ideally trying to find that one person they can be with for awhile. So the common definition of "getting better at dates" implies you eventually date less.

I have a few friends in their mid-30s that have become quite the experts at getting dates, but all of them seem fairly unhappy that they are still working on dating rather than in a steady relationship and focusing on other things.

I use dating apps or met a couple of them at the bouldering gym where I boulder.

That's why I stopped going to the local boulder gyms. Too many cookie-cutter "non-conformist dudes" who see the gym as their personal hunting grounds, creeping on the girls like a sleazy tennis instructor and bullying beginner guys because they don't like the competition.

The only advice I would give to you is don't satisfy your urges with porn in the meantime. Stay far, far away.

If I go back 10 years in my home country any woman would shut down your conversation if you asked her on a _one-on-one_ 'date', the implication alone would question her 'virtue'/intentions.

One-on-one interaction would naturally occur as the casual hanging out with shared groups of friends or parties. I honestly don't really see it as backwards if anything I think it really takes the pressure off from the two people to somehow keep interesting conversation for long periods of time.

I want to believe it's satire, but then there's Poe's Law...

It is an interview for a position that doesn't actually exist.

Speaking as someone married fifty years.

Modern America, by and large, does not have the shared spaces and sense of community where these interactions could occur. As Robert Putnam said it, we're literally 'Bowling Alone'. "Dates" are a band-aid, their only positive is they avoid the alternative of universal inceldom.

The closest thing we have to that in America that I've personally experienced, is the American shopping mall. Where we all gather for the purposes of....materialism and consumption??? Not knocking on consumerism, but it's definitely not the same as lively public town square.

At any rate, the heyday for shopping malls has passed. Maybe it's just because I'm an introvert and don't get out much, but other than actual festivals, I can't think of any places here in America that foster the same sense of community as those public spaces I encountered in South America.

In D.C. or N.Y. it's completely normal to meet people dancing to a drum circle in the park, or join people in acro-yoga, slack-lining, bocce ball or whatever. There's a visceral feeling of inclusivity and positive vibes.

In my home town of Dallas, Texas, you're looked at with suspicion if you approach strangers at a park. And unlike the picture I depicted above, small friend groups cluster together with ample space between them and the next group of friends/family. Also, people aren't doing much of anything, aside from eating or talking amongst people they know. If we look at the bar scene, the assumption is that you have no friends if you show up solo. If you want to meet new people you practically have to join something recurring and structured like a Meetup (which is nice in that it at least selects for people open to meeting new people) or join a amateur sports team (kickball, volleyball, etc).

>In my home town of Dallas, Texas, you're looked at with suspicion if you approach strangers at a park.

I'll admit to no particular experience in any of these cities but that does not exactly comport with their reputations.

>If you want to meet new people you practically have to join something recurring and structured like a Meetup (which is nice in that it at least selects for people open to meeting new people) or join a amateur sports team (kickball, volleyball, etc).

I'm pretty sure that's how it's always been. Either way, when the most exciting thing you could do at home alone was read a book people just did these things because they didn't want to be bored out of their minds. Friendships naturally followed from those shared activities. IMHO, that's part of the problem today. At home entertainment is pretty compelling and it's easy to get sucked into things like WoW but those don't tend to help you build a life like going out and doing stuff does.

Most of the complaints re N.Y. I have seen are from people who visit and then appalled when strangers respond with negativity in response to the visitor's lack of courtesy. I can't count the number of times I've seen someone be appalled at a gruff response in line at the bagel shop; however, when there's a line wrapping around the block, and staff are running around at full speed to keep up with demand, that's just not the time to ask "so, what all have you got planned today? doing anything, uh, interesting?"

I don't know how common negative sentiment is towards D.C., but my experience is that people are friendly and outgoing. You pretty much have to be outgoing by necessity -- the demographic is incredibly transient, so people are constantly being exposed to strangers, and as someone moving to D.C you need to be outgoing if you don't want to be alone.

And as for Dallas, it's an incredibly common sentiment (within the numerous Meetup groups I'm a member of) that most people in Dallas (and the greater DFW area) are pretty standoffish and cliquish. Part of the love for Meetup is that it self selects for people that aren't content with being born in Dallas, making some life long friends here in elementary school, and then forever pushing away anyone else that isn't already a friend or a friend of a friend.

> I'm pretty sure that's how it's always been. Either way, when the most exciting thing you could do at home alone was read a book people just did these things because they didn't want to be bored out of their minds. Friendships naturally followed from those shared activities. IMHO, that's part of the problem today. At home entertainment is pretty compelling and it's easy to get sucked into things like WoW but those don't tend to help you build a life like going out and doing stuff does.

But this isn't a dichotomy where the two options are planned, structured events or staying cooped up in your domicile, and I'm definitely not promoting the latter.

My point is that different cities are more (or less) open to spontaneous interaction with people you don't already know without necessarily requiring some sense of explicit attendance or membership.

My experience outside of Dallas, Texas:

- Go out to grab a drink, expecting to hit it off with one or more people at the bar. On the way, crack a joke with a passerby, chat for a bit, propose we all go to the dance club a couple blocks down the street. Have an awesome night talking, dancing and ending the night with some pizza around the corner.

- Pass some guys walking down the street, they seem like a fun group of friends so we shoot the shit; they invite me to bar hop with them. We're all on the same wave length, and the bromance is 100%. We're in Durham as the Duke students are coming back, so it's a super lively night. Live music just starts at the first bar, and the group of us are the first to start dancing, prompting the rest of the students to join in. Super fun night.

- Go to the park and see a bunch of people slack-lining. Ask if I can join in. Ditto with the people doing acro yoga. The majority of people didn't previously know each other, so I'm not perceived as some weirdo interrupting some friends.

And I could go on. My point here is that there exist other ways to meet people than showing up to some contrived event that was constructed specifically to connect people together. You could, instead, meet people organically going about your life: on the street, at the grocery store, at the pub, at the coffee shop, in the park, etc. The culture of the city/state you live in will then determine whether this is an option for you, or if people will blow you off.

Yet another unfortunate output of the US's completely broken focus on cars. Cars require intentionality -- there's no room for spontaneous interactions when you have to choose your destination and then spend 10min driving there.

I sold my car when I moved to D.C -- no one needs one, unless you commute outside of D.C. My social life grew exponentially when I moved. The city has dependable cross walks and (especially compared to Dallas standards) absolutely gargantuan side walks. As a bonus, those sidewalks don't abruptly and inextricably end for random stretches of the street. Public transportation is great. As a result, people are out and about where they can have random encounters with each other, on the way to parks filled with people hanging out and mingling.

I'm not saying this is the epitome, but it's leagues better than places like Dallas where random sections of the city feel really sketchy, walking on the sidewalk (anywhere other than in the suburbs) feels like gambling with your life (given that sidewalks are about 2 feet wide and next to high speed traffic), electronic cross walks often don't work, there's huge stretches of nothing from place to place (so even if you could walk, you'd have little reason to, given that you'll be walking alone without a soul in sight -- unless you count the people in their cars passing by -- and with nothing worth seeing along the way), etc.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

I'm from Australia, and meeting women at these venues in America is much easier than in my home country - large Australians cities have such a huge influx of young Indian male migrants, that the gender ratios at many of these venues are inequitable.

Wow I don't think I've ever seen this in my life. Most meetups I've seen look something like "meetup for professional women in their 40s", "MLM recruiting event meetup" "Wannabe thought leaders talk vaguely about business meetup", "seniors biking meetup (60+)", etc. Anything I've seen on meetup, either seems to target some hyper specific demographic, or be a some sort of scam, or old people doing hobbies. Singles groups tend to trend 30s and 40s or even enforce that.

Also bars are pretty good for meeting people IMO, but only in the sense of "some rando my father's age said something to me and now ere rambling nonsense to each other thanks to the alcohol. I've been to venues with younger people, but those always seemed so cliqued up and no one talks to you.

Maybe the southern US trends older in general though.

There are a ton in Dallas, Texas. In fact, I don't know how I would meet people here otherwise, given how otherwise insular the culture is.

But you went to America.

Which is ironic on multiple levels but atleast you met your wife :)

(btw, didn't you see Indians in America?)

For example, I come from Poland and one on one dating has been hugely popular throughout Poland even while it was part of Soviet bloc, even though American culture was all but banned here.

And in many countries you get only local culture and "American import" in the form of movies and music.

Of course people would do things with people they were romantically interested in, but you'd ask if they wanted to go and watch a film, not whether they wanted to go on a date.

There really is no "dating" part in America. You either go on dates or you are in a relationship. If anything, if you are "dating" someone it means you are seeing other people on other dates as well.

We really use the word "dates" to differentiate from interactions of platonic friendships. Still though this tends to be unspoken. It is not uncommon for one person to think they are on a "date" and one person to think they are just meeting as platonic friends.

This article I would imagine is saying 40% have had no romantic interaction with another person.

Movies and TV focus on the formal stuff because its a better source of comedy/drama.

> Relationships start off as acquaintances and develop organically as we spend time together.

I would say that I have dated a lot in the past 10 years, and have been in some great long term (1 year or longer) relationships, but I've never dated someone I've met through my social circles, nor have I ever started off as an acquaintance and then transitioned over time into being romantically involved. I've always seen someone I was physically attracted to (at the airport, coffee shop, etc), strike up a conversation, and if their personality is as attractive as their appearance then I pursue that person romantically.

I don't even know how going from acquaintance to romantic partner would work. If someone isn't attractive to me at the start, they're not going to become attractive later (unless they can, what, become someone who they were not?). If they are attractive to me, then I don't see why I would want to artificially delay pursuit of something that could be great for both of us.

If that's not dating, I don't know what it's called.

That's more common than it used to be, but still a very large minority of American couples meet through social circles. (Probably also stronger than it used to be though, is the divergence between different regional, class, ethnic, and other subcultural divides on how this works out; the idea that there is one specific pattern of “American” dating is as false as the idea that American romance movies paint an accurate picture of it.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating

Similarly there is no such thing as a man and a woman casually going out for tea (coffee is very fancy lol) as "friends". If you did that, people would simply assume you are a couple. Platonic relationships would only manifest itself in groups and never in a one-on-one setting. Solo activities are rare over there anyway..

Regarding marriage, _both_ families have to meet and approve (once the couple decided they want to get married) and there is custom that the man, along with his family, visit the bride's and ask for "permission". This could only happen if she had initially said yes privately; You can't just show up and have the family force her into a marriage for example.

As you can see, it is very different culturally.. though many western elements are trickling down to younger generation so these days there is kind of weird blend..

Incidentally, when I met my fiance (she is from Spain) in Canada, I did it the Iranian way.. went to her house with my parents and asked her family if they would permit me to marry her. Even though she had assured me it doesn't matter, I insisted that it was important for me to ask for her father's blessings, which of course he very much appreciated! He also loved the fact that I had converted to Catholicism so we arranged a traditional marriage in a Church along with a nice mix of Persian/Spanish celebration thereafter.

I’ve been to a plenty of dates in France, it’s not unusual for two people to go out to dinner and get to know each other.

You basically have to build a very strong rapport and infatuation to the point that you are both sure you have something you both want to pursue.

Whereas the american/european dating scene is much more casual about the 'seriousness' of a date.

Ask me to some in person interaction and it becomes ambiguous.

Alternatively, replying to me often and making flattering comments.

I've seen big changes in a generation or two in Spain and the UK, while we don't "date" anymore, we just "hang out" with another person we are interested on. Dates over here seem outdated and too serious, something our parents did. However in Japan, they can mean a more casual out of two people of opposite sex, to the point that a couple can also go on a date after being married (which doesn't make sense if you see dating strictly as the precursor of finding a significant other).

While I'm not totally immersed in Japanese culture, I do watch a lot of random movies from all over and some Japanese films like My Tomorrow, Your Yesterday do center around (ostensibly) 20 year olds going on dates as I, someone from another culture, understand them...

Plus, from the article, we only know that people were asked and self-reported if they've ever been on a date. Date could mean different things to different respondents, no?

The problem I see is the poor odds of finding someone within your extended friend group attractive, in terms of personality, character, physical qualities, etc. I suspect others must feel similarly, because I think we wouldn't have people dating strangers if they were satisfied with the options within their social circle.

If I'm romantically uninterested in 499 out of 500 women in my age group, I'd have to get extremely lucky to have my social circle grow to include someone I would consider dating. So instead, I pursue any opportunities as they arise; from experience (all long term romantic relationships): the coffee shop, in line to the ticketing kiosk at the airport, online dating, etc. I imagine I'm not alone.

This doesn't always mean less dating though, people could date a lot but be less willing to commit.

In the West, especially a place like NYC, it is common to go on dozens of date with different people, to find the perfect partner. But first, just casual meeting and friends, getting to know each other. That culture is not common in Japan. Of course some HN poster will provide counter anecdata, but their datapoint is already selecting for a different demographic than the greater Japanese population.

Japanese people keep their social circles very small. Platonic relationships between genders are also less frequent. People generally hangout with people their own gender. Asking someone on a “date” borders on asking them to be your boyfriend/girlfriend. To get to this stage, you’ve probably have spent considerable amount of time and context knowing each other. You ask, how do you get to know someone if you don’t already know them? Therein lies both the paradox and the answer.

Add in the fact that being single is not conditionally independent on the past, the headline “40% of SINGLE men never have been on a date” seems less surprising when you interpret it as “40% of single men have never had a girlfriend”.

Finally, one of the biggest domestic industries in Japan is mizu shobai. There are dozens “conversation bars” at practically every semi dense place in Japan to fill the loneliness gap. If you want a rendition of this, watch Season 1 of “Light the Night” on Netflix about this culture but based in Taipei’s entertainment district catering to Japanese businessman. Their Japanese is terrible, but they capture the aesthetic and lifestyle decently well. This is as close of a glimpse you’ll get to the real Japan because it’s not something people talk about during daytime, and sure as hell not explaining to Westerners ( the vast majority of these places do not welcome foreigners).

-What is the "normal" number of single men in Japan in their 20's who have never been on a date? What was that number in the 80's?" -What is the current number of married men and women in Japan who have never been on a date? Omiai is a thing, but allegedly only single digit percentages of marriage rates. -To what degree are these "never been on a date" numbers skewed by people lying out of shame? What are the real numbers?

Historically, religion has made pre marriage interaction between a man and a woman essentially banned. You "should not" meet or talk to a girl /boy who is not your relative a term( mahram, which is a male relative who by consanguinity cannot have sex with) is often used so society is built around that concept.

A college going guy/girl is not supposed to talk let alone be friendly because religion. That, over time has engrained into the entire society so for one, there is no concept of teen pregnancy because situation does not evolve to a point two people can have sex before getting married.

Years ago, I saw a 13 Yo couple "kissing" on the street like 7 years ago. That's literally the only time I've seen PDA of sorts.

Marriage is also weird because you are supposed to be a celibate before marriage, then your "parents" arrange a marriage and you are expected to sign off on it either on a photo of the other person or a brief interaction.

The quirk of arrange marriage, you need to be "saleable" by way of a degree/job/business.

What happens is, a 25-27 yo guy is either studying or unemployed. Girls? They either get a low paying job to get a tag of "employed" or just stay at home.

Guys? Unless they start working, they are not considered ready till 28-29. Then it usually takes 2-4 years to "arrange a marriage".

Now, its common to have 35-40 year olds getting married because the guy "wasn't earning enough" and because of religious compulsions, are always virgins.

Over the last decade, instances of divorce have increased manifold because now people are starting to not put up with a bad relationship which was the societal norm and suddenly older generation is waking up to people getting divorced because the couple don't know how to handle a relationship

They mention later that Japanese culture is more group-social than, presumably, the author's culture, and perhaps couples can have spent a lot of time together before calling it a date.

Of course there are other ways to get a date, but I suspect they have a pretty defined meaning for it.

I think this is what is meant

In both cases, about 5% of married people considered themselves to be at 0 people in both categories. It’s not about sex, it’s about having another person you spent time with in a romantic intent.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201710...

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-u-s-fertility-rate-...

>In 2010, another survey published The Japanese Association for Sex Education Research Journal found that 40.8% (up from 34.6% in 2006) of marriages in Japan could be classified as "sexless"

What an absolute disaster. Imagine all of Japan's recent Fukushima type events combined? How many deaths are associated with sexless marriages. Holy crap this is a disaster greater then their recent nuclear meltdown by whole factor levels. Easily hundreds of thousands of deaths every year.

What happens with sexless marriages? You stay at work because it's far less depressing to be at work than be at home in a sexless marriage. So Japanese work long hours. Yet people are lonely... and clearly quite unhappy. They even have a 'minister of loneliness'. So what does 'work' do? Try to make you happy. Mandatory happy training!

They are unhappy... they just need to get laid. Worse yet, you have such a large percentage of your work force who are sexless and unhappy. What does this do to productivity? How about that economic collapse because of tremendous government debt and tremendous taxes?

I gotta to wonder are there any intimate or romantic displays are or they basically just roommates.

The way I take it, no. If you're a platonic asexual couple. You wouldn't see a problem being at home in a sexless marriage. It would show up in the studies as well. It's not that extent.

The problem there's resentment, there's anger, you stay away intentionally to avoid extra anger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_sexual_arousal_disorder

There is a problem and for so many societal reasons it needs to be addressed.

Sexlessness is possibly one of the biggest problems facing humanity. Obviously there's a whole 'incel' thing going on but that's just CBC putting a name to the new issue of violence caused by sexlessness.

The fundamental blame is on all these 'patriarchy', 'toxic masculinity', 'affirmative consent', and actively disadvantaging men.

Which is interesting, there's an active attack on men and it's resulting in men pulling out of the sex market. This leaves fewer men available but women have to basically agree to 1 night stands and have no chance of long term relationships. Everyone involved in sexlessness is becoming depressed and then being given drugs to make them want sex less.

Obviously I am blaming the feminists and not egalitarians. Politically this will result in pro-family politicians to gain power.

But they wont cash in that power right away. They will continue to allow leftist teachers to teach children this absolutely disastrous politics.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/date

date: 4a an appointment to meet at a specified time especially a social engagement between two persons that often has a romantic character

Do you really not have appointments with your spouse which are of a romantic character? I would highly recommend it.

Are we still „dating“?

Who wants to date, marry, or have kids if you can barely live your life?

I did find instances of working condition reforms and incentives.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Five-things-to-know-about-Ja...

https://japantoday.com/category/features/lifestyle/Tokyo%E2%...

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/pdf...

As to your question: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/birt... The current birth rate for U.S. in 2022 is 12.012 births per 1000 people https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/birth-rate The current birth rate for Japan in 2022 is 7.109 births per 1000 people

I'd say the number of people who date, marry or have kids is not so different from other countries.

Approx ~10k~ 1k USD per year is ~probably~ deffo not going to be enough, though.

>Approx 10k USD per year

100k JPY is 742 dollars. Which of the two numbers did you fuddle?

[1] https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20220420/p2a/00m/0na/00... [2] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/11/11/national/politi... [3] https://wagaya-japan.com/en/journal_detail.php?id=5866

Apparently most of humanity for most of recorded history.

20-something males (in Japan and, to an increasing degree in the US) are not foregoing dating and marriage due to ‘working conditions.’ The reasons are, regrettably, more complex. Indeed, in the current state we’re in, giving young men more leisure time and money would undoubtedly result in more hours spent playing with their new phones.

In poorer SE Asian countries, such as the Philippines, you don't have these same expectations. That country is still a place where people barely surviving off a farm have large families. There is also the factor where the Catholic Church resists the idea of birth control.

Obviously, people in our times just don't care about having children that strongly, so even mild (in comparison) sacrifices required are enough to make them go childless.

I think the next century revelation will be that you should focus on individual growth rather than population growth. In our tech-oriented economy, it matters more that you have quality technology rather than quantitative production.

> Who wants to date, marry, or have kids if you can barely live your life?

Apparently, most of Africa.

The biggest country in Africa is still showing high birth rates: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/nigeria-popul... Although it's slightly declining, but still a long way from reducing population sizes.

Niger for example is population-booming: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/niger-populat...

All of Africa: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/africa-popula...

My guess is that in pre-modern times, a lot of child care would happen by various neighbors so everyone would have some experience being around small kids. Now childcare is largely a business where specific people spend everyday, all day caring for kids (daycare, pre-K, kindergarten, etc).

One side doesn't want to admit that a lot of poor people have a good bit of free time available to them, particularly those who receive social services.

The other side doesn't want to admit that middle class and up folks have been working long hours at a cost to their personal lives and development, that isn't new, but now both mom and dad are doing it and households aren't really any better off.

This results in poor people with the time to make and raise children, doing so and receiving government subsidies to provide for them. The problem is the government can't give you time or your youth back so the well off just stopped having kids.

The narrative changes when people grow older, nearing the end of a woman's viable productive years. All of a sudden it is "Why don't you have kids yet? You're not getting any younger. The clock is ticking." Once one overcomes dealing with the conflicting messaging and the emotional toil in that, this leaves time for one, occasionally two in the best case, children and no more. For others it is simply too late.

You don’t see any issue with people who haven’t even completed high school having children?

For example, my mother in law had children as a young teen. She advised her daughters against doing that, but she also had a bad family that didn't support her. She had five kids, the youngest, now 30, cumulatively, have fewer kids than she did. One example, of a benefit to having kids young, is fecundity.

My mother in law is also younger and can help with the grandkids more and can spend more time with them. Your late teens and twenties you're better about to function on low or interrupted sleep and keep up with a rambunctious little one. A young parent will likely be closer, in an experiential sense, to their children and that may lead to a closer relationship.

The challenges - mainly not being ready emotionally or financially, seem like the kind of thing that having a supportive family would address. If my children were to get pregnant at, say, fifteen, I'd expect to be the one financially responsible (or share the responsibility with the other grandparents) and same for childcare. I would expect to hand that responsibility over to the parents over the course of a decade or so.

Outside of those influences, in hindsight, the high school years would have been the perfect time to have children. They are virtually wasted years anyway, being old enough to be ready to start to spread your wings, but not considered old enough to do so. The time could be used productively to focus on the critical early years of rearing a child. Once you reach your prime, deemed ready to go out into the world and make something of yourself, your children will be starting to become independent. If you are well-off the financial supports are already in place, so that is moot.

However, in practice, it would be a challenge because of how society demonizes it. Humans are social creatures that rely on a stable society to survive. Being ostracized from that society is a complication one logically tries to avoid.

Umm what? Am I offbase in assuming you dont have kids? Its absolutely not a great idea to have children in high school. And I have 2 sisters who did. Without getting into too many details, I think it would have been more stable and much, _much_ easier if they didn't have children that young. Not only are you losing out on so much as a parent, but you are not even equipped to deal with the harshness of life for yourself let alone a completely helpless other person. Whats your plan as a 16/17 year old for your kid having a 105 temperature and having to go to the ER unannounced? Whats your plan to pay for daycare? Are you moving in with your partner at this point or do you play a weird game of parents being "separated" and shuttling between the houses? Do you even own a car?

It makes no sense

> When I was in high school what did I have to do with my time? Not much. Time that could have been put into the child

Where are you getting all this magical time and money to be a responsible parent as a completely naive/inexperienced teenager? It presumes and absolutely requires someone else being able to take up the slack and provide for you as the parent because you are completely incapable of doing it without the help. I'm all for supporting parents who need the help, but I'm nowhere near suggesting "actually its best to have kids when you arent capable of raising them yourself". Not to mention the weird generational gap that then creates where your child now has their own child but is looking to you for guidance on how to raise them but you relied on grandma/grandpa for a lot of that maturity when you had them.

Also this is without considering the strain kids add to a relationship that somehow we think is magically going to be fine for a 16/17 year old.

Your entire "rebuttal" is about the lack of support structures that are missing exactly because society does not condone people having children. Something which was already established throughout the thread, being the core premise raised.

Interesting--I feel the exact opposite: You have much more free time as an adult than you do in high school (or college age). When I was < 22 years old, a huge part of my life was in school, studying, cramming for tests, doing extra-curriculars, applying to colleges. Then once in college, it was 18 credits a year worth of classes, labs, the whole nine yards. Absolutely everything I did was scheduled and accounted for. Class at this time, sports practice at that time, music lessons here, club meetings there, and so on. Ain't no way I had time to raise a kid! Once I became an adult, I had what? Work and maybe set aside some time for bills/chores, but otherwise I needed to get a damn hobby in order to not go insane!

As my (tiger-ish) parents would have put it: If you're bored in High School, you're not spending enough time studying.

Wouldn't you rather spend the time studying when you're older? I have found studying to be much more enjoyable, and useful, the older I get. Having a breadth of experience to relate it to improves things substantially.

It is not so much being unable to find things to spend time at, but often it being a waste. Like cramming for tests. Looking back, who cares? If they are feel-good activities for you, great. Don't discount what you love. But if you are someone who wanted children, I'm sure spending time with children would have been worthwhile too.

Yup... you need to start very young to have a high chance of having more than two kids.

In fact, they could go further: 3 day work week. "What? 3? 4 was nuts, 3 is insane!" Before you balk, note that before bringing women into the workforce a typical couple contributed 5 out of 14 days to the workforce. 3*2 is 6, and 6/14 is more than 5/14. Also, 6/14 is less than 7/14 meaning parents are allowed to raise their children again. Wouldn't that be nice? Perhaps even nice enough to fix this stupid problem we made for ourselves?

Obviously it's not the 50s, and there is the matter of international competition to consider. Just remember: China has the same problem, but worse. Cooperation may be possible.

I don't have high hopes. Capital controls the world. Policy will continue to be "labor get rekt" for the foreseeable future, and in the most shortsighted and cynical way possible, with no allowance for the possibility that healthy balances might wind up being a win for everyone. With AI... it's going to get worse before it gets better. A lot worse.

Since then we've been on a steady regression to the industrial revolution, where employers hold all the power and can use people as they see fit (i.e. forget working only 40 hours a week), and only the aristocracy can afford leisure and child care.

Yes they have a point that it shouldn't be so hard and they shouldn't have to move across the country to scratch out a living. But I don't see how living in your parents basement is better. You can play the hand you're dealt while fighting to make it better for the next generation.

Unions were a symptom of an abusive employer. As that abuse subsided, union representation waned.

There are two reasons why managers are so scared about this development. First, middle managers get promoted by being noticed by their superiors. Hard to do when nobody is in the office. Secondly, in a world where a manager can dictate whether your retirement is funded and whether you will be able to have your medical bills covered next month, suddenly we have a sense of power arising from the lowly hourly and salaried employees who once again learned that they have the power to say "no."

I don't know how the situation is in the USA, but in Brazil we have the myth of mothers having 10 children just to get more money for each child.

Is this not mostly true? It seems government does pick up the tab for impoverished children. School, school lunch, Medicaid, SNAP/WIC, and easier to get housing as a woman with kids (both through charities and HUD housing and grants).

I'm not against food stamps at all, and at one point came close to being on them myself. I don't judge people for needing assistance. When you see such flagrant abuses of the system, however, it tends to burn a little empathy out of you.

Just handing a man $80 in cash and taking his food stamps means potentially enabling behaviors- alcoholism, drug abuse, etc.- that I don't want to enable. Maybe he just though that less hassle would have been worth having $20 less to spend, I dunno. I've been around enough alcoholics, drug addicts and con artists that I'm not going to just hand money out to people.

Statistics guarantee that there will be a lot of anecdotes like the ones you've told. The question is: how representative they truly are? Again, I can only talk about my own country, but I hear the same speech here as well. Statistically speaking, though, just giving people money was the right way to go: most will spend in what they need and yeah, that's way more than just painstakingly-controlled government-allowed list of items. Birth rates actually dropped even more amongst welfare recipients, etc...

I don't know for Japan. People work long even for lower salary.

It's often a financially comfortable life; but there's 0 flexibility to find an employer that allows a 9-5 workday, even if you're willing to take a pay cut.

Elon is saying that high-paid professionals in the US have fewer children than the lower-middle class, which is absolutely true. Doctors, lawyers, and engineers are far below replacement fertility.

(And in fact, of the very few who did, it is always when the husband was a resident and the wife stay-at-home or a different career. In these cases, the finances were not a huge constraint; if nothing else, it is extremely easy to take on cheap debt as a resident.)

I can't speak as confidently to lawyers and interning, but I'd be surprised if the dynamic was different.

If you really want a "fun" way to look at it, find an IQ vs. fertility rate chart. Only IQs of 80 and lower are above replacement.

- the women are competing for top ~10% of men, who almost always will have multiple casual partners at any given time because of this

- the (other 90% of) men are competing for the top 50% of women

It's a mess of poorly defined and misaligned interests. This leads to tension and stereotypes ("all men are assholes! all women are harlots!") and sexual inequality.