
The Decline of Marriage - renegadesensei
https://medium.com/@keiyakukekkon/the-decline-of-marriage-62faeb8e64b1
======
wuschel
The article is a PR piece for " __Keiyaku Kekkon __" , a japanese marriage
partner startup.

I quickly read through the text - and wondered what I had learned. It does not
present any interesting conclusions, or back its statements with data.

Here is the exec summary of the startup's business model:

"Keiyaku Kekkon is a marriage-focused dating website with a twist. The name is
Japanese and literally means "Contract Marriage." Users create their ideal
marriage agreement and match up with a suitable partner.

Unlike typical dating sites that match people based on personality, Keiyaku
Kekkon matches people based on their marriage contracts. Users can spell out
exactly what they want out of marriage and exactly what they have to offer."

[1] [http://keiyakukekkon.com](http://keiyakukekkon.com)

~~~
Brendinooo
>The most important fact motivating this essay is simply that the vast
majority of adults want to get married and have children. This suggests that
the reduction in marriage rates reflects not a conscious choice but rather
people running into various obstacles preventing them from finding a partner.

Thanks to the parent comment we know that this is self-serving to a certain
extent since they they're selling a solution to the problem.

Nevertheless, this is an interesting point to make. It's one thing if people
don't want marriage and reject it as such, something else if they do want to
get married and don't/can't make it happen. Do they truly want marriage in the
sense of what it's traditionally meant - exclusive and permanent, but
externalities mentioned in the article hinder it from happening?

Or do people just want a big party when they're young and a friend when
they're old, and attach "marriage" to the sentiment?

~~~
watwut
There does not seem to be any mention of big party nor being friends in later
age in article. There is mention of career for women (that is not a party) and
expectation of completely different lifestyle for married man and married
women in the article. Men is supposed to work (in japan context means maybe
Sunday afternoon off), so I don't think couple gets to know each other to be
friends.

The only real externalities mentioned are that

1.) You cant keep up with Jones if Jones have two incomes and you have one (It
kinda assumed that if we both have to work it counts as external obstacle to
marriage. E.g. the assumption seems to be that people want 1960 middle or
higher class marriage and don't bother when they cant get exactly that).

2.) No one arrange "suitable" marriage for you and there is no societal
pressure to marry for you.

I would say, that if you need pressure to marry, then maybe you do not want to
marry. I would also say, that both points are you making marriage decisions
based on social status it brings to you, in which case I am quite happy you
are not my partner.

~~~
Brendinooo
> There does not seem to be any mention of big party nor being friends

That was my point - sometimes people have stances on issues without really
knowing why they believe what they do. I was just postulating another option
that the article didn't explore. In other words, could the more conservative
folks here wave this article around and say "see, people have an innate desire
for lifelong monogamy!", or is it possible that some of the cultural aspects
of marriage could manifest in other ways that would then cause a person to say
"nah, I don't need marriage now"?

> I would say, that if you need pressure to marry, then maybe you do not want
> to marry.

Nah. I benefit from pressure to do lots of things that are good for me.
Working out, accomplishing things at work, contributing to a retirement fund,
getting to the doctor, etc. Yeah, peer pressure can take you to dumb places,
but it's not inherently evil.

~~~
watwut
I am not saying that marriage is bad for you. But, if the lack of peer
pressure is the reason why you don't marry, then I dont want to be unlucky
lady who might end up thinking you actually wants to be with her. Or unlucky
dude if genders are reversed.

There is nothing about monogamy in the article.

------
losvedir
Like I imagine many HN readers, I had a visceral negative reaction to a lot of
this post, since it directly attacks a lot of the new cultural norms I grew up
in (and cherish).

On the other hand, it does seem to raise some interesting points, so I hope it
doesn't get flagged. Our new culture is relatively untested; a lot of our
ideas about sex and relationships and children are only a couple generations
old. I'm happily married with no children (maybe some to come in the future?
Not sure). In this thread I've seen people propose polyamorous communes, and
long term life partnerships with children but not marriage. These things _may_
work out, but there's not much of a historical precedent for them, as far as I
know.

I recently came back from a trip to Oman. I talked with a ton of people there,
and their cultural perspective was very different (and interesting!). While a
lot of the younger adults were wanting to get married and have children a
little later, there was still a pretty sizeable contingent of the population
my age that already had several children. And it was clear that Islam there
was such a community-driving force, I could see how their traditions were
pretty robust.

All this to say, I have my doubts that my concept of "prosperous, liberal,
Western civilization" will live on for the long term. But if the people are
fairly content and happy as it fades, is that such an issue? I'm not sure. My
biggest regret if it dies is that we may never figure out all the secrets of
the universe. But alas, thinking of all my highly educated PhD scientist
friends in their 30s, there's only one child.

edit to add: I completely forgot to mention probably the most culturally
interesting part (to me) of the Oman trip: it was for a wedding of a friend,
but it was a mostly arranged marriage (the bride and groom had veto power, but
their parents found the match and they only knew each other for a short while
before deciding to marry).

~~~
api
Your last sentence brings up something I've been thinking about for a long
time, namely that secular philosophy seems completely blind to children or to
the needs of family and child rearing.

It's a fairly massive shortcoming. Philosophy must address all of human life,
not just the aspects that apply to early 20s single people and that subset of
society that doesn't have kids.

Some secular communities actively seem to discourage children and belittle
people who care about them. It's also common to see full time moms mocked,
which I see as misogyny.

I usually get attacked in forums for bringing this whole topic up.

Needless to say if not believing in God means you don't want to reproduce,
then the advent of birth control will guarantee a 100% religious future. Not
only are ideas passed from parent to child through cultural mechanisms but if
there is any biological basis for religiosity it is now being strongly
selected for.

In an ultimate cosmic irony those who deny evolution on religious grounds seem
to have higher fitness.

I have my own hypothesis about this. I think there may be a philosophical
"uncanny valley" (fitness valley) between pre-rational superstitious thinking
and true rational thought. IMHO this valley has not been crossed. A true fully
formed rational worldview would manage to carry everything forward including
fertility and spirituality. So far every attempt at conceiving such a thing
has landed in New Age lala land but maybe we should not give up.

~~~
Danihan
How many agnostic / atheist people do you know that have four or more kids?

Atheists don't genuinely seem to believe in natural selection, it's ironic.

~~~
maxerickson
What are you implying that a belief in natural selection requires?

~~~
Danihan
An understanding that natural selection is a competitive process and at least
some inclination to participate in that competition.

~~~
maxerickson
There's nothing ironic about people not embracing your misapprehension of the
idea.

~~~
Danihan
What is my misapprehension exactly?

~~~
maxerickson
That genuine belief in the concept necessitates any action.

~~~
Danihan
Personally, I think genuine beliefs correlate pretty strongly with action. But
I see your point.

------
Moshe_Silnorin
Natural selection will take care of this eventually, either genetically or
memeticly. I suspect the outcome will not be as happy as what the traditions
we flouted provided. The birth rate is likely the most telling critique of
western society.

Our revealed preference is our civilization is not worth perpetuating.

As of now only those who deliberately desire children and those unable to
follow the instructions on the back of contraception packaging reproduce. It
will be interesting to see how this works out long term.

~~~
ef4
There's a fundamental flaw hiding under arguments like yours: the
"civilization" you're circumscribing is an imaginary and arbitrary boundary.
An ahistorical retcon. It's as unsupported as discredited racial theories that
all humans fit into three tidy buckets ("caucasoid", "mongoloid", "negroid").

For example, maybe you're talking about "Christendom". But then it's not
actually in decline -- hispanics are part of Christendom, and Christianity is
growing in Africa, so on net it's growing, not shrinking.

Maybe you mean the population within the actual geographic boundaries of
Europe and the former British colonies (including America). But if that's your
definition, then you would accept immigration as a solution, and you would
admit that America is already doing fine.

Maybe you're talking about people who live in societies with constitutions
that ultimately derive from the ideas of the enlightenment. But again, not
shrinking.

Maybe you're talking about a specific local cultural tradition -- but then
it's not really "the West" that's in decline. "Western civilization"
necessarily spans a huge range of cultures, otherwise you can't successfully
take credit for everything from Socrates to Charlemagne to Descarte to Luther
to Newton to Einstein. Consider the magnitude of the cultural turnover across
that span!

Is South America part of "Western civilization"? It's literally in the western
hemisphere and colonized by Spain and Portugal. If you're really talking about
having a connection to European cultural history, it clearly fits. But if we
include it, then again the decline disappears. Guatemalan immigrations to the
US can't be a non-western invasion.

What it boils down to is, people use "western civilization" as a cover for
"white people just like me". But there's no non-racist way to equate that with
"civilization".

Our civilization -- the actual web of relationships and institutions that keep
the lights on -- is clearly doing fine. That web is fundamentally global, as
much as that annoys chauvinists. And globally, the world is getting richer and
more equal at a rapid pace. Mortality is falling. The population is not in
decline, although it has a good shot at plateauing in the coming decades,
which will be a good thing.

~~~
remarkEon
>Our civilization -- the actual web of relationships and institutions that
keep the lights on -- is clearly doing fine.

Given even a passing look at just the last 2 decades, and the serious
prospects for massive social unrest going forward both in the States and in
Europe, which often get discussed here, how in the world can you say that.
"The World" (since you apparently are one of those who think the term "Western
Civilization" is racist), in my judgement, is looking at the most global
security risk since the lead up to WWI. There's well documented demographic
shifts in Europe that could lead to a fundamental cultural re-imaging of the
continent. We might be careening into another financial crisis.

No, it is not "clearly doing fine."

~~~
ef4
> Given even a passing look at just the last 2 decades

In the last two decades, the share of humans living in extreme poverty fell
from 30% to 10%. And child deaths under age five were _cut in half_.

So where's your data?

I will add that I don't think "western civilization" is racist, even though
the term gets coopted often by racists. I happen to be proud to be part of a
scientific civilization and want to see it flourish. But I recognize that has
nothing to do with which people are allowed to live and work on which side of
imaginary lines.

~~~
Danihan
>But I recognize that has nothing to do with which people are allowed to live
and work on which side of imaginary lines.

I'm so tired of these sorts of facile statements. They're so smugly wrong-
headed.

Is real estate comprised of nothing more than imaginary lines? No, it isn't.
It has massive social and economic value.

Territory matters, access rights to said territory matters matters, to
literally every living thing on Earth. Even tree roots are constantly fighting
and competing for finite resources and territory on time-lapse.

What do you think an invasive species is? Are those imaginary?

The idea of boundaries isn't some new thing. It's essentially the reason we
developed laws and civilization in the first place, to manage territory in a
rational way. Territorial delineations aren't just "imaginary lines."

Are laws just imaginary words to you? Are title agencies imaginary businesses?
Does money only have imaginary value? Why not give it all away then.

Your perspective seems absurdly detached to me.

~~~
ef4
I'm not objecting to the existence of geographic boundaries. I'm objecting to
the idea that those geographic boundaries say anything meaningful about the
_people_ born on either side of said boundaries.

> Is real estate comprised of nothing more than imaginary lines? No, it isn't.

I agree. But I think that a real estate sale is a voluntary contract between
two consenting adults, and it's none of your business if I want to sell some
of mine to someone who happened to be born slightly too may miles away to end
up on the "right" side of some border.

Nativists like to pretend to be defenders of human liberty, when they're just
nanny staters with different preferences.

> Even tree roots are constantly fighting and competing for finite resources
> and territory on time-lapse.

Yes, but why does it matter if the other organism you're competing with was
born in El Paso vs half a mile away in Juarez? The nativist position is that
one is vigorous, dynamic market competition and the other is a foreign
invasion. When really they are exactly the same.

Sure, all living things compete (in addition to cooperating -- all ecosystems
and markets feature a network of both). But that does not explain the fetish
for treating certain people as OK to compete and others as not.

> What do you think an invasive species is? Are those imaginary?

Obviously we are only discussing _human_ immigrants here, so unless you're
making an underhanded comment about the inhumanity of foreigners, where are
you going with this analogy?

Realize that's not just snark -- the whole argument rests on the idea that
there's a bright line between two sets of people. That line is completely
imaginary. I guarantee you couldn't find it in an experiment, if I got to pick
50 American citizens and 50 non-citizens and you had to tell who was who just
by talking to them.

~~~
Danihan
Do you genuinely believe that the mass importation of people with radically
different beliefs and customs (such as an adherence to Sharia Law) would have
no effect on the native population? That cultural change wouldn't affect
scientific freedoms? That it wouldn't affect civil liberties? Technological
advancement? Crime rates?

Does it seem impossible to you that cultural differences could spark a civil
war? Do you disbelieve that native populations can be essentially wiped out by
a competing or hostile culture within a few short generations, similar to the
fate of the Native Americans?

Why should someone believe that all cultures are equal when some cultures and
nation states are much, much more successful by almost any quantifiable
metric?

------
renegadesensei
Cool to see I got some comments! Thanks for the feedback everyone.

I'm an expat programmer living in Tokyo and Keiyaku Kekkon is a side project
of mine. Got the idea from watching a Japanese drama actually. I'll probably
do a "Show HN" eventually. It's still in alpha and kind of buggy. Making
websites isn't really my specialty so this project was a cool learning
experience.

It's like midnight here and I'm going to bed, but feel free to leave questions
or contact me if you want to know more about anything. Peace!

~~~
gnicholas
Are you targeting the Japanese market, which I understand to have one of the
lowest fertility rates? Or are you going after the EU and US markets also?

My sense is that the US market for this is not very mature at this point.
There is only a little talk of fertility rates, and in fact there are news
stories floating around [1] that tout the environmental benefits of having
fewer/no children.

1: [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-
to-...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-
climate-change-have-fewer-children)

~~~
renegadesensei
Yeah it is mainly a Japanese product. I just do all of the copy in English
first since that's my first language. Really the service can be used by anyone
seeking a marriage partner. From my research I think Japan and east Asia in
general is the bigger opportunity.

------
bla2
> If people are voluntarily opting out of marriage and family

I'm not married, I'm in a long term committed relationship, I have kids. The
article seems to think that being married and having kids is somehow the same.
It's not.

~~~
proactivesvcs
I'd say the article is actually inferring that marriage is what makes a family
happy and stable. That and their use of the term "illegitimate" left me unable
to finish the article. I'm sure some of it is my strong anti-marriage bias but
it reads like being bound by contract and law is what makes a relationship and
a family stable.

~~~
OJFord
> their use of the term "illegitimate" left me unable to finish the article

That's a well established definition of the word; if you Google 'define
illegitimate' you'll get:

    
    
        1. not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules.
    
        2. (of a child) born of parents not lawfully married to each other.
    

I don't think it really does to be offended by such things, I didn't read it
as coming with any judgement from the author.

------
rf15
While I agree that we have a problem with population growth, the author has
very traditional views on marriage and its requirements for a
society/population to function - there's much more to it than that.

Also thanks for calling my existence "illegitimate" in 2017.

~~~
gervase
Based on the perceptual bias the author let slip, I'm surprised that graph
wasn't labeled "Bastardy".

~~~
kijin
Since the blog is run by someone who uses Japanese in their name and profile,
I'm considering whether I should be a little more charitable and maybe call it
a result of poor translation.

Most of the stuff in the article that looks like bias to Western readers, in
fact, could sound perfectly reasonable to Japanese readers for whom it might
have originally been written. Japanese society is incredibly conservative when
it comes to family norms.

------
zzalpha
If you're curious about actual data, and not just a bunch of unsupported
claims, Pew has a nice little paper they published back in 2014 on this topic:

[http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-
am...](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-
have-never-married/)

To my eyes, this is purely a data driven analysis and doesn't spend a lot of
time moralizing on the topic.

------
dr_
"As mentioned in the previous essay, single parenthood correlates with a
number of social maladies."

This may be true historically, but does it have to be that way going forward?
My thoughts, not based on studies but based on people I know, is that the
general interest in marriage has declined as there is a preference for greater
autonomy amongst both men and women, not to mention economic independence.
Marriage was born out of economic need, and was given a religious stamp of
approval. If the same economic need isn't there, and developed countries are
becoming more secular in their beliefs, it would seem only natural that
marriage rates would decline.

But that doesn't mean people don't want children, or can't have children. With
the introduction of ivf, and both egg and sperm donors -known or unknown- its
possible for the birth rate to be maintained. It may sound bizarre now just as
putting ones profile up online in search of a mate was at one time, but it
could be become the new norm. Search for gametes the same way you searched for
a partner at one time.

As far as the maladies of single parenthood go, much of that may be attributed
to the education levels of the single parent and/or their poor economic
circumstances. It doesn't have to be that way though. Of our last 4 US
Presidents, 2 pretty much grew up without having a reliable father around for
most of their life. They seemed to both have had pretty smart moms.

~~~
cmahler7
Your method would destroy society. Women would make the choice for who the
father would be and would choose only top tier traits, leaving out a vast
majority of males. Men would either have no reason to be productive members of
society or would become violent.

Marriage came to be as a way to essentially harness productivity by
eliminating most conflict over mates.

I'm agnostic but I still think religion as an institution is important because
it binds a society together under shared beliefs. People are different colors,
genders, etc but religion can be used to bind it together.

~~~
Bbowen100
>Women would make the choice for who the father would be and would choose only
top tier traits.

Is the implication here that this is not already the case? I think you are
marginalizing the many variable preferences that people have when choosing
partners. There is no general set of optimal human traits.

>...leaving out a vast majority of males. Men would either have no reason to
be productive members of society or would become violent.

This is very perplexing. Men do a lot more than just make babies, so why then
would their productivity disappear if they cant make babies anymore. "Uh, hey
ma,n we cant have kids anymore so lets go rioting?"

>Marriage came to be as a way to essentially harness productivity by
eliminating most conflict over mates.

Uhh I guess, sure I can concede that.

>I still think religion as an institution is important because it binds a
society together under shared beliefs.

I am also agnostic and I agree that religion is important however not for the
same reason you do. Yes religions bind societies but only to a certain extent
and for only so long. See the conflicts between early Christians and Jews, or
the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics. Or current extremist Muslims,
hell extremists of every religion. As much as religion binds people together
it even more so tears people apart.

~~~
cmahler7
>Is the implication here that this is not already the case? I think you are
marginalizing the many variable preferences that people have when choosing
partners. There is no general set of optimal human traits.

Marriage limits a man to one women, IVF would allow one man to impregnate
essentially infinite women and other factors like personality wouldn't factor
into the OPs nearly anonymous genetic propositioning.

>This is very perplexing. Men do a lot more than just make babies, so why then
would their productivity disappear if they cant make babies anymore. "Uh, hey
ma,n we cant have kids anymore so lets go rioting?"

Yes, look into the studies on young men in the US and Japan who are coasting
because they see no reason to work hard. They have video games and are happy.
The alternative to apathy is violence. Neither is good for society, apathy
leads to lack of progress and violence destroys society

[https://qz.com/186066/this-lost-generation-of-young-men-
is-t...](https://qz.com/186066/this-lost-generation-of-young-men-is-
threatening-global-stability/)

~~~
dr_
Im not sure there's any correlation between young men who are sitting idle and
what I was referring to. There are men who do not have children, some gay men
for example, who are highly productive members of society.

The selection bias that you indirectly refer to is already happening. And with
the availability of ivf, what I am referring to is already happening as well
amongst lesbian and gay couples and single educated women who haven't met the
right person yet. And what's to stop it? If people who are smart, successful,
but haven't found the right mate or don't want to get married, go gamete
shopping and find the ideal set of genes, and produce the ideal child - how do
other children without these advantages compete against them? My guess is that
other potential parents then start going the same route, especially if
marriage is on the decline anyhow.

I don't think it leads to violence and truthfully it's not something I even
condone without further thought.

------
pyrrhotech
Monogamy isn't dead as the author seems to imply by the falling marriage
rates. Many people I know are not married but are in 10+ year long-term
monogamous relationships (myself included). We don't ever plan to get married
because I don't like the government telling me what to do and how our assets
must be split in the case we decide to break up (though we never plan to). We
also are vehemently anti-religious and would never support an institution like
marriage for that reason either.

I personally don't want to have children because my life is fulfilling as it
is and I don't want extra distractions when there is no void to fill, but I
think this notion of "illegitimacy" is very outdated and should be retired.

I think a lot of the long term economic and population concerns will be solved
by workplace automation and biotechnology revolutions in human lifespan
respectively, so they are largely overblown. I also don't think a future
child-raising industry where children are raised together in government
sponsored and supervised systems would be as dystopian as depicted in Brave
New World.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _We don 't ever plan to get married because I don't like the government
> telling me what to do_

What about the government telling other people what to do about your
relationship? If one of you were seriously hurt, would the hospital accept the
other's instructions as a medical or legal proxy, etc?

~~~
abfan1127
I have power of attorney over my dad, in the event a decisions needs to be
made.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Did you mean to say "over to"?

If so then what happens when your father is gone?

------
ravenstine
Nobody ever mentions birth control.

------
gorkonsine
Wow, this article isn't scientific at all, in the least.

>As mentioned in the previous essay, single parenthood correlates with a
number of social maladies.

>The best environment for these children is a home with their biological
mother and father. Marriage is statistically the best way to ensure these
environments for children. Healthy marriages create stable families. Stable
families create strong and safe communities. Strong communities create
prosperous cities. Prosperous cities create successful nations. Successful
nations advance humanity.

Citations needed. There's no proof of any of this, it's just the social norm
we've had for centuries. "We've always done it this way" isn't proof, and the
way our society was before ~50 years ago was actively bad and oppressive for
many members of society, particularly women who really were second-class
citizens, unable to vote or hold most jobs.

Personally, I think it'd be better if people joined into polyamorous
groupings; it's better for kids, and provides a more stable home life than
only having 2 parents. Don't ask me for citations; you'll just have to take my
word for it, just as the author of this article did.

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
I'm almost certain widespread polyamory will degenerate into polygamy
approximately instantaneously.

~~~
netrap
A Brave New World!

~~~
antisthenes
BNW had a stable polyamory, that was the appeal. And a wonder drug to
alleviate the few residual atavisms to boot.

But close enough.

