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

[pianistclare]

That’s not what I said. I said I don’t need a man to be my provider, protector or leader. I do all of that. I want a companion, not my boss.

Providers protectors and leaders are bosses?
Really?
Wow.
I’m out. This makes no sense.

 

[TeachCatechism]

Providers protectors and leaders are bosses?
Really?
Wow.
I’m out. This makes no sense.

It does make sense. I’m a leader I don’t need a man telling me what to do. We can make decisions together, not him alone.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

It does make sense. I’m a leader I don’t need a man telling me what to do. We can make decisions together, not him alone.

‘Leader’ and ‘dictator’ are not synonymous.

To make this as non threatening and uncontroversial as possible, think of all the roles that Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, Harrison Ford, George Clooney, etc have ever played. Weren’t virtually all of their attractive characters leaders? Can you name a single attractive man in the media or in a work of fiction who is not a leader, even/especially in his romantic encounters?

 

[TeachCatechism]

‘Leader’ and ‘dictator’ are not synonymous.

To make this as non threatening and uncontroversial as possible, think of all the roles that Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, Harrison Ford, George Clooney, etc have ever played. Weren’t virtually all of their attractive characters leaders? Can you name a single attractive man in the media or in a work of fiction who is not a leader, even/especially in his romantic encounters?

He can be a leader he just can’t be the only leader. Meaning sometimes I’ll make the final decision and sometimes he will.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

That’s not what I said. I said I don’t need a man to be my provider, protector or leader. I do all of that. I want a companion, not my boss.

I said “leader” not “boss.” There is a difference.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And since you and others have said you want an “equal” or a “companion” let’s review what I say about all three of those roles:

At the end of the day, I believe women are ultimately looking for men to be three things: leader, provider, protector.

They want a man who fulfills those roles physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. Right or wrong, they may believe college graduates better meet these requirements.

Most of the responses I’ve seen have focused only on the PHYSICAL. Are you saying you also don’t care if the man provides for your mental, emotional and spiritual needs? Are you saying you don’t care if the man tries to protect your heart or your soul?

And as to the leader, one final thought from the Letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

Husbands are called to be Christ to their wives. That means willingly dying for her (though not necessarily literally). Do you honestly not want your husband to set aside his desires to make sure your needs are cared for?

 

[TeachCatechism]

I said “leader” not “boss.” There is a difference.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfZ2zPeCAAACBee.jpg

And since you and others have said you want an “equal” or a “companion” let’s review what I say about all three of those roles:

Most of the responses I’ve seen have focused only on the PHYSICAL. Are you saying you also don’t care if the man provides for your mental, emotional and spiritual needs? Are you saying you don’t care if the man tries to protect your heart or your soul?

And as to the leader, one final thought from the Letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians:

Husbands are called to be Christ to their wives. That means willingly dying for her (though not necessarily literally). Do you honestly not want your husband to set aside his desires to make sure your needs are cared for?

I want us to do both to each other.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

But the assumption that women want to get married and men don’t want to be tied down is a little dated, at least as far as millennials go.

Actually it’s deeply rooted in evolutionary psychology based on the biological realities. Biologically speaking, men have very little investment in reproduction: a few ounces of sperm. Women, on the other hand, must physically carry the child for 9 months through pregnancy, which invariably interferes to some degree with her ability to advance in other areas of her existence. Then she has the sacrifice of her time, energy and limited resources that is necessary to raise the child to adulthood. This is always a psychological consideration due to the mother - child bond, which is so strong that many women (if not most) who refuse to make that sacrifice would prefer to murder their own children in abortion than surrender them in adoption.

As I mentioned before, evolutionary influences can be overborne through socialization. This is not always a good thing. The sexual revolution (promoted as a way to “free” women from outdated and repressive sexual mores but was actually a massively successful hoax perpetrated by horny men who wanted girls to put out more frequently with little or no commitment from them) is responsible for most of the current misunderstanding of the relevant human psychology in addition to the out of wedlock birthrate.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

Actually the clock applies to both genders. Sure men can have kids late in life but they have issues too.

Eh, it’s somewhat slower, but it also applies to men.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect

Even Wikipedia (that amazing repository of unquestionably accurate information authored by volunteers who out of the goodness of their hearts write without bias or alternate agenda) admits that “A 2009 review concludes that the absolute risk for genetic anomalies in offspring is low, and states that ‘there is no clear association between adverse health outcome and paternal age …’” (emphasis added)

There will always be those who try to deny that there are any differences between men and women, in spite of Time magazine’s ground breaking discovery in 1992 to the contrary.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Apparently prior to then it was an open question.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Actually it’s deeply rooted in evolutionary psychology based on the biological realities. Biologically speaking, men have very little investment in reproduction: a few ounces of sperm. Women, on the other hand, must physically carry the child for 9 months through pregnancy, which invariably interferes to some degree with her ability to advance in other areas of her existence. Then she has the sacrifice of her time, energy and limited resources that is necessary to raise the child to adulthood. This is always a psychological consideration due to the mother - child bond, which is so strong that many women (if not most) who refuse to make that sacrifice would prefer to murder their own children in abortion than surrender them in adoption.

As I mentioned before, evolutionary influences can be overborne through socialization. This is not always a good thing. The sexual revolution (promoted as a way to “free” women from outdated and repressive sexual mores but was actually a massively successful hoax perpetrated by horny men who wanted girls to put out more frequently with little or no commitment from them) is responsible for most of the current misunderstanding of the relevant human psychology in addition to the out of wedlock birthrate.

I’m so much more interested in the way the world actually works today than I am in evolutionary psychology. And the assumptions you’re throwing around are not based on what is actually happening today, they’re based on what seems to be a lot of wishful thinking.

 

[Xantippe]

“Health” here is being understood very narrowly.

Given the mechanism of male reproduction (copies of copies of copies being made) it is very natural that errors arise in the copying process, and more and more as time goes by. Hence, it is now increasingly understood that paternal age does factor into chromosomal abnormalities, as paternal age is a source of abnormalities via mutation.

With autism, paternal age seems to have a stronger effect than maternal age:

medscape.com/viewarticle/846265

"The influence of paternal age on the occurrence of genetic disorders, including Down syndrome, has long been thought to be secondary. However, the influence of older paternal age at childbearing should not be ignored. New mutations leading to conditions such as neurofibromatosis and achondroplasia (a form of dwarfism) are more frequent in older men and therefore are more common in the children of older fathers.

“In addition, Fisch and colleagues studied the influence of paternal age on Down syndrome and showed that “advanced paternal age combined with maternal age significantly influences the incidence of Down syndrome.””

medscape.com/viewarticle/496962

And this area of study is fairly new, so this is just the beginning of our knowledge about the effect of advancing paternal age on chromosomal abnormalities. Within the next 10-20 years, I fully expect that we will be able to add a lot more items to the list of risks run by the children of older fathers.

Even Wikipedia (that amazing repository of unquestionably accurate information authored by volunteers who out of the goodness of their hearts write without bias or alternate agenda) admits that “A 2009 review concludes that the absolute risk for genetic anomalies in offspring is low, and states that ‘there is no clear association between adverse health outcome and paternal age …’” (emphasis added)

There will always be those who try to deny that there are any differences between men and women, in spite of Time magazine’s ground breaking discovery in 1992 to the contrary.
http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1992/1101920120_400.jpg

Apparently prior to then it was an open question.

 

[Sarcelle]

Actually it’s deeply rooted in evolutionary psychology based on the biological realities. Biologically speaking, men have very little investment in reproduction: a few ounces of sperm. Women, on the other hand, must physically carry the child for 9 months through pregnancy, which invariably interferes to some degree with her ability to advance in other areas of her existence. Then she has the sacrifice of her time, energy and limited resources that is necessary to raise the child to adulthood. This is always a psychological consideration due to the mother - child bond, which is so strong that many women (if not most) who refuse to make that sacrifice would prefer to murder their own children in abortion than surrender them in adoption.

As I mentioned before, evolutionary influences can be overborne through socialization. This is not always a good thing. The sexual revolution (promoted as a way to “free” women from outdated and repressive sexual mores but was actually a massively successful hoax perpetrated by horny men who wanted girls to put out more frequently with little or no commitment from them) is responsible for most of the current misunderstanding of the relevant human psychology in addition to the out of wedlock birthrate.

You can quote evolutionary psychology all you want but that is just an excuse to perpetuate a double standard. A man who sleeps around, is still committing fornication. That is Catholic teaching. When it comes to extra marital sex, men and women both sin. Men are not excused due to their biology.

 

[fnr]

Actually it’s deeply rooted in evolutionary psychology based on the biological realities. Biologically speaking, men have very little investment in reproduction: a few ounces of sperm. Women, on the other hand, must physically carry the child for 9 months through pregnancy, which invariably interferes to some degree with her ability to advance in other areas of her existence. Then she has the sacrifice of her time, energy and limited resources that is necessary to raise the child to adulthood. This is always a psychological consideration due to the mother - child bond, which is so strong that many women (if not most) who refuse to make that sacrifice would prefer to murder their own children in abortion than surrender them in adoption.

As I mentioned before, evolutionary influences can be overborne through socialization. This is not always a good thing. The sexual revolution (promoted as a way to “free” women from outdated and repressive sexual mores but was actually a massively successful hoax perpetrated by horny men who wanted girls to put out more frequently with little or no commitment from them) is responsible for most of the current misunderstanding of the relevant human psychology in addition to the out of wedlock birthrate.

I think the whole point of being Catholic (or having a conscience for any human being like Romans 1 says) is to learn to identify those things that are just instinctual and differentiate them from that which is holy. We are called to be holy, right?

It wasn’t just the sexual revolution that tried to drum meaning out of sexuality. It was the Enlightenment, which grafted the scientific worldview (a good thing) onto the long tradition of atheism and Epicureanism from certain ancient Greek philosophers. Rescuing culture from the Enlightenment – which I think the point of the New Evangelization – needs to confront the assertion that all meaning and morality is subjective.

It is undeniable that women entering the workforce, which really kicked into high gear after 1970, has changed society in fundamental ways. For example, marital infidelity used to be a predominantly male crime, particularly when men were the ones . As women have entered the workforce and broadened their social world outside the domestic sphere, the rate of marital infidelity among women has risen to equal that of men.

The sad thing about such changes is that it seems that economic materialist (or evolutionary reductionist) thinking seems to be accurately describing how our culture proceeds.

My OP – reflecting on the notion that among college-educated people (those being the only ones where the male/female sex ratios are consistently below 1.0), the fact that men are relatively scarce is driving men to act awfully and work to promote mass hookups, seems to also suggest that men just act like our genes (or our economic self-interest or our pleasure-seeking selves) say we should. Aren’t we as Catholics supposed to be different?

 

[Sarcelle]

I think the whole point of being Catholic (or having a conscience for any human being like Romans 1 says) is to learn to identify those things that are just instinctual and differentiate them from that which is holy. We are called to be holy, right?

It wasn’t just the sexual revolution that tried to drum meaning out of sexuality. It was the Enlightenment, which grafted the scientific worldview (a good thing) onto the long tradition of atheism and Epicureanism from certain ancient Greek philosophers. Rescuing culture from the Enlightenment – which I think the point of the New Evangelization – needs to confront the assertion that all meaning and morality is subjective.

It is undeniable that women entering the workforce, which really kicked into high gear after 1970, has changed society in fundamental ways. For example, marital infidelity used to be a predominantly male crime, particularly when men were the ones . As women have entered the workforce and broadened their social world outside the domestic sphere, the rate of marital infidelity among women has risen to equal that of men.

The sad thing about such changes is that it seems that economic materialist (or evolutionary reductionist) thinking seems to be accurately describing how our culture proceeds.

My OP – reflecting on the notion that among college-educated people (those being the only ones where the male/female sex ratios are consistently below 1.0), the fact that men are relatively scarce is driving men to act awfully and work to promote mass hookups, seems to also suggest that men just act like our genes (or our economic self-interest or our pleasure-seeking selves) say we should. Aren’t we as Catholics supposed to be different?

Yes we Catholics are supposed to, with the grace of God, overcome our fallen nature. Easier said than done.

 

[Xantippe]

You can quote evolutionary psychology all you want but that is just an excuse to perpetuate a double standard. A man who sleeps around, is still committing fornication. That is Catholic teaching. When it comes to extra marital sex, men and women both sin. Men are not excused due to their biology.

To sum up, evolutionary biology is the idea that we understand the thoughts and motivations of human beings that lived tens of thousands of years ago better than we understand the thoughts and motivations of humans that are walking around today. It also has the huge virtue of being virtually uncheckable. No Cro Magnon or Neanderthal is going to tap a evolutionary biology fan on the shoulder and say, “Hey! Pardon me for interrupting, but you’ve quite misunderstood the social dynamics of my culture.”

Also, given war and slavery, there have been many times and places where many girls and women had virtually no say in reproduction. That continues to be the case in the more unfortunate corners of the globe (Yemen, Afghanistan, etc.).

 

[MatthewTrainor]

I’m so much more interested in the way the world actually works today than I am in evolutionary psychology. And the assumptions you’re throwing around are not based on what is actually happening today, they’re based on what seems to be a lot of wishful thinking.

Evolutionary psychology is part of something that is still happening today, at least occasionally. It’s called “science,” perhaps you’ve heard of it? It’s the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Since much of our psychology appears to be “hard wired”, that is to say instinctual rather than learned, and the evolutionary process called natural selection is how the individual wiring is constructed, then it follows that postulation regarding how the evolutionary pressures impact our instinctual psychology will help us learn more about ourselves.

As I’ve mentioned before the “hard wired” instinct can be overcome. The base instinct of men to copulate with as many fertile women as possible was culturally oppressed for millennia much to the benefit of human society as a whole. The base instinct of women to form strong and lasting interpersonal bonds prior to mating, that was culturally encouraged for millennia much to the benefit of humanity, is clearly just as easily overcome. It appears we have a whole generation of young women who are willing anonymously copulate with a guy they met via a cellphone app less than a week prior, if that long.

It is always valuable to study how society operated in the past to properly evaluate how “what is actually happening today” will probably all work out. “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” - Edmund Burke

 

[MatthewTrainor]

And this area of study is fairly new, so this is just the beginning of our knowledge about the effect of advancing paternal age on chromosomal abnormalities. Within the next 10-20 years, I fully expect that we will be able to add a lot more items to the list of risks run by the children of older fathers.

Quote and study all you like, there is no male analog for menopause. Fertility with a risk of health deficits is still fertility.

 

[fnr]

“Health” here is being understood very narrowly.

Given the mechanism of male reproduction (copies of copies of copies being made) it is very natural that errors arise in the copying process, and more and more as time goes by. Hence, it is now increasingly understood that paternal age does factor into chromosomal abnormalities, as paternal age is a source of abnormalities via mutation.

With autism, paternal age seems to have a stronger effect than maternal age:

medscape.com/viewarticle/846265

"The influence of paternal age on the occurrence of genetic disorders, including Down syndrome, has long been thought to be secondary. However, the influence of older paternal age at childbearing should not be ignored. New mutations leading to conditions such as neurofibromatosis and achondroplasia (a form of dwarfism) are more frequent in older men and therefore are more common in the children of older fathers.

“In addition, Fisch and colleagues studied the influence of paternal age on Down syndrome and showed that “advanced paternal age combined with maternal age significantly influences the incidence of Down syndrome.””

medscape.com/viewarticle/496962

And this area of study is fairly new, so this is just the beginning of our knowledge about the effect of advancing paternal age on chromosomal abnormalities. Within the next 10-20 years, I fully expect that we will be able to add a lot more items to the list of risks run by the children of older fathers.

More relevant studies:

Open access:
nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201570a.html

Only abstracts available without subscription:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26226890
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26228797

 

[MatthewTrainor]

You can quote evolutionary psychology all you want but that is just an excuse to perpetuate a double standard. A man who sleeps around, is still committing fornication. That is Catholic teaching. When it comes to extra marital sex, men and women both sin. Men are not excused due to their biology.

You misunderstand me. I do support a double standard, but not the way you suppose. It is my position that men should suppress their base instinct and act contrary to the urge to seek as many sexual mates as possible. On the other hand I believe that women should be encouraged to follow their instinct to establish a strong and lasting bond prior to mating. Doing both is in the best interest of men, women, children and human society as a whole.

 

[Xantippe]

It is undeniable that women entering the workforce, which really kicked into high gear after 1970, has changed society in fundamental ways.

**I think I’d adjust that a bit.

Menial or low-paying work has always been widely available to women–wet nursing, being a domestic, a washerwoman, a prostitute, etc. And the sexual exploitation of domestics and the economically vulnerable has always been a thing.

What changed in the 20th century was that good, safe, clean, professional jobs were suddenly available to women. (And of course, to men, to–a lot of good contemporary jobs didn’t even exist 100 years ago.)**

My OP – reflecting on the notion that among college-educated people (those being the only ones where the male/female sex ratios are consistently below 1.0), the fact that men are relatively scarce is driving men to act awfully and work to promote mass hookups, seems to also suggest that men just act like our genes (or our economic self-interest or our pleasure-seeking selves) say we should. Aren’t we as Catholics supposed to be different?

I’d also suggest pointing out to women that are suffering in the college environment that college isn’t the whole world, and in 4 years, she’ll be entering the adult world, where the situation is much more balanced and men are more and more marriage-minded as they progress through their 20s and early 30s.

 

[Sarcelle]

Evolutionary psychology is part of something that is still happening today, at least occasionally. It’s called “science,” perhaps you’ve heard of it? It’s the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Since much of our psychology appears to be “hard wired”, that is to say instinctual rather than learned, and the evolutionary process called natural selection is how the individual wiring is constructed, then it follows that postulation regarding how the evolutionary pressures impact our instinctual psychology will help us learn more about ourselves.

As I’ve mentioned before the “hard wired” instinct can be overcome. The base instinct of men to copulate with as many fertile women as possible was culturally oppressed for millennia much to the benefit of human society as a whole. The base instinct of women to form strong and lasting interpersonal bonds prior to mating, that was culturally encouraged for millennia much to the benefit of humanity, is clearly just as easily overcome. It appears we have a whole generation of young women who are willing anonymously copulate with a guy they met via a cellphone app less than a week prior, if that long.

It is always valuable to study how society operated in the past to properly evaluate how “what is actually happening today” will probably all work out. “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” - Edmund Burke

No need to be condescending.

Yes, I know very well what science is although I consider psychology a soft science not a hard science like physics which is my major at university.

Psychology seems that have incorporated the biases of the investigator which is why I always take psychological theories with a grain of salt.