Texas
Related: About this forumStudy: 'Cheap sex' has led to decline in marriage
In a recent study, associate sociology professor Mark Regnerus found that the reason for a decline in marriage rates in 18- to 23-year-olds is due to the cheapened value of sex in todays hookup culture.
Regnerus discussed this study in an article for the Wall Street Journal last month as part of his book published in September and the article received mixed reactions. One of his main arguments is that the uptake of birth control and online pornography have played a role in cheapening sex, and he said online pornography is more graphic and easily available than still images such as magazines.
(Women) could have relationships, they could even be married, and just not have children until much later in their fertility cycle, Regnerus said. With porn, men have access and so does she if she chooses to watch cheaper sex that in some ways it more closely mimics the actual sex act than when it was just pinned on the wall of a mechanics shop.
Regnerus argues that for American men, sex has become cheap, as many women today expect little in return for sex. Regnerus critics, however, said the decline in marriage is because of money, not sex.
Read more: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2017/10/12/cheap-sex-has-led-to-decline-in-marriage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Regnerus
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)and if that is really the case, maybe it's not so bad that marriage rates are going down.
d_r
(6,907 posts)Apparently he's never been married. Bada Bing.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)BootinUp
(46,924 posts)Topic, lol. Evolution will sort it. Lol.
True Dough
(17,090 posts)I want to know if I'm paying too much.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Going back into ancient pre-history, sociologists pretty much agree that unlike other mammals, human females are "in season" year around in order to attract males to stick around to provide protection and meat while the female is unable to do so due to the burden of caring for a tiny infant. Back long before the mother could "get a job", staying alive was a lot harder to do and having the protection of a strong male was essential to survival. (Don't crucify me feminists. That's how it was, but that's not how it is now, so different rules should apply now.) With continual estrus the female lures the male with the promise of more or less constant access to sex. Even today, for a lot "primitive" males, that is the only compelling reason to stick around.
As the old joke goes, the difference between marriage and prison is that in prison you can get time off for good behavior.
AJT
(5,240 posts)Young people should be in college then establishing careers. So, thank goodness for easy cheap sex.
no_hypocrisy
(45,769 posts)"Cheap sex", subjective as it is, is meant to be recreational, not procreational. I've been engaging in it for decades with no ill effects.
And marriage should be delay until the parties are fiscally prepared for the obligations that come with comingling of assets and liabilities. Better and more stable marriages usually mean less prospects for divorce.
Vogon_Glory
(9,084 posts)The sort of fraudulent "scholarship" foisted on us by polemicists for over a century. Start with a pre-determined conclusion, wrote a polemic around it, then call your work "scholarship."
One of the differences between moderates and liberals on the one hand and self-professed s"social conservatives" (reactionaries) on the other is that the former recognizes that families are not simply a societal convention, but also economic units. The latter may bloviate about the males supposedly wearing the pants but ignore the implications.
It takes CAPITAL to form families--to wed, merge household, and to plan for children. And for a number of reasons young people today have less capital available to them than their baby boomer predecessors.
Somehow I doubt that Regnarus has bothered to factor in the cost of accrued student debt and the increased costs of housing before he decided to fixate on naughty pictures and "promiscuity."
And I doubt he ever will. That would mean a willingness to face unpleasant facts--a trait sorely lacking amongst the political right and self-styled social conservatives.