I'm trying to follow the logic here. I can understand that a woman looking to get married may decide that a man is such a poor economic prospect that he's not husband material (even if a husband with a low income is better than no husband and no income). But how then is that same man, or a string of them, worthy of fathering her children?

Nature is full of this type of behavior in vwhich even pair bonded animals cheat. The logic is this. Some males are good father and providers. They are the type worth bonding with to raise offspring. Others are better physical specimens. They are strong and handsome, but not as interested in or as devoted to raising the offspring. One you marry, the other you get to give some awesome looking genes to your kids.

You are basically discussing two seperate duties or role. One is to provide genetic material. The other is to provide material (and emotional) support. Is it really a surprise that sometimes the two aren't best filled by one man?

I think you're on the right track, but it seems to me that being handsome isn't any more important than being a good provider when it comes to good genes. A man who's a good provider will have kids who are successful as well.

The more important thing that Emily is missing here is that these women aren't necessarily choosing these guys to have kids with; the kids just happen. I think something like 70% of pregnancies in this country are unplanned. Marriage, on the other hand, never happens accidentally, so women can afford to be more choosy about who they tie the knot with.

I would be interested to know if that 70% is a true statistic. From what I can tell, is it closer to 50%. ArgusRun is talking about a pretty basic thing that is taught as early as introductory psychology. There are many animals that will mate for life but have offspring with other animals besides their mates.

Unplanned? I think it's closer to the truth to say that these people plan not to plan. As in "Yeah, I'm seeing Susie tonight but I'll rely on her to bring the condoms." Or, "Darn, the diaphragm's across the room, but I don't want to break the mood and he always complains it pinches anyway." Then, when a baby's the result, evolution kicks in and the mother WANTS THAT BABY: "Oh, he doesn't have a job and he doesn't love me either, and I just have a minimum-wage job and I live with my mother, but abortion is wrong and how could you live with yourself if you let someone adopt your own child?"

moonwatcher wrote: "I think you're on the right track, but it seems to me that being handsome isn't any more important than being a good provider when it comes to good genes. A man who's a good provider will have kids who are successful as well."

Not in today's society and especially if the offspring is/are female. Not having looks working for you makes you a loser in virtually every important venue of life until late middle age.

Its the point that isn't raised in the discussion of this issue. Since women want to move up in their relationship, they gravitate to the small number of men who meet this requirement. Now that there is no longer a societal control over having children out of wedlock, is it any mystery why this is increasing rapidly?

Meanwhile the "good providers" need to prove themselves before they are given the opportunity to raise someone else's child(ren). Of course, this highlights another societal change. Good providers are saying "No thanks. There is no longer pressure on me to marry and if this is my role, I'll opt out."

Besides, most people I know who don't have looks working for them, are very reluctant to bring a child into this environment.