Blog 5 - Marriage, Cohabitation, & Partnership

Question: What does it mean when sociologists say, “marriage is an institution”? According to Stephanie Coontz, what are the indicators of the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage? Explain what problems Coontz finds in the proposals to “reinstitutionalize marriage.” According to the articles by Harris and by Gerstel and Sarkisian, what are the benefits and disadvantages of marriage for women and men? According to Brown, what are the different reasons people cohabit, and what are the effects of cohabitation on well-being? The findings of the research on benefits and disadvantages of marriage and cohabitation can be affected by selection effects. Explain what that means.

In the Stephanie Coontz article, “The Future of Marriage”, she discusses the phenomenon of people, mostly Americans, supporting alternative methods of organizing parenthood and marriage. However, many people, like members of groups such as the Council on Families in America, are worried that these new methods will not provide an adequate nurturing environment for children and have thus pushed for re-institutionalizing marriage.
Marriage, in the fist place, is viewed as an institution by sociologists because it comes from “a well-understood set of obligations and rights which are backed up by laws, customs, rituals, and social expectations” (78). Marriage is in fact one of America’s most important and valued institutions. As a result, many people want to maintain marriage as life-long commitment and obligation to others.
However, over time, this institution has been becoming more and more deinstitutionalized. There are many indicators of this trend in today’s families. For example, “marriage has become an option rather than a necessity for men and women, even during the child-rearing years” (79). The high rates of divorce, cohabitation, remarriage, and single motherhood in America are also other factors that contribute to marriage’s deinstitutionalization. Furthermore, “social institutions and values have adapted to the needs, buying decisions, and lifestyle choices of singles” (80). For example, Coontz points out that “elders increasingly depend of Social Security and private pension plans, rather than the family, for their care” (80).
Marriage is not what is used to be; neither men nor women need marriage as much as they used to, and “asking people to behave as if they do just sets them up for trouble” (81). In the many proposals to ‘reinstitutionalize’ marriage Coontz finds many problems. First, she makes the point that we could stabilize marriage by making divorce harder to get; enforce marriage like any other contract. However, by making divorces harder to get it “would often exacerbate the bitterness and conflict that are associated with the worst outcomes of divorce” (83). Furthermore, by making divorces harder to get does nothing to prevent separation of desertion. In fact, “divorce rates are the product of long-term social and economic changes, not of a breakdown in values” (85).

As pointed out in the Harris and Gerstel and Sarkisian articles there are both advantages and disadvantages for married men and women.
Waite and Gallagher have found that marriage causes more positive benefits than either living alone or cohabiting with a boyfriend or girlfriend (Harris, 26). Marriage is a bargain, for both men and women, and few of us can afford to pass it up. It is “good for one’s pocketbook, health, happiness, sex life and kids. [In addition], both men and women who are married tend to have higher incomes, more wealth, better health, and more property than those who are not” (Gerstel & Sarkisian, 16). Many studies have proven that marriage has health benefits towards married men and women. For example, “cancer-care providers have long known that having a spouse vastly improves a patient’s chance of survival” (Harris, 28). Furthermore, “both married men and married women seem to be less prone to clinical depression, anxiety disorders, and suicide than the single or divorced” (Harris, 28). Marriage has also been proven to have economic benefits. For men, “married men earn between 10 and 40 percent more than single men” (Harris, 29). On the other hand, it is believed that the “one of the greatest benefits marriage offers women is economic: flexibility in their work lives” (Harris, 31). In addition, marriage also increases men involvement in church and religious life.
Although there are evident advantages to marriage there are also some disadvantages. When a marriage is categorized as bad “marriages are hazardous to mental and physical health, increasing suicide, stress, cancer, and blood pressure – and even slowing the healing of wounds” (Gerstel & Sarkisian, 17). For women, housework usually tends increases after marriage and poor women usually never see the benefits of marriage. It also seems that marriage, “competes with, and even undermines, relations in the wider community. Married people are less involved with their parents and siblings. The married are less likely to visit, call, or write these relatives” (Gerstel & Sarkisian, 19).

According to Susan Brown’s article, “How Cohabitation is Reshaping American Families,” she highlights the different reasons why people cohabit and what the effects of cohabitation are on well-being. In a specific study conducted by Lynne Casper and Liana Sayer they found four main reasons why people cohabit. The first was categorized as precursor to marriage “characterized by definite plans to marry one’s partner and satisfaction with and commitment to the current relationship” (Brown, 34). People also cohabit because it offers an alternative to single-hood; “people who were uncertain about marriage and the quality of their relationship” (34). Trial cohabitors “were those who were not committed to their relationship but believed in marriage and hoped to marry someone someday” (35). The fourth reason to cohabit was found to be an alternative to marriage; “they were committed to their partners but less sanguine about the institution of marriage” (35).
Although cohabitation is becoming more and more popular people may want to rethink their plans and take a look at cohabitation’s effects of the well-being. Overall, “the well-being of cohabitors tends to be lower than that of married couples across a variety of indicators” (35). For example, it was found that couples who cohabit report more psychological distress than married couples. In addition, “cohabitors report engaging in sexual activity more frequently than either married couples or singles, but married couples are happiest with their sex lives” (35). Although these are only a few indicators it seems obvious that cohabitation seems to negatively affect one’s well-being.

The different effects that marriage and cohabitation have on particular people are discussed in the majority of all these articles. However, these findings can be, and probably are, manipulated by the selection effects, specifically the different social and economic standings of the people. Taking these socio-economic factors into account, however, can be very difficult, almost impossible to test. Harris brings it up in her article when she states, “does marriage make people healthier, happier, and richer, or do healthy, happy, rich people get (and stay) married more often than the sick, miserable and poor do?” (30)

Blog 4 - Dating & Mating

Question: 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.

In the Risman and Schwartz article, “After the Sexual Revolution: Gender Politics in Teen Dating,” the authors point out and discuss the apparent sexual trends of teens of the late 20^th and early 21^st century. Although the majority of Americans regard teen sexuality as a social problem, Risman and Schwartz do not view teen sexuality as being that problematic.
These authors argue that “sexual exploration may in fact be part of the developmental journey of adolescence” (23). One of the main trends in sexual activity among teens is that teenagers, especially girls, are becoming more sexually responsible rather than less sexually active. Girls have been found to have an increasing control over conditions of sexual intercourse which have led to positive outcomes. Through studies it has been illustrated that women have responded to the threat of disease as well as pregnancy and insisted on the use of condoms (19). Subsequently, the insistence of wearing condoms has resulted in fewer teen pregnancies, fewer teenage mothers and fewer abortions. The ways in which teens are defining sex have also had a positive impact. More girls are now defining sex as part of a relationship. Girls are presumed sexually active inside, but not outside, romantic relationships. However, despite their success of sexual responsibility girls are still faced with the double standard. Many girls are still worried about being labeled a slut and seem to be more susceptible to being judged than are teenage boys.
Overall, Risman and Schwartz have concluded through their research that nearly all American youths are sexually active by the end of their teens. Since teens are becoming more sexually responsible and there has been a dramatic decline of negative consequence resulting from teenage sexual intercourse both authors agree that the rising trend of sexuality among teens is not a social problem, but rather a construction of the sexual revolution.

In the article, The Decline of the Date and the Rise of the College Hook Up, England and Thomas have concluded from their research that among college students traditional dating, as defined in the 20s and 50s, is virtually dead. Because dating was considered to be the most traveled pathway into romantic relationship England and Thomas were asking themselves: how do people end up in relationships if the usual considered method is categorized as being archaic? The answer, they discovered, is a hook up. A “hook up” is essentially something sexual that happens between two people while hanging out. “A hook up implies that something sexual happened, but not necessarily that you “had sex,” by which students mean sexual intercourse” (154). England and Thomas found that oral sex “which used to be less common, and practiced largely by couples who were already having intercourse, came to be much less serious or intimate” (161). Furthermore, “hooking up with someone doesn’t necessarily imply an interest in a relationship, although sometimes it leads to relationships” (153). More college students have formed relationships via a hook up than the traditional method of dating. In fact, more students considered themselves “dating” someone after they were already in an exclusive relationship.
Although current sexual trends among collegiate women demonstrate that women have the option of more sexual behavior than the past, “women are receiving less genital stimulation conducive to orgasm than men in hook ups” (157). For women, the double standard is also still present. “Students often talked about how women get a bad reputation – among men and women – if they hook up too much, or with too many men who know each other, or have sex too easily” (158). Women were also the ones who showed more interest in turning hook up into relationships and were also the ones who wanted to limit sexual intercourse to relationships.

As I was reading both of these articles I couldn’t help but be amazed about how true they were. It seemed as if England and Thomas could have conducted their study at Boston College or any other college for that matter. I do agree that while some people have pledged to stay virgin until marriage, I have noticed that people have become more sexually responsible (i.e. using birth control and condoms) than becoming less sexually active. Dating, in the tradition sense, has definitely been waned out and been replaced by the hook up. When people say that they are dating it really means that they are already in an exclusive relationship.

Blog 3 - History of the Family

Question: Describe the Puritan approach to sexual desire. What was the ideal of sexuality in colonial America? How did people learn about sexuality? How did colonial society deal with sexual “deviance” and what were the two main goals of regulating it?

The Puritans, of early colonial America, strongly believed that sexual expression was “a duty and a joy within marriage, and for the purpose of procreation” (16). Furthermore, authority figures such as the clergy preached and emphasized “marriage as the only suitable outlet for sexual desire and warned against both masturbation and premarital sex” (16). Puritans believed that sex was to only occur between a married couple and for the purpose of reproducing offspring, rather than physical gratification.
People typically learned about sexuality “from two primary sources: observation within the family and moral instruction from parent and church” (16). Growing up in colonial America people could see that “procreation was everywhere, in the barnyard and in the house” (17). There were a number of accounted incidences where young boys would experiment sexually with farm animals. Young Puritans also learned about sexuality in the house from hearing or seeing sexual activity among adults. Colonial houses were usually rather small and it was normal to have all family members sleep in one room, and in some cases they would all share one bed. However, “whatever they observed, children learned early on that sexual behavior ought to be limited to marriage. Clergy and lawmakers of the time also played a role in teaching Puritan youth about sexuality – constantly aiding youths to channel their sexual desires towards marriage. Although the Puritan ideal of sexuality was extremely clear there were a number of individuals who defied the laws of the community when “they committed adultery, sodomy, incest, or rape, or when women bore bastard children” (27). Because the family was such an important component of colonial life and economic survival demanded family living authorities went to great lengths to regulate sexual deviance that threatened their ‘natural’ way of life. “Laws against extramarital sexuality carried harsh penalties – even behaviors that might lead to sex outside marriage required punishment” (28). Penalties usually included some sort of public humiliation, such as whipping at the post or sitting in the stocks (27). In other cases the offender would have to pay a certain fine. In many colonial developments “public confession and repentance both restored the individual to the congregation and at the same time confirmed the propriety of sexual rules” (27). In extreme cases of deviance however, such as sodomy, buggery, and bestiality the penalty of the crime was capital punishment because they defied the norm of reproductive sexuality. “The regulation of deviance served the larger function of reminding the community at large that sexuality belonged within marriage, for the purpose of producing legitimate children” (28). In the South, sexual offenses began to include those that threatened the racial dominance of whites over blacks. The punishment for black men who sexually assaulted white women were extremely harsh; usually “prescribing castration for blacks who attempted to rape white women” (31).
Colonial America had a clear notion of sexuality, “the family provided the only acceptable outlet for sex, with the primary goal of producing legitimate children” (38). Because the family was the central unit of life and survival people in colonial American went to extreme ends to protect and uphold these ideals.

Question: D’Emilio argues that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory. Explain this argument, and then summarize his argument about gay identity and capitalism. Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not?

In his article Capitalism and Gay Identity, John D’Emilio argues against the common belief that ‘gay men and lesbians always were’ and instead asserts that gay men and lesbians have not always existed. D’Emilio claims that homosexuality is a by-product of history and has only come into existence since the industrial revolution and the development of capitalism. He also asserts that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory. D’Emilio asks, “How is it that capitalism, whose structure made possible the emergence of a gay identity and the creation of urban gay communities, appears unable to accept gay men and lesbians in its midst” (108)? “On the one hand, capitalism continually weakens the material foundation of family life, making it possible for individuals to live outside the family, and for a lesbian and gay male identity to develop. On the other hand, it needs to push men and women into families, at least long enough to reproduce the next generation of workers” (110).
The expansion of capital, D’Emilio argues, has had a profound effect in the “structure and functions of the nuclear family, the ideology of family life, and the meaning of heterosexual relations” (102). These changes are what D’Emilio believes to be directly connected to the appearance of a collective gay life. In 17^th century colonial living the “family was truly an interdependent unit of production: the survival of each member depended on the cooperation of all” (103). In the 19^th century however, these family dynamics changed greatly: “men and women were drawn out of the largely self-sufficient household economy of the colonial era into a capitalist system of free labor” (103). “By the mid 1800s, capitalism had destroyed the economic self-sufficiency of many families, but not the mutual dependence of the members” (103). Gradually the family moved from a unit that produced goods to an institution that produced emotional satisfaction and happiness. Furthermore, as a result of moving away from a society where men and women needed the labor of children there was a significant decline in the birthrate. D’Emilio points out that, “the decline has been continuous for two centuries, paralleling the spread of capitalist relations of production” (104). By “fostering the separation of sexuality and procreation, capitalism has created conditions that allow some men and women to organize a personal life around their erotic/emotional attraction to their own sex” (104). As a result of capitalism survival was no longer based on one’s participation within a nuclear family and individuals were able to survive beyond the confines of the family.
D’Emilio uses the Kinsey studies of the 1940s and 1950s to further support his theory about capitalism and gay identity. “The Kinsey studies found significantly more men than women with predominantly homosexual histories, a situation caused, I [D’Emilio] would argue, by the fact that capitalism had drawn far more men than women into the labor force, and at higher wages” (106). Overall, D’Emilio’s main point in his article is that “capitalism has created the material conditions for homosexual desire to express itself as a central component of some individual’s lives” (109).
I think that D’Emilio, in his article Capitalism and Gay Identity, is convincing in his argument. It seems that homosexuals were able to identify more with their sexuality and establish gay/lesbian sub cultures as a result from capitalism; in the sense that survival no longer depended on one’s participation within the nuclear family. I agree with D’Emilio that capitalism was a key factor in enabling men and women to identify with their homosexuality; in “colonial society family was so pervasive that they even lacked the category of homosexual or lesbian to describe a person” (104).