"For all of society's expectation that men and women pair up and marry at all ages, men are coming to the inescapable realization that there are only two rational reasons for a man to marry: Because either he wants to have children and the woman in question is likely to produce intelligent, healthy offspring, or, if he doesn't want (more) kids, the woman in question has considerable wealth and is happy to share it.

"This isn't universally true; yes, men still marry women who aren't wealthy and are too old for kids, but it's getting more and more rare. If a man wants companionship, there's no need to invite the government into his relationship with his companion."

John, you're going to have to clarify and provide proof of your assertions. On what facts do you base your notion that men are coming to your "inescapably rational" realizations? Most men marry women who aren't wealthy. Some men marry women who want want kids, some men marry women who don't, some men marry younger women, some men marry older women and so on... You boxes are a little too neat.

Also, what does the government have to do with anything? Are you saying that men should date but not marry too-old-for-kids non-wealthy women because otherwise the government would be involved in their relationship? How so? I know there are legal issues around marriage and...oh, i get it now.... So John, how badly did you get burned in your divorce?

John may have clearly articulated his viewpoint but so what? He hasn't proved anything. He's taken a series of factoids and asserted that his interpretation of them is "logical". I'm still waiting for him to provide any reasonable evidence, not just his assertions, that men in general are coming to his "inescapably rational" realizations. I suspect I'll be waiting awhile. The rest is just the usual "Men's Rights" stuff with a dash of odd anti-government libertarianism thrown in. It is amusing though that he suffers from the same affliction that he points out in others. Namely, inflating his personal issues into dubious social philosophy.

"The Rutgers University Study on the state of marriage in 2002.

From a poll taken, 22% of all men asked will not ever consider getting at all no matter what."

So, 22% of men responded that they will not ever consider getting married? re-married? no matter what......means that men in general are coming to John's inescapably rational realizations that men should either a) only get married to partners who can provide them with healthy children or b) if they don't want more (or I'm assuming any) kids, then they can date women their age or older, but only if those women are wealthy and don't mind sharing their money with them? Uh huh. "I ain't saying you a golddigger..."

John, it seems like you're posing as some sort of politically incorrect truth teller. In reality though, you're the person who opened his mouth and removed all doubt. You should have stopped at Amazon.

Of course you don't have proof, scientific or otherwise, for your assertions and your evidence, as I stated before, is merely your questionable interpretation of certain factoids. Let's see, 75% of all divorces are "initiated" by women therefore most divorces can be blamed on women, who, of course, are then looking to "cash out" from their soon-to-be poor suffering spouses? C'mon... Btw, I'm thinking of starting a drinking game. Everytime you use the phrase "cash out", it's time for a tequila shot!

Or, the marriage rate has gone down since year whatever. So, your "logic" dictates that this is due to men not wanting to marry. Just like that. No fuss, no muss. As evidence for your statement, you provide a survey which purports to show that a whopping 22% of men say they will never marry. Of course this means that non-marriage minded men, who, using your logic, I suppose are trying to avoid cashing out vixens, are primarily responsible for the drop in the marriage rate? What else could it be!? This is really amateur hour stuff at this point.

How about your advice...um, I mean "inescapably rational realization", to men. First you counsel that men should only marry women who they think can produce intelligent and healthy kids. Aside from the hubris and "The Handmaid's Tale" vibe, it's not as big of a howler as your subsequent advice.

Namely, that if men don't want any/more kids then it's okay to date, but not marry a women older or their age, but, (here's the fun part) they must be wealthy and (wait there's more) they must be willing to share their dough with you. The arrogance implict in that advice is remarkable. As if those women should be grateful for such dubious attention. Why should THEY? Also, why should they rent a used Yugo when they can rent or buy a fresh Mercedes? I mean if they are supposed to pay for it, they might as well get something worthwhile and better than any old thing that comes along.

Overall, the only thing equal to the "Sex and the City" type whiners who go on about "Drama Kings", "Listless Lads", "Are Men Necessary" and whatnot are the "Men's Rights" whining posse who try to pretend that personal exceptions are the rule or norm. Yes, there are legitimate "male" concerns around issues like alimony, child support, paternal rights and "paternity fraud", but let's not get carried away with the vicimization thing. In other words, for Gawd's sake stop whining and going on about "The Good Old Days". You're making us guys look bad.

Perhaps people tend to forget one can be honest and full of shit at the same time. Sure, she's honest for expressing her true feelings, but, while she has buyer's remorse, she knew what she was getting into and it doesn't appear that the kids are miserable beasts who are making her life miserable.