Hooking Up: Changes in Courtship Strategies

Almost everyone acknowledges that marriage has changed. The disagreements—and there are plenty—concern whether these are positive and/or what, if anything, to do about them. Some see traditional marriages as in crisis, whereas others perceive recent developments as socially liberating.
I, for one, in teaching sociology to a combination of traditional and non-traditional students, have encountered a great deal of angst. Many men and women, both young and old, are disturbed by the current instability of intimate relationships. They personally yearn for everlasting love, but worry that it may not be available to them—or if it seems to be, may prove ephemeral.
On college campuses nationwide this has been expressed in drastic changes in the manner couples get together. Where once dating was the normal process for pairing, today there is more emphasis on “hooking up” and “hanging out.” The old-fashioned practice of couples meeting at an appointed time and then proceeding to dinner and/or a movie is nowadays regarded as quaint.
What has happened is chronicled in Kathleen Bogle’s Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. In this beautifully written and sensibly analyzed investigation into modern courtship customs, Dr. Bogle lifts the curtain of confusion that has prevented most of us—which is to say those of us past our twenties—from appreciating what is really happening to contemporary heterosexual relationships.
Many of us have not wished to recognize the degree to which pre-marital sex has become institutionalized. We have heard the term “hooking up” and feared that it referred to an indiscriminate sexual meat market that inevitably produced marital volatility. As such, we were appalled.
In this regard, Dr Bogle’s study offers mixed messages. On the comforting side, although “hooking up” does include casual sexual liaisons that are not expected to lead to much else, the amount of sex involved is less than salacious reports have implied. Indeed, her estimate is that only about a quarter of hooking up episodes become fully sexual. Many more are assumed to do so because the participants (especially the men) are content to have outsiders believe what they will.
Also comforting—at least to me—is the fact that college women continue to worry about their reputations. To be thought too easily available for sex is still to be regarded as a “slut” by most members of both sexes. This means that a majority of women are reasonably careful about bestowing their favors. They rightfully fear that if they are not, they will be considered a casual night’s fun, and little else.
On the other hand, virginity is not as valued as it once was. And how could it be considering the situation of those involved. Today the average age at which women marry is twenty-five, whereas that of men is twenty-seven. This means that both sexes must endure over a decade during which they are sexually mature but not engaged is a socially sanctioned relationship. Under the circumstances the pressure to do something must be enormous.
Given this state of affairs the hooking up scene is a modest solution. It allows for limited sexual experimentation, but does so without providing unrestricted promiscuity. In fact, much of the sex that does occur is of the “oral” variety. (No doubt President Clinton would be proud.)
The problem—and I believe it serious—is that practice in developing sound relationships is also restricted. Instead of using the dating ritual to learn about oneself and others, genuine courtship is put on hold. Merely “hanging out” with members of the opposite sex is not a particularly effective way of investigating the difficulties (and joys) of interpersonal intimacy. It is more about postponing adult life than figuring out how to enter it on the of best terms.
This said, what most intrigued me about Bogle’s book is how much we do not know. Courtship rituals have clearly changed, and keep doing so, but we do not have good information about how they look from the inside. Nor do we fully understand their consequences or whether there are superior alternatives.
Considering how important these issues are, it is remarkable the degree to which we have averted our eyes from reality. It is likewise remarkable how many of us are content to allow ideology to determine our attitudes toward sex, marriage, and personal relationships. In this regard, Bogle’s book is a welcome wake-up call. If nothing else, it is extremely thought provoking.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Is Government Health Care a Right?

Next November we Americans must make a big decision. When we vote, we will go a long way to determining whether government provided health care is a fundamental “right.” Many Democrats clearly believe it is. Their giddiness at passing ObamaCare demonstrated the degree to which they consider this a pressing moral issue.
Yet I remember a similar “historic” inflexion point. Way back in the 1960’s I was working for the New York City Department of Welfare. As a caseworker, part of my job was to inform the public about our programs. This put me square in the middle of an earlier liberal crusade.
The War on Poverty was then at its height, hence I was required to distribute brochures explaining that welfare was a personal “right.” The poor needn’t be ashamed of applying for assistance because this was a benefit to which they were entitled.
The result of this publicity blitz was a huge deluge of new applicants. Many thousands of people literally lined up to procure their share of the promised bounty. Soon, however, the system was overwhelmed. Money was leaving the city’s coffers more quickly than it was coming in.
Something had to be done, so the city fathers got creative. Instead of the usual three receptionists at each welfare center, they reduced the number to one. This created a bottleneck, with the resultant queues stretching clear around the block. Indeed, the waiting time became so daunting that many prospective clients voluntarily dropped out. They decided that the gain was not worth the inconvenience.
A parallel occurrence subsequently took place in Canada and Great Britain. The demand for their government provided medical services outstripped its availability; hence they too resorted to circuitous rationing. They did this by instituting literal waiting lists. Now their patients often had to delay treatment for many months.
This, unfortunately, is what happens when a “good” is converted into an unlimited moral “right.” The demand eventually goes through the roof such that indirect means must be employed to restrict it.
Something else also happens. Those who possess the right become obsessed with receiving their due. Back in New York, this became evident during my talks with clients. Time and again they fretted about how to retain their eligibility. Instead of contemplating methods for getting a job or starting a business, they plotted techniques for keeping their cases open.
Nor could I blame them. Free money was, after all, free money. Nonetheless the consequence of this attitude was passive dependence. Instead of taking care of their needs, they surrendered their futures to the goodwill of their protectors. In the end, rather than moving up in society, they became trapped in their own impotence.
Sadly, this may also be the effect of a healthcare entitlement. Once medical assistance is solely delegated to government bureaus, people may be less concerned with doing for themselves what only they can do.
Quality healthcare is not just a matter of going to the doctor. It also concerns how we eat, exercise, and follow medical advice. This being the case, a lack of personal responsibility can be devastating. It can turn a benefit into a curse.
Were availability of physicians the only constituent of good health, the poor would currently be far better off than they are. Medicaid—which is already free—would have produced much better results than it has. No, what is also needed is the mindset to take advantage of opportunities. Ironically, personal responsibility tends to be undermined by an entitlement mentality.
Medical care can be expensive, hence there is no doubt some form of social insurance is necessary. Nevertheless, to go from circumscribed assistance to an indefinite “right” is a huge step. This is measure we may wish to rethink before endorsing ObamaCare’s blank check.
If we do not, we may shortly be replaying the War on Poverty. And soon thereafter we may be contemplating the effects of national—and personal—bankruptcy.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Most Dangerous Man in the World: Karl Rove

Karl Rove is hated. Reading his autobiographical book Courage and Consequence (My Life as a Conservative in the Fight) is a reminder of just how much he is despised. Time and again, he recalls examples of opponents who not only sought to defeat him, but who also wanted him dead or in jail.
This is especially curious in that his work makes him sound preeminently likable. But then again, likeability has nothing to do with the disdain in which his enemies have held him. Ironically, it appears to be his virtues that were the chief source of their contempt.
We may begin to understand this paradox by noting what happens when the shoe is on the other foot, which is to say, when liberals hold power. Shortly after Democrats passed ObamaCare, they became aware that opposition to this measure was as strong as ever. Members of the tea party movement, in particular, had been roused to high dudgeon.
To this liberals responded with moral indignation. They began by accusing their critics of racist and fascist inclinations. Somehow these opponents habitually shouted vulgar epithets that only sensitive left-wingers heard. Clearly something had to be done. These anti-democratic diatribes had to be silenced.
The point of this observation is that liberals believe in free speech—but only for themselves. If others are as vociferous as they in making their points, they interpret this enthusiasm as a threat to civilization. They—which is to say the liberals—consider themselves the epitome of enlightened civilization, hence anyone who opposes them must be a menace to progress and decency.
Which brings us back to Rove. When at his most influential, he was much more than a dissenting voice. He represented an enemy who had seized power from its rightful possessors. He was the face of that most dreaded of liberal bugaboos; the one who achieves victories.
So far as most Democrats were concerned George W. Bush was an illegitimate president. He was too stupid and shallow to be chief executive; and far too inarticulate to be leader of the free world. Worse still, he had stolen two elections from Democratic candidates who were far better qualified for the office than he.
And who was responsible for this injustice? It couldn’t be Bush. The man did not have the intellectual resources to make it happen. No, it had to be a power behind the throne. It had to be a Mephistophelean figure that pulled the strings. That man, of course, was none other than Karl Rove. He was the “architect,” the one who molded Bush as one might a piece of pliant clay.
It did not matter that several recounts of the Florida vote, often by liberal sources, confirmed that Bush came out ahead. Nor did it matter that Democrats were the ones who sought to change the rules after election day such that they could cherry pick votes only from the counties in which they were presumably strongest. It didn’t even matter that the Supreme Court came down decisively against them. Liberals were right and therefore deserved to win.
The only plausible explanation for these reverses was that the opposition had stolen the victory. They must have done something illegitimate, otherwise virtue and integrity would have prevailed. And who was the moving force behind this deviousness. Why it must have been that evil genius Karl Rove. Only he had the intelligence and malice to achieve it.
Did it matter that there was no evidence to support this thesis? It did not! Or did it is count that what was attributed to Rove was often physically impossible. No, it certainly didn’t. All that mattered was that someone did something reprehensible and he was the most likely contender.
When four years latter Bush defeated Kerry, this theory was confirmed. Rove might claim he had nothing to do with the Swift Boat Veterans criticisms of their nominee, but that could not be true. It had to be him. Only he had the evil brilliance to make it work. Only he could have thought it up or orchestrated its implementation.
Reading Rove, however, provides a very different interpretation. Allowing for the fact that his book must, to some extent, be assumed to be self-serving, his explanations nevertheless ring true. Whatever else Rove may be, he comes across as a modest and competent professional. Unlike his hysterical critics, he does not appear to be carried away by implausible conspiracy theories.
And this seems to be one of his greatest strengths. Precisely because he is not given to vengeful passions, he is better able to assess what works than his detractors. Moreover, this level-headedness most pointedly includes his mistakes. Rove seems able to admit when he is wrong and therefore to fix his missteps. He does not excuse them by blaming them on the fictional machinations of his opponents.
By the way, Rove makes it clear that Bush is neither stupid nor weak. The ex-president may have his limitations, but he also has strengths—strengths Rove was able to exploit for political purposes.
In any event, Rove’s book is a treasure trove of multi-faceted insights; insights concerning both his private and professional life. As a result, anyone with political aspirations ought to read it as Baedeker to campaign management.
But more than this, his is an account of how a shrewd, sensible, and amiable human being can make his way through the hazardous shoals of American politics with this sanity intact. Despite all the malignant abuse heaped on him, he has managed to retain his perspective and to avoid returning hatred in kind. In the end, I was rooting for him to come out on top—and he did.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Sausage-Making: Why “Process” Matters

Something odd happened when Barack Obama went on Fox News to defend his medical reforms. When asked about the legislative procedures used to advance his programs, he coyly averred that he was not much interested in “process.” What mattered to him was protecting the health of the American people.
This was particularly strange because the president was then up to his eyebrows in the process of passing his bill through the House of Representatives. He might proclaim the importance of “substance,” whereas his greatest efforts were reserved for deal-making and arm-twisting. He even went so far as to issue an executive order regarding abortion in order to seduce the last few Democratic holdouts.
Nevertheless, process does matter. It matters deeply. Indeed, when process becomes too distorted, it is transformed into a violation of substance.
We must never forget that Democracy is about process.
So is the Constitution.
And so is the Bill of Rights.
These processes are what protect us from tyranny and demagoguery. They are what enable the us to stymie the aspirations of would-be despots. These rules provide the means of saying No when the will of the people is being violated.
It may be harsh to say, but Barack Obama fits the dictionary definition of a demagogue. Can it be doubted that he is using poplar prejudices and false claims to advance his own agenda? Can it be denied that he seeks to manipulate public emotions in order to enhance his own power?
Right after his bill passed, the president went on television to announce that he had listened to the voices of the people when he manifestly had not. He surely recognized that the polls were against him, but did not care. Convinced that he knew best, he would do whatever it took to prevail.
How many times in recent months have Obama and his minions pulled out the crying towel? How often have they pointed to the supposed plight of individuals in order to arouse public sympathy? It was not the merits of their program that concerned them so much their ability to mobilize emotional support.
And how many times have they resorted to corrupt deals to collect legislative votes? It seemed that no invidious dispensation was beyond them—as long as it served to buy a ballot. They were even prepared to use the patently unconstitutional “deem and pass” (or was that demon pass) if needed. Indeed, they are still prepared to violate tradition by resorting to reconciliation in the Senate.
What is more remarkable is that Obama and his associates are prepared to defend these violations as “business as usual.” Everyone, they tell us, does it this way and therefore it is no big deal. –Maybe so, but no one in living memory has done it on this grand a scale.
The Democrats—who are democratic in name only—also tell us that legislating is a messy business. It is like making sausage; hence it is best not to look too closely at the details. Evidently they have not read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. In this work, Sinclair described how meat packers once included rat feces and human body parts in their sausage. Today it is legislators who are doing the equivalent.
Sadly, Obama and his friends seem oblivious of what they include in legislation. This is troublesome because in the past it was the government that intervened to regulate the food industry. And it did a good job too. But now the government is itself engaged in unsanitary practices. As a result, it is up to us to do the regulating. It is now we who must defend democracy!
Benjamin Franklin when asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had produced replied “A republic—if you can keep it.” Well, the crunch has come. It is now up to our generation to preserve the freedoms our forefathers bequeathed us. Obama and his anti-democratic crowd cannot be allowed to get away with their assault on our time-tested institutions.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University