Marriage/Interesting

Cheap Sex and the Decline of Marriage.

When women don’t insist on waiting, men behave badly.

 

By Mark Regnerus

Sept. 29, 2017 9:07 a.m. ET

 

From Print/Online, Wall Street Journal, 9/30 – 10/1 2017 Saturday/Sunday Edition

 

 

Kevin, a 24-year-old recent college graduate from Denver, wants to get married someday and is “almost 100% positive” that he will. But not soon, he says, “because I am not done being stupid yet. I still want to go out and have sex with a million girls.” He believes that he’s figured out how to do that:

 

“Girls are easier to mislead than guys just by lying or just not really caring. If you know what girls want, then you know you should not give that to them until the proper time. If you do that strategically, then you can really have anything you want…whether it’s a relationship, sex, or whatever. You have the control.”

 

Kevin (not his real name) was one of 100 men and women, from a cross-section of American communities, that my team and I interviewed five years ago as we sought to understand how adults in their 20s and early 30s think about their relationships. He sounds like a jerk. But it’s hard to convince him that his strategy won’t work—because it has, for him and countless other men.

 

Marriage in the U.S. is in open retreat. As recently as 2000, married 25- to 34-year-olds outnumbered their never-married peers by a margin of 55% to 34%, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. By 2015, the most recent year for which data are available, those estimates had almost reversed, with never-marrieds outnumbering marrieds by 53% to 40%. Young Americans have quickly become wary of marriage.

 

Many economists and sociologists argue that this flight from marriage is about men’s low wages. If they were higher, the argument goes, young men would have the confidence to marry. But recent research doesn’t support this view. A May 2017 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, focusing on regions enriched by the fracking boom, found that increased wages in those places did nothing to boost marriage rates.

 

Another hypothesis blames the decline of marriage on men’s fear of commitment. Maybe they just perceive marriage as a bad deal. But most men, including cads such as Kevin, still expect to marry. They eventually want to fall in love and have children, when their independence becomes less valuable to them. They are waiting longer, however, which is why the median age at marriage for American men has risen steadily and is now approaching 30.

 

My own research points to a more straightforward and primal explanation for the slowed pace toward marriage: For American men, sex has become rather cheap. As compared to the past, many women today expect little in return for sex, in terms of time, attention, commitment or fidelity. Men, in turn, do not feel compelled to supply these goods as they once did. It is the new sexual norm for Americans, men and women alike, of every age.

 

This transformation was driven in part by birth control. Its widespread adoption by women in recent decades not only boosted their educational and economic fortunes but also reduced their dependence on men. As the risk of pregnancy radically declined, sex shed many of the social and personal costs that once encouraged women to wait.

 

These forces have been at work for more than a half-century, since the birth-control pill was invented in 1960, but it seems that our norms and narratives about sexual relationships have finally caught up with the technology. Data collected in 2014 for the “Relationships in America” project—a national survey of over 15,000 adults, ages 18 to 60, that I oversaw for the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture—asked respondents when they first had sex in their current or most recent relationship. After six months of dating? After two? The most common experience—reported by 32% of men under 40—was having sex with their current partner before the relationship had begun. This is sooner than most women we interviewed would prefer.

 

The birth-control pill is not the only sexual technology that has altered expectations. Online porn has made sexual experience more widely and easily available too. A laptop never says no, and for many men, virtual women are now genuine competition for real partners. In the same survey, 46% of men (and 16% of women) under 40 reported watching pornography at some point in the past week—and 27% in the past day.

 

Many young men and women still aspire to marriage as it has long been conventionally understood—faithful, enduring, focused on raising children. But they no longer seem to think that this aspiration requires their discernment, prudence or self-control.

 

When I asked Kristin, a 29-year-old from Austin, whether men should make sacrifices to get sex, she offered a confusing prescription: “Yes. Sometimes. Not always. I mean, I don’t think it should necessarily be given out by women, but I do think it’s OK if a woman does just give it out. Just not all the time.”

 

Kristin rightly wants the men whom she dates to treat her well and to respect her interests, but the choices that she and other women have made unwittingly teach the men in their lives that such behavior is noble and nice but not required in order to sleep with them. They are hoping to find good men without supporting the sexual norms that would actually make men better.

 

For many men, the transition away from a mercenary attitude toward relationships can be difficult. The psychologist and relationship specialist Scott Stanley of the University of Denver sees visible daily sacrifices, such as accepting inconveniences in order to see a woman, as the way that men typically show their developing commitment. It signals the expectation of a future together. Such small instances of self-sacrificing love may sound simple, but they are less likely to develop when past and present relationships are founded on the expectation of cheap sex.

 

Young people in the U.S. continue to marry, even if later in life, but the number of those who never marry is poised to increase. In a 2015 article in the journal Demography, Steven Ruggles of the University of Minnesota predicted that a third of Americans now in their 20s will never wed, well above the historical norm of just below 10%.

 

Most young Americans still seek the many personal and social benefits that come from marriage, even as the dynamics of today’s mating market conspire against them. It turns out that a world in which it is possible to satisfy our sexual desires much more immediately carries with it a number of unhappy and unintended consequences.

 

—Dr. Regnerus is associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. This essay is adapted from his new book, “Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage and Monogamy” (Oxford University Press).

Very interesting! When I dated in high school and college (in the early-late 80s) many guys I dated didn't yet drive and/or didn't have a car and it was expected that they do the bulk of the traveling -it was common for the guy to pick the gal up at her parents' house even if you weren't going to go out in the neighborhood (although that was more likely when meeting the parents). My parents would let my boyfriends stay over (no we did not have sex during high school/college) if they lived far and took public transportation so they wouldn't have to go home by bus in unsafe neighborhoods. I'm not saying any of this was "right" or "fair" but it was the way it was. My high school boyfriend got a fast food job to pay for the prom (his prom) -for my prom I believe I paid part of it and offered to pay for the limo we took. But the expectation was that since he asked me to the prom, he would pay.

 

The women I knew who were promiscuous most often were or quickly became bitter/jaded/cynical but some of them just found it a lot of fun.

Interesting read, Lester.

 

It turns out that a world in which it is possible to satisfy our sexual desires much more immediately carries with it a number of unhappy and unintended consequences.

Sounds like a good Profile Signature, actually.

Maybe it's because marriage is a sexist problematic institution that is our government dictating the appropriate way to have a relationship

 

today’s mating market

Eww

 

When women don’t insist on waiting, men behave badly.

EEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

 

Why does this dude care if young people are getting married less? Why does he assume that women don't really want or enjoy sex? Why is he putting pressure on women to control men through sex? That's just gross.

 

Marriage has been presented as the only option for a "real" relationship for to long. It's changing because folks are realizing there are a lot of different options and you can find one that suits you are your (yuck) "mate" that isn't silly, dated and predetermined by a bunch of dead people, sexism, property consolidation and a god we know is made up.

 

Maybe fewer people are getting married because they they watched their parents relationships fail? Maybe fewer young people are getting married because young people tend to be more radical then older people? Maybe marriage seems like a raw deal for men with the divorce laws the way they are? How about any option other than "women are sl*ts even though they don't like sex"... it's just so... well gross and under considered and blind to the actual changes our culture is going through. With a whole bunch of sexism on top.

also:

Kristin rightly wants the men whom she dates to treat her well and to respect her interests, but the choices that she and other women have made unwittingly teach the men in their lives that such behavior is noble and nice but not required in order to sleep with them. They are hoping to find good men without supporting the sexual norms that would actually make men better.

 

It's men's jobs to make themselves better. Why put that on women? Why assume men who are getting sex can't be good men? Why does sex have to be a reward for being a "noble and nice"? I didn't realize I was supposed to be taming and training men with access to sex. This dude doesn't seem to understand that sex isn't something women give to men. It's something two (or more) people do together.

 

And why on earth am I supposed to date and string along a guy (with no sex) to make him better... instead of just dating a guy who already good? All of these thought process are backwards and super condescending to men.

Interesting read, Lester.

 

TY for posting.

For many marriage is equally -or more so - a reflection of religious beliefs as opposed to signing on to a government-sanctioned institution. Marriage isn't just one thing and need not be -couples who marry can define their roles in the marriage as they see fit within the parameters of what the vows reflect about for better or worse and loyalty/fidelity. Traditional or even old fashioned need not be a dirty word. I was in my 8th month of pregnancy when I got married and I had to tell my son last year to please not ask brides he saw in our beautiful park whether they had a baby in their belly or, if not, if it recently came out. I think all else equal two parents who are married are a better environment in which to raise children than alternatives (understanding that certain alternatives are not within either parent's control -meaning given the choice, given the practicalities, etc) - the security/safety/stability of that environment is preferable over non-marital alternatives. Certainly I know of at least one couple who are not married (she prefers not to marry her partner) where I have no doubt that their home for their child is wonderful for him and could not be any better if they were legally married. Obviously there are exceptions. And obviously there should be zero pressure to be parents.

 

I'm a little tired of the backlash against marriage, of the focus on the marriages that fail, etc. My friends who now can marry (i.e. gay) are delighted to do so for a variety of reasons. My marriage makes me feel freer and more independent in very important ways - it requires me to stretch, to grow, to be very conscious of how my behavior, my tone of voice, my choices, affect my husband - and that can only help me grow in my interactions with all people.

 

And yes that is marriage-specific in the sense that if you take the vows seriously you have both feet in the door and not one foot out the door -you're challenged to stay and make it work, to resolve conflict in a responsible way (or to choose not to resolve it right then because the timing is wrong for your partner, to make sacrifices like that where maybe you spend an evening angry cleaning instead of "venting"). Sure there are commitments that are marital-like - that require that kind of steadfast resolve but for me personally the fact that we are married is significant and not just a "piece of paper".

They are hoping to find good men without supporting the sexual norms that would actually make men better.

 

For many men, the transition away from a mercenary attitude toward relationships can be difficult.

 

This article makes men sound like imbeciles.

 

I didn't realize I was supposed to be taming and training men with access to sex.

 

I didn't get that memo, either!

Well, this is one side of the coin.

 

First of all, most men don't want to get married for financial reasons. Who wants to lose half of his belongings? Not all women are gold diggers of course, but gold diggers are a significant percentage.

 

The second thing is that most marriages fail anyway. When the divorce rate is around 50% then statistically speaking your marriage will fail. As for the other 50%, the 80% of them complain that marriage was the biggest mistake of their lives(both genders claim this).

 

Regarding sex, this perspective is ludicrous. Women enjoy sex much more than men. By nature women don't like ONS because if a woman conceives that means a lifetime commitment for her as opposed to men who can walk away anytime. But nowadays we use protection and contraceptive methods. So the argument of nature has collapsed and women only want the good stuff.

 

This is the other side of the coin, just so you know.

Batya you are still in the vast majority. Most folks still believe in marriage and feel that they can shake off the problems with the institutions. But that doesn't mean everyone should get married. And that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of different healthy shapes relationships can be. The backlash against marriage is small and it should be larger to get anywhere close to rational. It is still considered the only real relationship. Little girls still grow up thinking getting married is "their day" or "the most important day of your life". It's insidiously woven into our culture, so much so that most folks don't know that they were never given an option.

 

I feel the need to strong state my opinion because it's still rare. I hope some day to live in a world where it isn't the only conceivable option. I hope to someday live in a world were people don't rush into marriage because it is what they've been told will make their relationship real. Or make them adults. Or just what you do when you've been together for awhile.

 

I know people strongly dislike my view on marriage. If you have a successful loving relationship that happens to be a marriage then it might very well feel like an attack. But marriage isn't really under attack. It's still what everyone does and everyone expects. Your relationship sounds lovely, committed, growing and full. That's wonderful. Personally? I don't think the legal part has anything to do with that. I think it all has to do with you and your partner.

 

Anyway whenever I get sucked into actually stating my feelings about marriage ( I don't often because it makes people defensive and then they stop listening) I end with saying: I'm not anti-marriage. Two of my boyfriends are married.

"But that doesn't mean everyone should get married. And that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of different healthy shapes relationships can be. "

 

Completely agree. I know for sure that one of the reasons our relationship works (or more accurately is a positive/hopeful work in progress) is because we are legally and religiously married. We would not be together if we hadn't gotten married -because it was that important to us, and still is.

 

I really do think people in general are accepting of marriage alternatives that involve two committed people (less so of "open" relationships in part because I believe people use that label in situations where it's just two people deciding to date each other but to be free to have sex with others -I understand that a genuine open relationship involves far more substance than that).

 

I think it's a shame when people marry for any other reason than that is what they really want and it involves love and commitment.

"This dude doesn't seem to understand that sex isn't something women give to men. It's something two (or more) people do together.

And why on earth am I supposed to date and string along a guy (with no sex) to make him better... instead of just dating a guy who already good? All of these thought process are backwards and super condescending to men."

 

BANG ON!

 

Look, I have been married, my brother is married, my parents are married. I don't have a problem with marriage per se. But a lot of the information in this article is put in such a way that makes men seem like complete a**holes and women like s holding cookies in a jar that should only be given to the "good boys" - instead of a shared experience between consenting adults.

Well, we all know what happens to more people then not who bop on night one. We are all sexual beings but waiting doesn't mean anything other then just that... waiting.Its not about withholding but rather about letting your partner know that you are attracted in all the other ways that one can while waiting to have sex until you have an actual emotional connection. It has nothing to do with using sex (or not using it) as a bartering tool. Those that don't care to have that emotional connection are free to do it their way.

 

I don't agree that the article makes men or women look like anything but the stats they have gathered on both.

Its not about withholding but rather about letting your partner know that you are attracted in all the other ways that one can

 

Well said.

Well, we all know what happens to more people then not who bop on night one. We are all sexual beings but waiting doesn't mean anything other then just that... waiting.Its not about withholding but rather about letting your partner know that you are attracted in all the other ways that one can while waiting to have sex until you have an actual emotional connection. It has nothing to do with using sex (or not using it) as a bartering tool. Those that don't care to have that emotional connection are free to do it their way.

 

I don't agree that the article makes men or women look like anything but the stats they have gathered on both.

 

What about this:

 

My own research points to a more straightforward and primal explanation for the slowed pace toward marriage: For American men, sex has become rather cheap. As compared to the past, many women today expect little in return for sex, in terms of time, attention, commitment or fidelity. Men, in turn, do not feel compelled to supply these goods as they once did. It is the new sexual norm for Americans, men and women alike, of every age.

 

Why is it that sex has become cheap TO MEN. Why is it women who expect little in return? Why that assumption of gender?

 

And what stats? I don't see any stats in this article. I see a guy who interviewed some people and made A LOT of assumptions about the choices they are making. This article has a whole bunch of gender bias that is actively getting in the way of this guys research. This dude is saying women are sleeping with men to quickly to get the marriages they want out of them. It implies all women really want marriage all men really want is sex and it has nothing to back it up but his assumptions. The only stat he has is that people are getting married later and less often... the rest is conjecture.

Well, we all know what happens to more people then not who bop on night one. We are all sexual beings but waiting doesn't mean anything other then just that... waiting.Its not about withholding but rather about letting your partner know that you are attracted in all the other ways that one can while waiting to have sex until you have an actual emotional connection.

 

Also if what you are saying is true why does he single out one gender as the gender to fix the issue. CLEARLY WOMEN are the issue. Because men are always DTF and women should be the gate keepers of sex. Why isn't he saying that all genders should wait for emotional connection if that is what he thinks. But that isn't what he is saying. He is saying women need to stop it with the sex and train men to be better if they want to get married.

 

Which is condescending to men and... you know, just sexist towards women. It makes all kinds of assumptions about the roles we are supposed to play in a relationship. Women don't like sex as much as men, or men can't control their desire for sex, or women are always out for a committed relationship, or men need to be trained to be better partners while women are naturally good at it and should do the training. That is sexist as sh*t.

What about this:

 

 

 

Why is it that sex has become cheap TO MEN.

Because they, more often then not, no longer need to invest a thing.

 

Why is it women who expect little in return? Why that assumption of gender?

It's no assumption. It's fact.

 

And what stats? I don't see any stats in this article.

What about all those percentages? Those are stats.

 

I see a guy who interviewed some people and made A LOT of assumptions about the choices they are making. This article has a whole bunch of gender bias that is actively getting in the way of this guys research.

I disagree.

 

This dude is saying women are sleeping with men to quickly to get the marriages they want out of them.

What? That's not what I read. He's saying women are sleeping with men and therefore men don't need to marry. Men today are self-sufficient due to the fact that modern mothers are teaching their sons to be so. They can cook, they can clean, they can manage the monthly finances. In the olden days, it was women that did all that while the men bought home the money. The only thing they couldn't do on their own was have sex. Perhaps I'm not interpreting what he's saying correctly but I sure don't see that he's saying what you're suggesting.

It implies all women really want marriage all men really want is sex and it has nothing to back it up but his assumptions.

No, I don't think it says just that at all.

 

The only stat he has is that people are getting married later and less often

Which is true

 

Also if what you are saying is true why does he single out one gender as the gender to fix the issue. CLEARLY WOMEN are the issue. Because men are always DTF and women should be the gate keepers of sex. Why isn't he saying that all genders should wait for emotional connection if that is what he thinks. But that isn't what he is saying. He is saying women need to stop it with the sex and train men to be better if they want to get married

Because we have the only thing left that men need from us which is sex. Even if we all hold out until he puts a ring on it, there is still and always will be prostitutes to supplement. Do you see?

Because we have the only thing left that men need from us which is sex. Even if we all hold out until he puts a ring on it, there is still and always will be prostitutes to supplement. Do you see?

 

um... wow you have a dark, old fashioned point of view. The only thing men NEED from us is sex?

 

first I don't believe healthy relationships are based on need. They are based on desire. My partners do not NEED sex. I do not NEED sex. I do not NEED my partners and they do not NEED me. We choose each other. Over and over again. Your idea that men NEED sex so bad that it's the only way to trick them into marriage is really sexist.

 

Relationships are built on the things we can give to each other mutually. We give each other sex, support, love and a bunch of other really lovely things.

 

You think very poorly of men and very limited of women.

Men today are self-sufficient due to the fact that modern mothers are teaching their sons to be so. They can cook, they can clean, they can manage the monthly finances. In the olden days, it was women that did all that while the men bought home the money.

 

 

And today women are equally self sufficient and don't need their man to bring home the bacon while we make chicken dinners and help the children with their homework.

 

The 'playing' field is leveled, if you will.

 

Ultimately people are going to be together because they want to, not because they have to.

 

No one needs to hold something over the other persons head to manipulate a desired outcome.

 

It's not a game.

It's not a game. It's reality.

um... wow you have a dark, old fashioned point of view. The only thing men NEED from us is sex?

I didn't say that and you have a penchant to putting words in my mouth. You debate things I haven't even said. I said... sex is the only thing that men can't do themselves. Well, they can but that's called masturbation not sex. They are capable of doing everything else by themselves. Companionship? Sure, you can get that anywhere. Tinder comes to mind. Swipe and in an hour you're with a companion if you (the general you) so desires.

 

first I don't believe healthy relationships are based on need. They are based on desire. My partners do not NEED sex. I do not NEED sex. I do not NEED my partners and they do not NEED me. We choose each other. Over and over again. Your idea that men NEED sex so bad that it's the only way to trick them into marriage is really sexist.

and again you are responding NOT to anything I've actually said.

 

Relationships are built on the things we can give to each other mutually.

No kidding.

We give each other sex, support, love and a bunch of other really lovely things.

Not always. Surely you've read where someone who was casually screwing someone got nothing but the screw when they really wanted the other "really lovely things." When we don't jump into sex right away, we get to see if the other person (man or woman) is going to give us the lovely things along with the sex.

 

You think very poorly of men and very limited of women.

Hardly. You base your opinion on how you misinterpret.

You are right, I don't understand you.

 

Surely you've read where someone who was casually screwing someone got nothing but the screw when they really wanted the other "really lovely things." When we don't jump into sex right away, we get to see if the other person (man or woman) is going to give us the lovely things along with the sex.

 

I think it's unfortunate that you think of sex as a tool to get things. Sex is a shared thing. It isn't a tool. What you get out of sex is sex. I'm not saying people should have sex before they know if they like or are attracted to someone. But if you are mutually into each other you aren't losing a bargaining chip by having sex. You are just having sex. If you need to withhold sex to make a guy respect you? Then he never respected you. If you need to withhold sex to make a guy think you are good enough to be in a relationship with? Then that guy has a horrible double standard (if he would f*ck you anyway) and you shouldn't waste your time.

 

And you know, that there are a ton of women who just like sex. Not every sexual act is a vain attempt at getting to marriage. Sometimes it's just a fun connection. A nice work out. A lovely evening. And that is it.

 

I still think you have really rigid gender roles. And that the gender roles you hold are super limiting to having complex and deep understanding of people.

 

I know you will take this as a misinterpretation. And that's okay. We can agree to disagree.

You are right, I don't understand you.

With that we agree.

 

 

 

I think it's unfortunate that you think of sex as a tool to get things.

I don't think that at all.

 

Sex is a shared thing. It isn't a tool.

No one has said it is a tool (but you) You are the one that keeps insisting that that is what is being said, when it's not. Please go back and read what has been said about the reality of things. I don't believe that sex should be used as a tool nor did the Op say that.

 

What you get out of sex is sex. I'm not saying people should have sex before they know if they like or are attracted to someone. But if you are mutually into each other you aren't losing a bargaining chip by having sex.

No you're not. What you MAY BE losing is the opportunity to form an emotional bond with your sex partner. You may form one but according to the study, your chances are diminished.

If you need to withhold sex to make a guy respect you?

Where did you read that you 'need to withhold sex to make a guy respect you? Again: It's about waiting... not withholding.

 

If you need to withhold sex to make a guy think you are good enough to be in a relationship with? Then that guy has a horrible double standard (if he would f*ck you anyway) and you shouldn't waste your time.

You're the only one talking about "withholding."

 

And you know, that there are a ton of women who just like sex.

Yes.. and all the power to them.. I happen to be one of them Yeah us.

Not every sexual act is a vain attempt at getting to marriage.

Where did you get the idea that it was?

Sometimes it's just a fun connection. A nice work out. A lovely evening. And that is it.

Yes. Not arguing that but that has nothing to do with the article. The article is not about withholding sex. It's about what is happening because its so easy to get.

I still think you have really rigid gender roles. And that the gender roles you hold are super limiting to having complex and deep understanding of people.

I don't even know what you're saying here? The roles I hold are limiting to having complex and deep understanding of people? Yes, well that has nothing to do with having "really rigid gender roles" What IS a "gender role" in this day and age of equality anyway?

 

I know you will take this as a misinterpretation. And that's okay. We can agree to disagree.

How can we agree to disagree when we've yet to agree on what we are disagreeing about? lol

 

Anyway: Time to call an end to this non-agreeing on what we are not agreeing on as I don't want the thread closed over it.

Cheers to you.

This article was just a wordy way of saying "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"

 

I don't buy that marriage rates have anything to do with how easily guys can get sex. If that's at all a factor I think it's a very minor one.

 

There is an actual movement out there called MGTOW--men going their own way. These are men who consciously eschew marriage and entangling relationships with women because they believe that the risks now outweigh the rewards for men. I don't know their numbers--I'm certain they are small. But I think there are other men who feel the same way but just aren't officially part of a "movement."

 

I also think that a lot of young men are for whatever reason getting left behind in this world. They are now a shrinking minority of college students and graduates. In the US now the wage gap has actually flipped for people under 30--women make more. Sadly, I think fewer and fewer men even qualify for marriage.

In the US now the wage gap has actually flipped for people under 30--women make more.

 

Where did you get this information? I haven't been able to verify it.