@Willow99 Not sure I understand what you’re intending to convey. I’m trying to p

@Willow99 Not sure I understand what you’re intending to convey. I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value. In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male. Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so. We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction.