Excellent Essay has long section on the marriage strike:

F. Roger Devline, Sexual Utopia In Power


The term Thermidor originally designated the month of the French
Revolutionary calendar in which the terror ended. By July 1794, twenty or
thirty persons were being guillotined daily in Paris under a so-called Law of Summer 2006 / Devlin 31
Suspects requiring no serious evidence against the accused. Addressing the
Convention on July 26, Robespierre incautiously let slip that certain delegates
were themselves under suspicion of being “traitors,” but declined to name them.
His hearers realized their only hope of safety lay in destroying Robespierre
before he could destroy them. They concerted their plans that night, and the
following morning he was arrested. Within two days, he and eighty of his
followers went to the guillotine. Over the next few weeks, the prisons emptied
and life again assumed a semblance of normality.
Something analogous appears to be happening today in the case of
feminism. Consider, for example, the sexual harassment movement. As it
spreads, the number of men who have not been accused steadily diminishes.
Eventually a point is reached where initially sympathetic men understand that
they themselves are no longer safe, that their innocence does not protect them
or their jobs. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this point is being reached in
many workplaces. Men are developing a self-defensive code of avoiding all
unnecessary words or contact with women. One hears stories about women
entering breakrooms full of merrily chatting male coworkers who look up
and instantly lapse into tense, stony silence. A “hostile work environment”
A more serious development, however, is what has come to be known as
the marriage strike. The fi rst occurrence of this term appears to have been in
a Philadelphia Enquire editorial of 2002.10 Two years later, a formal study gave
substance to the idea: Fully 22 percent of American bachelors aged 25–34
have resolved never to marry. 53 percent more say they are not interested in
marrying any time soon.11 That leaves just 25 percent looking for wives. This
may be a situation unprecedented in the history of the world.
Some men do cite the availability of sex outside marriage as a reason for not
marrying. But this does not mean that the problem could be solved simply by
getting them to take vows (e.g., by shotgun marriage). Men now realize they
stand to lose their children at a moment’s notice through no fault of their own
if the mother decides to cash out of the marriage or “relationship” in Family
Court. For this reason, many are refusing to father children with or without
benefi t of clergy. In Germany, which faces an even lower birthrate than America,
the talk is already of a Zeugungsstreik, literally a “procreation strike,”

One well-established trend is the search for foreign wives. Predictably,
efforts are underway by feminists to outlaw, or at least discourage this, and one
law has already gotten through Congress (the International Marriage Broker
Regulation Act of 2005). The ostensible reason is to protect innocent foreign
lasses from “abuse;” the real reason to protect spoiled, feminist-indoctrinated
American women from foreign competition. Most of the economic arguments
about protective tariffs for domestic industry apply here.
Feminists think in terms of governmental coercion. The idea of eliciting
desirable male behavior does not occur to them. Some men are concerned that
proposals for forced marriage may be in the offi ng.
Meanwhile, men have begun to realize that any sexual intimacy with a
woman can lead to date rape charges based upon things that go on in her
mind afterwards, and over which he has no control. Women do frequently
attempt to evade responsibility for their sexual conduct by ascribing it to the
men involved. Without any social or legal enforcement of marriage, this leaves
chastity as a man’s only means of self-defense.
A male sex strike was probably beyond the imagination even of Aristophanes.
But it may be a mistake to underestimate men

The date rape issue can be solved overnight by restoring shotgun
marriage—but with the shotgun at the woman’s back. The “victim” should
be told to get into the kitchen and fi x supper for her new lord and master. Not
exactly a match made in heaven, but at least the baby will have both a father
and a mother. Furthermore, after the birth of her child, the woman will have
more important things to worry about than whether the act by which she
conceived it accorded with some women’s studies professor’s newfangled
notion of “true consent.” Motherhood has always been the best remedy for
female narcissism

Another seldom
mentioned motive for the expectation of marriage was husbands’ envy of
bachelors: “Why should that fellow be free and happy when I am stuck working
my life away to support an ungrateful creature who nags me?”
Strange as it sounds to modern ears, the Christian endorsement of celibacy
was a liberalization of sexual morality; it recognized there could be legitimate
motives for remaining unmarried. One social function of the celibate religious
orders was to give that minority of men and women unsuited for or disinclined
to marriage a socially acceptable way of avoiding it.

Monogamy artificially strengthens the male’s position by insisting that 1) each female
must choose a different male; and 2) each female must stick to her choice.
Monogamy entails that highly attractive men are removed from the mating pool
early, usually by the most attractive women. The next women are compelled
to choose a less attractive mate if they wish to mate at all. Even the last and
least of the females can, however, fi nd a mate: For every girl there is a boy.
Abolishing marriage only strengthens the naturally stronger: It strengthens
the female at the expense of the male and the attractive at the expense of the