4 ms·

> “For young women the problem in navigating sexuality and relationships is still gender inequality,” says Elizabeth Armstrong, a professor of sociology at the

> “For young women the problem in navigating sexuality and relationships is still gender inequality,” says Elizabeth Armstrong, a professor of sociology at the University of Michigan who specializes in sexuality and gender. “Young women complain that young men still have the power to decide when something is going to be serious and when something is not—they can go, ‘She’s girlfriend material, she’s hookup material.’ … There is still a pervasive double standard. Women try and find the best man they can possibly get. Just because 50% of the population is female and 50% is male doesn't mean that they're going to pair off equally. Women want the top 20%! [1] There are evolutionary reasons for this that push our species forward, mating always has and always will be a competition. Now think of the perspective of these top 20% guys. They get all the sex and need not give out their exclusive commitment. And why would they? From an economic perspective, they can maximize their sexual strategy this way (spread the seed, as it were). Monogamy just slows that down. Furthering the economics analogy, these dating apps increase the liquidity and efficiency of the market. Want Chad, the good looking investment banker guy? Keep swiping, you'll find him. No need to wait around for Bobby from your programming class to finally ask you out (he probably doesn't even lift weights). There are two groups clearly disadvantaged by this current setup: 1) Those 80% of "below average" males. Because one of the top males can satisfy many young women (you read the story, some guys sleep with 100+ girls a year), these men get left out. Traditionally, marriage existed as an incentive for the vast majority of men to be productive in exchange for reproduction opportunities. I'm sure the discerning reader wouldn't be surprised to learn that a girl sleeping with a bunch of top 20% dudes and later "settling down" has a harder time staying in a happy marriage [2]. 2) Which leads us to #2, unmarried women entering their 30s, or whatever arbitrary later age makes them less attractive to the top 20% men. The reality of male preference for physical attractiveness necessarily means that women who engaged in hook-up culture during their earlier years will have to lower their standards. We had a period of time where strict monogamy throughout adulthood dominated, and now that's becoming less so (hugely declining marriage rates as one indicator, [3]). The question is whether or not this is a natural evolution for our society, or a sign of decline. --- [1] - "As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. " http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dati... [2] - "They claim this finding is especially true for women, writing in the report, "We further found that the more sexual partners a woman had had before marriage, the less happy she reported her marriage to be."" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/more-sexual-partner... [3] - http://national.deseretnews.com/article/4535/US-marriage-rate-hits-new-low-and-may-continue-to-decline.html http://national.deseretnews.com/article/4535/US-marriage-rat...

fredkbloggs 11y ago
> We had a period of time where strict monogamy throughout adulthood dominated I strongly disbelieve this, and I think most historians would agree with me. We had a period of time in which what was written and widely disseminated in the polite (read: legal, and likely to be preserved) media did not include references to anything other than strict monogamy. When such references were included, they were usually scandalous and offered as implied evidence for a person or fictional character later getting his or her comeuppance. It's very easy, especially if you're raised in a religious or just plain awkward household, to latch onto that attitude with apparent reinforcement from historical sources. That doesn't mean that's how people actually lived. It does mean that's how most people wanted others to believe they lived. And there are plenty of private letters and other less public texts from history that show our ancestors to have been every bit as kinky, homosexual, and promiscuous as we collectively are today. There were prudes then, too, and plenty of them, and there were people who were happy in a genuinely monogamous marriage, just as there are today. But what's changed is not what people are doing, nor with whom, but whether they're willing to have others know about it. And even that's still nowhere near as free as many would imagine it: this article used pseudonyms throughout. Temporal exceptionalism is just way too lazy.
- zxcvvcxz 11y ago
  Yes, perhaps it was mainly the appearance and expectation (and aspirational goal) of monogamy that dominated. Sure. I don't think that detracts from the following thesis: namely that traditional social structures are eroding as a result of tipping the balance in society towards female-centric sexual strategy (as explained in my OP). I quoted the new low in marriage statistic, for example. The reason this is significant, whether it is actual monogamy or perceived monogamy that is dying, is because a lot of men will begin losing their incentive to be invested in society (the latter, the hope of monogamy and reproduction, still provides incentive). I'd also wager that a lot more women in older ages (40+) are less happy; actually there's evidence for this too, [1]. I'd also wager that the unhappiest are those who are unmarried or are married to partners they find significantly less desirable than previous hook ups in their younger years. [1] - http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/astounding-increase-in-antidepressant-use-by-americans-201110203624 http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/astounding-increase-in-an...

fredkbloggs 11y ago

> We had a period of time where strict monogamy throughout adulthood dominated I strongly disbelieve this, and I think most historians would agree with me. We had a period of time in which what was written and widely disseminated in the polite (read: legal, and likely to be preserved) media did not include references to anything other than strict monogamy. When such references were included, they were usually scandalous and offered as implied evidence for a person or fictional character later getting his or her comeuppance. It's very easy, especially if you're raised in a religious or just plain awkward household, to latch onto that attitude with apparent reinforcement from historical sources. That doesn't mean that's how people actually lived. It does mean that's how most people wanted others to believe they lived. And there are plenty of private letters and other less public texts from history that show our ancestors to have been every bit as kinky, homosexual, and promiscuous as we collectively are today. There were prudes then, too, and plenty of them, and there were people who were happy in a genuinely monogamous marriage, just as there are today. But what's changed is not what people are doing, nor with whom, but whether they're willing to have others know about it. And even that's still nowhere near as free as many would imagine it: this article used pseudonyms throughout. Temporal exceptionalism is just way too lazy.

zxcvvcxz 11y ago
Yes, perhaps it was mainly the appearance and expectation (and aspirational goal) of monogamy that dominated. Sure. I don't think that detracts from the following thesis: namely that traditional social structures are eroding as a result of tipping the balance in society towards female-centric sexual strategy (as explained in my OP). I quoted the new low in marriage statistic, for example. The reason this is significant, whether it is actual monogamy or perceived monogamy that is dying, is because a lot of men will begin losing their incentive to be invested in society (the latter, the hope of monogamy and reproduction, still provides incentive). I'd also wager that a lot more women in older ages (40+) are less happy; actually there's evidence for this too, [1]. I'd also wager that the unhappiest are those who are unmarried or are married to partners they find significantly less desirable than previous hook ups in their younger years. [1] - http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/astounding-increase-in-antidepressant-use-by-americans-201110203624 http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/astounding-increase-in-an...