I'd like to address some of Emily's points since they were partially spot-on but need some further evaluation:
EmilyFoxSeaton said:
* when marriage first started it was a straight up contract for sex. Women couldn't work and thus were drains on their family and their family had to provide for them when they were gone. So fathers "bribed" men to marry their daughters (with dowerys) to take them off their hands for life. The man did this and got a woman he could always have sex with, kids with, and then, could also have mistresses on the side. Marriages could be arranged for political and society benefit. It was hard to get sex outside of marriage.
Women did not work
outside the home, but they did work in and around it. They were called homemakers for a reason, but that doesn't mean they were just baby ovens and glorified cleaning ladies since there were tasks like sewing clothes for the man and kids or taking care of the family business pre-industrialization. Sure that didn't earn them any money, but it was work that didn't need to be outsourced and paid for either.
EmilyFoxSeaton said:
* when women started getting more rights, it was wrong to use the above as a justification for marriage, so they had to use "love". A false concept that has taken a relatively sort term feeling and try to extrapolate that over 30 to 40 years. Yes they had to sell people on marriage as an "estate of love". But they still trapped people in it. You could not get out of marriage so, you had to commit. Of course men had mistresses but it was for life. It was hard for guys to get sex unless married.
Yeah, "romantic love" as the sole foundation for a marriage is proved to be rather ineffective. Platonic love, equal rights
and equal accountability might work better.
EmilyFoxSeaton said:
* then women got some more rights and divorces started. Now we still had the "love" justification but you could still get out of it. Still it isn't and wasn't easy. And we moved to this whole "the importance of marriage and family" justification for encouraging people to stay married... and they did.
You must be referring to no-fault-divorce here. Interestingly it started the trend that women file for divorce more than men do to this very day. But quite often it didn't release the man of financial responsibility.
EmilyFoxSeaton said:
* then women started getting per se custody of the kids; and could effectively destroy a man with bogus domestic violence charges; pretty much everyone has divorces and bad / short term relationships and with gays getting married (and getting divorced too) it kind of makes the "importance of marriage and family" seem a little silly. Women started giving up sex more easily and not requiring much of anything in return.
This. The domestic violence laws which are so heavily in favor of women and the default shift of parental custody to them (also for bogus reasons) in combination with no-fault-divorce lowered the incentive for men immensely, because he could end up in a livelong commitment to support his former family without living with them or even seeing any of them. His provider instinct might still motivate him, but logic will tell him "No".
EmilyFoxSeaton said:
* until we are at a point where there really isn't much incentive to commit. What exactly do guys get out of it anymore? Especially if they are a catch. If they date they can have sex with a different woman every night. They can stay with a woman for a long time and drop her like a hot potato if they get sick of her -- as long as they don't "commit" When they get older and they want to "settle down" they can find some 20 year old who will pop a few kids out before becoming aware and kicking him to the curve.
As Paraiyar hinted, even if he doesn't commit (legally) he can still end up being held responsible in case an "accident" happens (pregnancy) and she doesn't want to abort the baby or possibly lied about birth control since men lack the right to financial abortion. The other dark side of the culture of casual sex is false rape accusations of course.
With all this in mind, we already know it's not the women who are collectively abandoning marriage, right? MGTOW is a thing. So maybe "No one" wanting to commit is not entirely accurate.
AmytheTemperamental said:
Some guys seem to have difficulty with women "not needing them enough".
That's correct. Goes back to the provider instinct I mentioned.