Archive for the ‘Marriage’ Category

Monogamy and happiness

Friday, March 18th, 2011

Referencing a Centers for Disease Control report this month that teens and twentys are waiting longer to have sex, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat tackles the subject of premarital sex.

In 2001, the study reported, 22 percent of Americans aged 15 to 24 were still virgins.  By 2008, that number was up to 28 percent.  Other research suggests that this trend may date back decades, and that young Americans have been growing more sexually conservative since the 1980s.

Why is this good news? … [because] there are different kinds of premarital sex.  There’s sex that’s actually pre-marital, in the sense that it involves monogamous couples on a path that might lead to matrimony one day.  Then there’s sex that’s casual and promiscuous, or just premature and ill considered.”

Monogamy matters, says Douthat, citing the research of two sociologists who authored a recent book, “Premarital Sex in America.”

Their research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults, finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness – and between promiscuity and depression.

This correlation is much stronger for women than for men.  Female emotional well-being seems to be tightly bound to sexual stability – which may help explain why overall female happiness has actually drifted downward since the sexual revolution.

In a follow-up blog post pivoting off a post by feminist Dana Goldstein, Douthat challenges progressives’ and feminists’ “reflexive hostility” to any criticism that the 60s sexual revolution has changed American sexual culture for the worse, “out of a fear that one concession will cost women every gain.”

Needless to say, I don’t think this is the right way to look at it.  The connection between feminism and sexual permissiveness strikes me as historically contingent rather that strictly necessary, and the economic and social gains that women have made since the 1960s seem robust enough to endure – or, more likely, continue apace – even amid a reconsideration of some of the social changes that accompanied them.  Yes, an ethic of sexual restraint can be turned to patriarchal ends, but so can an ethic of sexual permissiveness, as anyone who’s hung out in a frat house for any length of time can attest.

And the fact that smart feminists like Goldstein feel compelled to act all blasé … lest they give an inch to the forces of reaction, seems like one of the more regrettable aspects of the contemporary cultural debate.

Douthat’s column and post are worth reading.

Study: Delaying Sex = More Stable Relationships, Satisfying Sex

Thursday, January 13th, 2011

bride-groomkneelingA new study by researcher Dean Busby and colleagues, published in the most recent Journal of Family Psychology, has WebMD and LiveScience talking.

Each article takes a slightly different focus in reporting the study’s findings:  couples who had sex the earliest – such as after the first date or within the first month of dating – had the worst relationship outcomes, while those who waited enjoyed more stable relationships and more satisfying sex over the long haul.

Here are excerpts from each:

(more…)

Do you believe in soul-mates?

Friday, December 31st, 2010

According to sociologist Mark Regnerus, the majority of young adults in America would like to marry a soul mate. For the *first time* ever, the Love and Fidelity Network is conducting a poll to see what you think! Please participate in the poll and share it with friends! (Answers are anonymous.)

The Girl Can’t Help It?

Friday, December 3rd, 2010

Is a predilection for promiscuity written into a girl’s DNA?  A story at Live Science – “Like to Sleep Around? Blame Your Genes” – suggests the answer is ‘yes’.

A particular version of a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4 is linked to people’s tendency toward both infidelity and uncommitted one-night stands, the researchers reported Nov. 30 in the online open-access journal PloS One.

The same gene has already been linked to alcoholism and gambling addiction, as well as less destructive thrills like a love of horror films.  One study linked the gene to an openness to new social situations, which in turn correlated with political liberalism.

In the new study, researchers gathered a detailed history of sexual behavior and relationships from 181 young adults.  They also collected DNA samples from the volunteers’ cheeks and analyzed the samples for the presence of the thrill-seeking version of DRD4.

“What we found was that individuals with a certain variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to have a history of uncommitted sex, including one-night stands and acts of infidelity,” study researcher Justin Garcia, a postdoctoral fellow at Binghamton University, State University of New York, said in a statement.

“The motivation seems to stem from a system of pleasure and reward, which is where the release of dopamine comes in,” Garcia said. “In cases of uncommitted sex, the risks are high, the rewards substantial and the motivation variable — all elements that ensure a dopamine ‘rush.’”People with the thrill-seeking gene variant were about twice as likely to report a history of one-night stands as those without the gene variant. Half of those with a love of risk imprinted in their DNA reported committing infidelity in the past, compared with 22 percent of those without the variant.

“The study doesn’t let transgressors off the hook,” said Garcia. “These relationships are associative, which means that not everyone with this genotype will have one-night stands or commit infidelity. Indeed, many people without this genotype still have one-night stands and commit infidelity. The study merely suggests that a much higher proportion of those with this genetic type are likely to engage in these behaviors.”

This raises some interesting questions.  If alcohol and gambling are defined addictions, does this DNA correlation suggest that hooking-up should also be defined as an addiction?   And if a predilection for infidelity can be screened by a DNA test, could a DNA test become a standard for the smart bride and groom’s pre-marital tests?

Love & Fidelity Conference: Sexuality, Integrity and the University

Thursday, October 28th, 2010

Register before Nov. 1 for this annual conference  at Princeton University on November 12 & 13.

It begins Friday (8 pm) with “Friends with Benefits or the Benefits of Friends? The fall of friendship in the hookup culture and the need for its restoration to relationships.”

Saturday’s fare includes “Masculinity and the Real Man” and “Feminism and Femininity,” breakout sessions for students and faculty, and an expert Q&A panel.

Love & Fidelity Network’s third annual conference looks to be a good one.

Marriage, Cohabitation, and Unhappy Trends

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010

The ‘marrieds’ in the U.S. are declining, according to Census Bureau data.  The surprise is that marriage rates among those with a bachelor degree or better held steady over the last decade, while marriage rates among those with a high school education or less suffered the steepest decline.  It used to be the other way around.

An analysis by Mark Mather and Diana Lavery at the Population Reference Bureau shows marriage rates dropping “precipitously among young adults ages 25 to 35 during the past decade, and the decline has accelerated since the onset of the recession…”

Marital Status Among Young Adults Ages 25-34 (Percent)


2000
2006 2007 2008 2009
Married 55.1 48.9 48.2 46.9 44.9
Never Married 34.5 41.4 42.6 43.9 46.3

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census and American Community Survey.

Marriage rates are also declining among the total population age 18 and older:   57% were married in 2000, compared to only 52% in 2009 – the lowest percentage recorded in more than 100 years.  Among women, the “unmarried” (est. 59.8 million including single, divorced, widowed, and separated) now outnumber the “married” (est. 59.5 million).

The trend is significant, note Mather and Lavery:

Starting in the 1970s, several factors contributed to a steady decline in marriage, including rising divorce rates, an increase in women’s educational attainment and labor force participation, and a rise in cohabitation as an alternative or precursor to marriage.

[snip]

These trends are significant because marriage is associated with many benefits for families and individuals, including higher income, better health, and longer life expectancy … Therefore the recent decline in marriage may contribute to worse outcomes for less educated individuals, beyond those resulting from the recent recession.

Cohabitation brings a new set of risks, especially for children born to unmarried parents:

In 2008, nonmarital births accounted for 41% of all births in the U.S.   Although roughly half of these nonmarital births are to cohabiting couples, these unions tend to be less stable and have fewer economic resources compared to married couples.  Therefore, declining marriage rates put more children at risk of growing up poor, which can have lasting consequences for their health and future economic prospects.

Star Parker, a former welfare recipient, understands these implications all too well.

Mike McManus, author of Living Together: Myths, Risks & Answers, tackles the top three myths about cohabitation, and he cites several studies to buttress his assertions:

Myth 1: Cohabitation is a step to marriage. The number of cohabiting couples soared 13-fold from 523,000 in 1970 to 6.8 million in 2008.  The average cohabitation lasts 18 months, which means there are about 4.6 million new cohabitations each year.  Only 30 percent “transitioned into marriage.”  The 70% of couples who separate after living together experience a “premarital divorce.”  Women suffer especially.  They feel used and embittered.  What was hoped to be a prelude to marriage ends with squandered time that cannot be recaptured.

Myth 2: Living together is a trial marriage. No, it is more like a “trial divorce,” in which the question is whether a breakup will occur before or after the wedding.   [Based on studies] many who cohabit apparently lose respect for themselves and the other person.  Couples who lived separately beforehand have more self-respect and more respect for their spouse.

Myth 3:  What we do is nobody’s business.  Not true. [It often has a very public impact.]  The NCHS study reports that “by 2001 the majority of non-marital births (52%) occurred within cohabiting unions.”  A Heritage Foundation study estimates that the 13 million single-parent families cost taxpayers $20,000 per family in 2004, a total of $260 billion.  Half of that total comes from unwed births to cohabiting moms.

No one ever said marriage was easy, and too many marriages today end in divorce.  But experience with the social experiment of cohabitation is proving to be a worse alternative.

There’s one bit of uplifting news for young adults in Mather and Lavery’s analysis:

Although marriage rates have dropped among young adults, it is important to note that most young adults will go on to marry later in life.  The probability of an adult getting married at some point during their lifetime is still nearly 90%.