Dating, higher education, sex ratios, and the hookup culture

  • Thread starter Thread starter fnr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Xantippe said:
Why the continual orthodoxy checks? It’s rude, especially when you’re a relative newcomer to the forum. Yes, men and women should remain chaste (or get chaste as soon as they can). No, it won’t be easy, and no, there won’t be prizes for everybody.
Click to expand...
First, it’s not an orthodoxy check, it’s just a simple question. Second, I don’t think the label “continual” is merited since it implies there were several prior instances that were already answered. And third, I wasn’t aware that special privileges were accorded to forum members based on their post count. I admit that, because I am thick skinned and frequently overlook when others act in a rude and condescending manner toward me, I often fail to see how some of my comments might be twisted around to appear that way as well. We all have our shortcomings, I am not too proud to admit mine.

The reason I asked is because if we both agree on something then it’s a waste of time to bicker on why we each hold that position (like this). My first claim in this thread was that shacking up (abandoning chastity) was a bad gamble for women if they were interested in a more permanent arraignment. Your initial response was to point to anecdotal evidence that
Xantippe said:
there are plenty of women that are “holding out” but haven’t been able to find anybody.

Meanwhile, lots of women that haven’t “held out” are happily married and have growing families.

Life is not some sort of vending machine where (if you’re a woman) you put in chastity and you get out a great marriage and a lovely family.
Click to expand...
from which I inferred (incorrectly it seems) that you believed only a fool would cling to chastity if they don’t want to be alone.
 
MatthewTrainor said:
And I think you’ve overlooked these posts: #46, #67, #75, #78
Click to expand...
Speaking of forum etiquette, this is really, really obnoxious.

Generally, people are a lot more inclined to read and consider your points if you treat threads like a discussion, instead of talking everyone down with “can’t you read?” posts.
 
pensmama87 said:
Speaking of forum etiquette, this is really, really obnoxious.

Generally, people are a lot more inclined to read and consider your points if you treat threads like a discussion, instead of talking everyone down with “can’t you read?” posts.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. [user]fnr[/user] claimed that I had overlooked the effect of culture on instinct. I merely pointed out that I not only hadn’t overlooked it but had in fact affirmatively asserted it several times. Forum rules instruct us to keep our posts short when we can and to use links rather than lengthy quotes from other sources.

Instructing the ignorant is one of the spiritual works of mercy. It is true that the ignorant frequently find instruction to be obnoxious, much in the same way that sinners do not enjoy being admonished, but I do not find this a good reason to refrain from showing mercy.
 
MatthewTrainor said:
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. [user]fnr[/user] claimed that I had overlooked the effect of culture on instinct. I merely pointed out that I not only hadn’t overlooked it but had in fact affirmatively asserted it several times. Forum rules instruct us to keep our posts short when we can and to use links rather than lengthy quotes from other sources.

Instructing the ignorant is one of the spiritual works of mercy. It is true that the ignorant frequently find instruction to be obnoxious, much in the same way that sinners do not enjoy being admonished, but I do not find this a good reason to refrain from showing mercy.
Click to expand...
Oh, wow.

I have been following the thread, but honestly, I get really irritated when threads turn into ego struts, because then all the substance of the conversation is lost.

You may think what you are doing is “a spiritual work of mercy,” but it does not come off that way, at all. So I’ll ask you, cordially, to reconsider your approach. Your style is really, really off-putting and discredits what you are trying to say. This is my first post on this thread and you’ve already implied that the only reason I could find your “instruction” to be obnoxious is because I am ignorant. Is that supposed to make me more willing to listen to what you have to say?

Sometimes people find things obnoxious because they are obnoxious.
 
MatthewTrainor said:
And I think you’ve overlooked these posts: #46, #67, #75, #78
Click to expand...
Well, not really. Those seem to be caveats to your general reliance on evo psych, and in terms of naturalist/materialist explanations of human behavior, I think that in the modern time, economic self-interest or “utility” maximization, not genetic propagation, remains the driving factor for most sexual behaviors associated with single people.

There certainly are biological/evolutionary elements that arise, for example, with the so-called “biological clock” that women face as they near menopause. Our libidos are the product of evolution, but beyond that, as we come to maturity, acculturation controls those instincts.

Getting back to the OP, the economic motivations do a much better job of explaining the hesitancy of women with four-year college degrees (an education level where they outnumber similarly-educated men by about an 5 to 4 ratio among 25-44 year olds) to marry men without college degrees (where there is a 1 to 1 ratio or even more males). If evolutionary psychology explained things well, there would not be as much of a barrier to marrying men without a 4-year degree. Of course, there are pairings of women with college degrees with men without college degrees, particularly among African-Americans.

To me, as Catholics, we should be looking at mates for their openness to God’s work in their lives, which may or not correspond with economic or even evolutionary considerations.
 
fnr said:
Well, not really. Those seem to be caveats to your general reliance on evo psych, and in terms of naturalist/materialist explanations of human behavior, I think that in the modern time, economic self-interest or “utility” maximization, not genetic propagation, remains the driving factor for most sexual behaviors associated with single people.

There certainly are biological/evolutionary elements that arise, for example, with the so-called “biological clock” that women face as they near menopause. Our libidos are the product of evolution, but beyond that, as we come to maturity, acculturation controls those instincts.
Click to expand...
I agree that evolutionary psychology does not explain all of the be behavior observed. I was merely pointing out that I had previously recognized the power of culture, socialization and education to override evolutionary instinct. I also agree with your hypothesis that the increased availability of birth control (to which I would add abortion) has altered the subconscious cost/benefit analysis performed by women when deciding whether or not to engage in sexual activity.
 
fnr said:
Well, not really. Those seem to be caveats to your general reliance on evo psych, and in terms of naturalist/materialist explanations of human behavior, I think that in the modern time, economic self-interest or “utility” maximization, not genetic propagation, remains the driving factor for most sexual behaviors associated with single people.

There certainly are biological/evolutionary elements that arise, for example, with the so-called “biological clock” that women face as they near menopause. Our libidos are the product of evolution, but beyond that, as we come to maturity, acculturation controls those instincts.
Click to expand...
Right. The US total fertility rate woman hovers right around 2 (and has for the past 40+ years).

Needless to say, that is not the “natural” biological rate of fertility.
 
fnr said:
Getting back to the OP, the economic motivations do a much better job of explaining the hesitancy of women with four-year college degrees (an education level where they outnumber similarly-educated men by about an 5 to 4 ratio among 25-44 year olds) to marry men without college degrees (where there is a 1 to 1 ratio or even more males). If evolutionary psychology explained things well, there would not be as much of a barrier to marrying men without a 4-year degree. Of course, there are pairings of women with college degrees with men without college degrees, particularly among African-Americans.

To me, as Catholics, we should be looking at mates for their openness to God’s work in their lives, which may or not correspond with economic or even evolutionary considerations.
Click to expand...
The math is very unfavorable for couples that want children or especially for couples that want a stay-at-home parent, which many do, particularly in the early years.

Take an unmarried couple where each makes $30k. That’s a modest single income, but it’s a healthy $60k combined if they were to marry. However, add a baby, and the couple is faced with the choice between a) figuring out how to make it as a family of 3 on $30k a year (a daunting prospect if you used to have $30k just to spend on yourself) or b) continue as a dual income couple with a $60k income and absorb large daycare costs.

Given that kind of choice, waiting a bit longer to be able to afford a parent at home doesn’t look like a crazy choice–because for a lot of people, neither the small single income nor putting an infant in full-time childcare are very attractive options.

(When my husband and I were young marrieds, we didn’t think the math through at all and then were surprised how broke we were living in a high rent city on a single moderate income as a family of three. But a lot of people can do the math.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top