I remember a column from five or maybe even six years ago that Paul Craig Roberts wrote regarding this very issue, and essentially reaching the same conclusion. What material benefit does marriage provide to men, who can gain many of the benefits previously available within the framework of the marriage covenant outside of that covenant? If man can satisfy his sexual needs, while maintaining relationships that satisfy his need for fellowship and not sacrificing his individual freedom, then why marry.
The societal benefits are no longer nested within self-interest and therefore do not seem to be relevant. In addition, the risk involved in marriage is high. A woman can fabricate a story detailing alleged misconduct or merely express suspicions that her soon to be ex-husband has abused her, or has proclivities to abuse their children, or children in general, and his rights are curtailed for the protection of others. The presumption of innocence is not applicable in divorce proceedings, merely the appearance of credibility on the part of the accuser. That inverse burden of proof in itself creates a massive barrier to marriage. Using a communal property model that mandates a fifty-fifty split of a couple’s material wealth upon divorce, and the likelihood of generous spousal and child support awards, coupled with the rate of divorce, marriage translates into an effective 25-30% reduction of wealth and future earnings for a man. Why pay that price for the cow, when milk is readily available for free?
