Is a lonely old age. That's my summary of a new book: Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate and Think About Marrying, by two University of Texas researchers Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker. They study Americans between the ages of 18 and 23, a promotional piece about the book says, and they find, among other things, this:
"There have been many changes in romantic and sexual behavior over the past 30 years," says Regnerus. "One is that the 'price of sex' among unmarried Americans has dipped to an all-time low."Check the wildfire speed with which the news of this book have traveled all over the net, by the way. It's a learning experience, it is! And how many blogs seem to nod their bloggy heads in agreement, muttering something about the pig heaven the men experienced while in college but what about the poor menz without education???
Regnerus and Uecker describe the "price of sex" as the cost — to men — of romance, status, stability and commitment that men exchange for access to sex in a relationship. They argue that despite women's successes, contemporary relationships are becoming more male-centered than ever, with men gaining access to sex earlier and more often, yet providing fewer and later commitments than a generation ago.
"It is, in part, one of the unintended consequences of women's educational and professional success," Regnerus says. "Women no longer need men. When that's the case, how relationships develop will change. And they have.
"Men's economic and educational successes have stalled, creating an environment in which fewer educated and financially-stable men are selecting mates from a larger pool of educated and financially-stable women," he says. "It's created an imbalance that tips relationship power in the direction of the men. Instead of men competing for women, today women feel like they must compete for men."
Even the British Guardian (the Guardian!!!) argues that all this makes sense as we all know from evolutionary psychology that men wish to spread their sperm willy-nilly while women cross their legs and pray for the one Prince Charming and how that's the message feminists should bring forwards.
Now let's rip apart that quote from the promotional summary. (And no, I haven't read the book, what with its publication date being right about now. But as you can see, not having read the book has not made anyone else stop discussing it!)
Here's the first part of the quote again:
Regnerus and Uecker describe the "price of sex" as the cost — to men — of romance, status, stability and commitment that men exchange for access to sex in a relationship. They argue that despite women's successes, contemporary relationships are becoming more male-centered than ever, with men gaining access to sex earlier and more often, yet providing fewer and later commitments than a generation ago.
Note, first, that Regnerus and Uecker see marriage as a marketplace: Women are the sellers of sex and men are the buyers. According to these two gentlemen, the price of sex in this market is "romance, status, stability and commitment." Men don't want those things (forget all about Romeo, he just wanted to f**k Juliet). All they want is sex, and stupid women have lowered the price by giving sex away freely.
Do you like that picture of you, my gentleman readers? And what about the picture of you as the sellers of sexual services, my gentlewoman readers?
Now, I'm not arguing that men haven't always been encouraged to try for sex or that the current popular culture wouldn't be doing exactly that. Whether all this is an eternal truth or something that can be influenced is unclear to me. But clearly the way women behave in terms of sex has changed in the last fifty years or so, and that's pretty much what Regnerus and Uecker lament, I think.
The next part of that quote is even weirder. And very revealing:
"It is, in part, one of the unintended consequences of women's educational and professional success," Regnerus says. "Women no longer need men. When that's the case, how relationships develop will change. And they have.Butbutbut. If women no longer need men, why all the fuss? Why the book in the first place? What is Regnerus really trying to say here? I think he tries to say that in the past women had to get married because they couldn't earn enough on their own. Now that many women can (though still earning less, relatively speaking), what are men good for?
Note, my gentle readers, that once again Regnerus shows a very dismal view of love and both men and women. Men, those creatures who only want one-night stands, need to buy sex from women. Women, those creatures who only want financial support, need to sell sex to men. Now that they can get their financial support from elsewhere (foolish, uppity women to have done that!), they are going to die all alone. Except, of course, that Regnerus argues women no longer need men.
I don't know about you but when I read stuff like this in a supposedly proper promotional write-up I go and Google the authors to find what they are otherwise about. And, lo and behold!, I find that Mark Regnerus wrote this last year:
If you think it's difficult to be pro-life in a pro-choice world, or to be a disciple of Jesus in a sea of skeptics, try advocating for young marriage. Almost no one empathizes, even among the faithful. The nearly universal hostile reaction to my April 23, 2009, op-ed on early marriage in The Washington Post suggests that to esteem marriage in the public sphere today is to speak a foreign language: you invoke annoyance, confusion, or both.It could be that these opinions are completely separate from Regnerus' conclusions about his study. It could be. And pigs could fly. Also.
But after years of studying the sexual behavior and family decision-making of young Americans, I've come to the conclusion that Christians have made much ado about sex but are becoming slow and lax about marriage—that more significant, enduring witness to Christ's sacrificial love for his bride. Americans are taking flight from marriage. We are marrying later, if at all, and having fewer children.
Demographers call it the second demographic transition. In societies like ours that exhibit lengthy economic prosperity, men and women alike begin to lose motivation to marry and have children, and thus avoid one or both. Pragmatically, however, the institution of marriage remains a foundational good for individuals and communities. It is by far the optimal context for child-rearing. Married people accumulate more wealth than people who are single or cohabiting. Marriage consolidates expenses—like food, child care, electricity, and gas—and over the life course drastically reduces the odds of becoming indigent or dependent on the state.
It is, however, an institution under extreme duress in America. In the past 35 years, the number of independent female households in the U.S. has grown by 65 percent, while the share of independent male households has skyrocketed, leaping 120 percent. As a result, fewer than half of all American households today are made up of married couples.
Another indicator of our shifting sentiment about the institution is the median age at first marriage, which has risen from 21 for women and 23 for men in 1970 to where it stands today: 26 for women and 28 for men, the highest figures since the Census Bureau started collecting data about it. That's five additional, long years of peak sexual interest and fertility. (And remember, those numbers are medians: for every man marrying at 22, there's one marrying for the first time at 34.)
Let's look at the final part of that above promotion summary quote:
"Men's economic and educational successes have stalled, creating an environment in which fewer educated and financially-stable men are selecting mates from a larger pool of educated and financially-stable women," he says. "It's created an imbalance that tips relationship power in the direction of the men. Instead of men competing for women, today women feel like they must compete for men."Translated into parseltongue or feminazi-speak Regnerus says that though women no longer need men to support them there are fewer men who make large amounts of money to allow them to support women financially. This means that those men have the upper hand in this market for sex. They have all the power!
I'm not saying that. Regnerus is. Complain to him if it sounds illogical.
Then there's that final sentence: Instead of men competing for women, today women feel like they must compete for men. I guess Jane Austen's books were all wrong about the tough time women had in finding acceptable husbands, and I guess there was once a golden time when men competed for women and women just sat back and gave them style points? None of this makes much sense at all.
Now for something more serious: I'm not addressing the findings in this book because I cannot, not having access to the book. I'm not arguing that college dating or hookup scenes wouldn't have problems, and I'm not arguing that sexual mores aren't in an era of upheaval, with both positive and negative consequences for both men and women.
But what I AM arguing is this: That summary stinks. Also, the average age at first marriage in the United States is 27.5 for men and 25.6 for women, which suggests that studying people between 18 and 23 isn't going to tell us the whole story about marriage.