Teen and College Student Dating

Questions:
According to Risman and Schwartz article, what are the main trends in sexual activity among teens? How do the authors explain these trends? According to England and Thomas, what are the main trends in romantic and sexual behavior among college students? What gender differences are documented in both of these articles? Compare these authors' observations to your own high school and college experiences.

The first article by Barbara Risman and Pepper Schwartz dealt with a variety of issues in reference to teen sexuality habits. The main goal of the article was seemingly to dissuade the popular notion and current research that teens have become more sexually conservative unlike their parents in the last decade of the 20th century. Specific stats show that less teens between the ages of 15 and 17 have had sexual intercourse and the CDC discovered findings indicating that in the 90s less and less kids under the age of 18 are sexually active. In all categories, whites, blacks and Hispanics instances of sexual intercourse have dropped amongst teens. Also, teen pregnancy rates have dropped by 14%, which have lowered instances of abortion by 31%. There are a few possible reasons for this decline including the success of abstinence education, the positive effect of comprehensive sex education, the cultural backlash against the sexual revolution, or the fear of disease. The authors seems to assert that abstinence only education is not in fact as effective as comprehensive sex education and that many statistics are misrepresented. It seems that one of the trends for teens and sex is that teens are having more responsible sex as opposed to sex later in life. Only about 25% of the decline of the pregnancy rate can be attributed to abstinence, while the other can be attributed to more efficient use of birth control. Other trends show that while boys rates of sexual activity have decreased before the age of 18 while girls have not. Another trend is that most boys have their first sexual experience in a relationship because girls now have more say in the relationship. If girls choose to wait until they are "dating" then boys must also, different from the past when most boys had their first sexual experience with a "slutty girl" so to speak outside of their social circle who probably had many similar encounters with other males. Girls are also more likely to insist on safer sex than boys because they have to deal with pregnancy. Another trend is that there is still a gender double standard. If a girl were to have too much sex or do "sexual things" with too many guys, she would still be labeled as a slut while a boy could more easily move from partner to partner and have sex outside of an established relationship. Also, research shows that many teens also participate in acts of oral sex, even before have sexual or vaginal intercourse. In fact, most do not consider oral sex as sex. Another finding shows that by the time women are 20, 9 out of 10 have had sex. Only 1 out of 4 for women and 1 out of 5 for men are still virgins by the time they reach their teens. It also seems that while approval of casual sex is down, the definition of a relationship has also become more "liberal" and thus what one defines as casual sex may be very different from generation to generation. Apparently no counterrevolution has taken place, buy only allowed for us to rethink how we think about sex. It is no longer seen as a means by which to reproduce inside marriage. The article suggests also that the reason why more teens are protecting themselves from STIs and pregnancy is a product of girls having more sexual freedom. Like stated above, because they restrict sex into a relationship, boys have less control of the sex and girls insist on protection.

A very interesting part of the article, and one which I agree with wholeheartedly is that all sources seem to denote teen sexuality as a social problem. All fail to recognize the fact that as adults have accepted sex outside of marriage as a pleasure activity that doesn't necessarily lead to marriage, teens are following suits. Teens do in fact have sexual desires and choose to act on them. Unfortunately, no amount of education and parental control is going to stop teens from having sex. It would be wiser to accept it as an occurrence and instead try to prevent the harmful side effects of sex. Sex isn't a necessarily a bad thing if teens have education about their actions. The authors suggest that this view point of negativity towards teen sex is possibly why such statistics are skewed in the media. The authors also suggest that if other writers on teen sex stated their views on the subject before continuing their dissertation. This is a very good point for I think it would clear up where the author is coming from before preventing statistical date to prove or refute otherwise. Also it's interesting to think about whether or not teen sex is pathological or natural. To me it seems like it is natural. For what other reasons would teen act on sexual urges for all of time? It's not like teens didn't engage in sex in the past, they just kept it more under wraps so the social stigma didn't label them. The authors suggest that all in all many statistics are misrepresented to show that teens are showing more conservatism when it comes to sex. The authors suggest that this is not in fact true but more availability of birth control, the change of the role of the girl in the relationship, sex education, the redefinition of the relationship, and more awareness of disease has led teens to have more responsible sex; necessarily lowering rates of teen pregnancy, STIs and abortion rates. Also, teens are acting in the same way adults have revolutionized their sexual activity: sex for pleasure in a relationship not for marriage. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Researches and social analysts are too narrow minded in reporting their findings about the instances of teen sex. We need to take a very different approach to the topic if we ever plan to make strides on preventing unwanted and unsafe outcomes of sex.

The second article, "The Decline of the Date and the Rise of the College Hook Up" by Paula England and Reuben J Thomas proposes a second interesting idea of the evolution of dating. Paula England is a professor of sociology who was presented with the idea that college students no longer date but rather "hook-up." She states that at first she was shocked by this finding, but after researching the topic with her doctoral student Thomas, she found that scope of college heterosexual relationships have very much changed. She points to the fact that generally college students hang out as an expression of interest or meet at a party, drink, and then "hook-up," which can be defined as anything from making out to having sex casually with someone who is not a boyfriend or girl friend. Sometimes this leads to a series of hook-ups which then potentially leads to exclusive hooking up, and then maybe to a relationship. This relationship would then be defined as dating. There is a commitment, and probable sex, and there wouldn't be "hooking up" with other people.
In a survey conducted at a medium sized private university on 615 students, over half of the students reported having been on 5 real dates or fewer (excluding dorm room or Greek events). 21% of men and 32% of women had been on no dates at all- a seemingly sad trend that further bolsters the theory of the rise of hookups and decline of dating as it was known in the past. England states that the hookup is necessarily like the dating of the past- it leads to relationships. After a period of this "casual sex" generally the girl initiates "the talk" which poses the question of whether or not the couple is ready to become exclusive and start dating. There is of course a stigma that woman are generally the ones who want a relationship and men are just in it for the sex. Woman feel weird about bringing up the relationship talk for fear of being labeled this way. Cultural barriers have been lifted, allowing for it to be OK for women to have multiple sexual partners before marrying. This is considered normal, to excessive sex could lead to being called a slut. Another interesting trend noted by England is that more men than women have orgasmed during a hookup. Also, more men think that their partners have orgasmed, when in fact there is a statistical gap in what the man and what the woman actually reports. This could be because woman are faking orgasms or men are not actually aware of what an orgasm is. The reasons stated for this disparity were stated as inability of men to perform cunnilingus, women faking orgasm, and less women being comfortable with receiving oral sex outside of a relationship. It seems more women are comfortable with giving then receiving oral sex. Where couples received oral sex, 49% it was mutual, 37% only the man received and 14% of the time the woman only received. The authors point to a variety of changes in the scope of American society that has lead to these changes. This is including but not limited to the legalization of the birth control pill in the 60s, the legalization of abortion (which allowed more women to engage in sexual activity without the fear of pregnancy), and of the course the advent of women's rights which has spilt over into all spheres of life. Oral sex is more prevalent outside of marriage and people are marrying later, perhaps leading to more sex before it. The general idea of the article though is to point out that the hookup is becoming the norm for college students and dating so to speak is out.

Both articles touch on gender roles a lot in their analysis. The second article discusses that with the advent of freedom for women comes actually more responsibility and social stigma. If a woman wants a relationship or especially one that doesn't involve sexual activity at first, the hookup culture prevents this. The double standard still exists in relation to sex, men's sexual pleasure takes priority and women are still labeled as sluts and whores if they engage in more sex than is the norm. Women also orgasm less which really hasn't made sexual freedom any better for them. The first article also touches on this gender analysis. Risman and Schwartz discuss that the changing scope of high school dating has led more girls to be in control and thus have more insistence upon proper pre-sex precautions (condom, birth control, etc). Both seem to agree that the changes in dating and in teen sex have something to do with the gender revolution and women's rights whether that be positive or negative.

As a female in college I can definitely speak from experience and agree with England's article. She very very accurately describes the scene of "dating" so to speak on college campuses. Every night when my friends and I go out we hope to get drunk and "hookup" with someone at a party. This either means make out with them or go back to their room and perhaps do something more. If not this, then at least get a guys number and hope that a hook up might happen in the future. In one instance, this has led to a relationship. In most of my other roommates attempts, this has lead to repeated failure and dejection. After hooking up casually for a few weeks or months all of my girl friends were hoping to have the talk with their 'partners' in order to make their relationship more official. 7 out of 8 times, the guy went running. England's findings were true, girls want relationships to form out of these hookups and guys generally don't -they want sex. Also, none of my friends relationships or my own have started with a date. It's hard to decide if this is a healthy thing or not, but it certainly has changed from in the past. High school was very similar, we hook up and rarely dated. Friends remained friends even with sex and the relationships that existed were far and few. Girls lost their virginitys mainly because they were long term dating an older more experienced guy who clearly pressured them into having sex -whether willingly or unwillingly.

The first reading about sexual deviances was a very interesting one. The beginning of the article deals with the idea that colonial America stressed the importance of sex in marriage and in marriage only. They seemed to believe that it was ok to have sexual pleasure, and it was necessary to have sex period –and thus because sex was necessary for procreation, having children and sex for enjoyment went hand in hand. Sex outside of the marriage or before the marriage was not acceptable behavior. These acts included fornication, masturbation, sodomy, and buggery to name a few. Sex was an act to be shared by a man and his wife in the marriage bed. Children were taught and ingrained from a young age to believe that sex had its purpose to procreate, and anything outside of this was acceptable. Children were a desirable product of sex and were needed to keep a family going. Seemingly it was okay to have sexual desire, as long as it was channeled towards the marriage partner for the purpose of procreation. The Puritans in particular taught to channel sexual energy towards love for God and save just a little for marriage. They believed sex was virtually unclean and only acceptable to keep generations alive. Of course the Puritan approach was very much more conservative than in other areas. In the colonies in general, sexuality outside of marriage was punishable by execution, whipping or fines. Various standards existed for men and woman, race, and social standing, in terms of punishment. Kids were taught from a young age about sexuality. Many shared bedrooms or even beds with parents and thus witnessed sex first hand. Others were taught about it in church and by their parents. Obviously they knew that sex only had one purpose and was never to be experimented with. Colonial houses afforded little privacy to couples, thus almost anyone could here or see a couple “in the act.” In addition, as stated above, sexual promiscuity had heavy consequences for the parties involved. Sex outside of marriage, bastardy, and adultery were not tolerated. Though it seemed that if the “criminals” accepted the terms of their punishment and repented they were seamlessly reintegrated back into society. For example, Samuel Terry of Springfield who was a repeat sexual offender and yet was allowed to be a town constable. Similarly, couples who were courting with permission of the parents and got pregnant were generally forgiven if they repented, accepted punishment and married. The two main goals of regulating sexual deviance were to help enforce the system of marital, reproductive sexuality and to maintain white dominance over blacks. D'Emilio states that the court, church and community taught the socialization of youths and urged them to consider the appropriate place for sex -in marriage for children.

This reading was very interesting. It gave me a look at sexual life in Colonial American like I had never thought of it before. It certainly dispelled previous notions that all colonists were moral conservatives. To me it seems that peoples cravings were no different, but that moral standards stopped many from acting on such urges, especially with threat of punishment. I think the reading, while interesting, was sometimes hard to follow. It seems as if there were a lot of stories and random things thrown in full of repetition. The point is simple; sex was for marriage and marriage only otherwise there were consequences. Several pages were not needed to make this point. People were integrated into families to support each other economically. Thus children were a subset of this, and necessary to keep the family alive.

The second reading also offered an interesting view point on the development of gay society in our culture. D'Emilio believes that the rise of capitalism has created a society in which people are able to pursue their economic goals independent of a family and thus can pursue sexual goals independent of necessity. This in turn has propagated a culture in which people can engage in their homosexual urges and turn it into a lifestyle. Nuclear families are no longer needed as a basis for interdependence. People had to marry and have children because children were additional workers for the farm where food and clothing was produced. Children also cared for parents in their old age. When capitalism emerged, people began to leave the home to earn wages which wa in turn used to purchase food and clothing. Not as many things were made in the home anymore. He claims homosexual urges always existed, and documented several sources which confirmed these lewd findings in colonial times, but social construct didn’t allow for them to make a lifestyle of it. They didn't have the "social space" if you will to fully act on these desires. People needed the nuclear family and procreation to survive. It wasn’t until present times and the emergence of capitalism that people could pursue gains independently and support themselves. They could then also engage in sexual activity without the aim of procreation. A certain sexual identity was created that didn’t exist prior. Sex and economic self sufficiency are now able to travel in two separate spheres, and aren't reliant on one another. Thus he argues that just these urges existed, but not homosexuality as a lifestyle – not until present times. He claims that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory because capitalism is the force that has essentially weakened the bonds of the family economically (people no longer need the family to produce food to survive). At the same time he claims that the family creates feelings of love and affection that can't be found elsewhere (money doesn't satisfy emotions). The family is essentially a unit for support in the area of love.

This is an interesting argument but I’m not sure I buy it. I agree that capitalism certainly allowed for more and more people to live without marrying but I think homosexuality is homosexuality. If you had those urges in 1700 but didn’t act on them because society mandated that it was wrong, it is no different than today. Now though, it is socially acceptable to be gay and we can admit to it in the sense that we can live without a domestic partner. The author also states that the population of gays and lesbians has grown because of an example set. While this may be true in some respects, I’m more inclined to believe that more and more people are not inhibited from “coming out of the closet” so to speak because of the changing landscape of social stigmas. A gay individual, while perhaps not being able to recognize his/her differences in sexuality, would be wary to act upon his/her urges for fear of punishment, banishment, and inability to make a living. Now these social pressures don’t exist and thus more and more individuals identify themselves as gay. It’s the same idea of as the higher instances of divorce. There are more divorces, I believe, because it’s morally/socially acceptable to do so and woman can survive without the income of the man. Change has allowed for certain things to become more acceptable and thus more prevalent. The author doesn't really make clear what he's basing his argument on. While yes I would agree that there are exponentially more gay and lesbian people today, I think that is because we recognize it as a life style. If this is what D'Emilio is saying than I think he might be correct, but to say that less gay and lesbians existed in the 18th century for example is a statement that can't really be defended. There are no facts to support either argument -that there were less gays OR that there were the same amount but many didn't recognize their different feelings and act on them.