<p>frequent hooking,</p>
<p>I know what you meant.
;)</p>
<p>I think that is what is known as a “Freudian slip.” lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Considering the 50%+ greater divorce rate…especially after legal restrictions on divorce were lifted back in the '70s, I wouldn’t be too sure of the last sentence.</p>
<p>Especially considering that from what I’ve read and observed…it’s women who are slightly more likely to initiate divorces whereas slightly more men feel blindsided. </p>
<p>Obviously…one or both parties’ needs aren’t being met if divorce rates are as high as that…</p>
<p>I didn’t mention marriage, cobrat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mentioned relationships which many reasonable people may feel is a proxy word for marriage or a marriage-like state such as common-law marriage or a steady romantic long-term relationship.</p>
<p>Have you ever had a girlfriend, cobrat?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, Hunt. I don’t think a darn thing has changed in the last 3-4 decades except the terminology and the media buzz du jour. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly, LF! The thing that bothers me about these sorts of studies is that they attempt to reduce complex varied and often overlapping relationships into a set of discrete boxes where you are only allowed to select one. Over a given 2-year period a young woman experimenting with relationships and her newfound sexuality may well have had several steady boyfriends, one or more “friends with benefits,” an unintentional one-night-stand due to too much alcohol, an intentional one-night-stand with some hottie passing through town and perhaps even a lesbian encounter. None of these individual elements defines her and most certainly does not define her entire cohort. </p>
<p>A given study could yield wildly different results, depending on what questions you ask, how you phrase the questions and how you interpret the results. The reason one doesn’t see more contradictory studies is the author’s inherent bias to support the “existing literature” if you wish to get published and to present at conferences — lambasting the 6 prior studies is not likely to get you recognition in your field nor tenure at your university. So a prevailing Zeitgeist develops which prevails until that topic is burned out, ignored and then eventually revisited anew.</p>
<p>I think women may feel differently from men about whether anything has changed in the last 3-4 decades.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep. Steady relationships are a lot of work…especially if one is uncomfortable dealing with irrational feelings/emotions which come in heavy doses in romantic relationships. Was never very good at being a BF/friend one could vent negative angry feelings on or for emotional counseling.</p>
<p>Ok, thanks for sharing, cobrat. I asked because I felt your view of relationships was unusual. There is nothing wrong with being unusual, but I don’t think one can necessarily make generalizations about “relationships” unless one has personal experience either with them, or researching them. You seem to bring a degree of negativity into conversations about relationships. I do think most human beings basically <em>exist</em> to seek out relationships and do generally enjoy and are fulfilled by relationships, but I know that is not true for everyone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you speaking on behalf of all womankind, Bay? In my experience, nothing said in the article posted here wasn’t actively present in the mid '70’s, at least with a subset of that young female cohort.</p>
<p>Of course, things aren’t exactly the same. As Twain wrote, history may not repeat itself – but it rhymes. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely! But relationships fall on a continuum, they are not checklist items. At the one extreme, you find the one-on-one soulmate for life; on the other, sexual release with a total stranger you met in a bar 10 minutes earlier. But how do you rank what falls in between? Is an unhealthy monogamous relationship superior to a friends with benefits one? Is an abusive monogamous relationship superior to sequential one-night-stands? What do you do if, at the present moment, you are unable to satisfy all your sexual, emotional and societal needs in a single person?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it just kind of bugged me that you were speaking for everyone, so I thought I’d point that out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sober reality regarding relationships rather than negativity. Relationships require a lot more hard work, maturity in areas of compromise and being forgiving of imperfections, and deep soul searching both with one’s SO and within oneself than our society or seemingly many parents keen on getting their kids in socially approved relationships let on. </p>
<p>From what I’ve seen and read, it’s probably a huge factor for increasing dissatisfaction with romantic relationships and marriages and less willingness to conform to such socially approved relationships. Especially when the once prevailing coercive social pressures are much weaker than they were 4-6 decades ago.</p>
<p>Especially when the once prevailing coercive social pressures are much weaker than they were 4-6 decades ago.</p>
<p>You think so?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So the women are looking for the bad-boy-who-would-be-tamed from their romance novels while the guys are seeking the seductive sword-swallowing I’ll-do-anything-anytime hardbody from pornland. Yea, it probably was easier when men were only expected to have “good prospects” and women to have proper manners and be good conversationalists</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The difference is that there is now no longer any expectation that a couple would wait to have sex. Even in the 80s, when things were starting to change, girls at least ordinarily felt that they did not have to put out on a first date in order to have a second. That is what has changed. And even the word “dating”? I know it’s anachronistic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These two experiences are not on a continuum at all. The second is not a “relationship.” The sad thing is that young women are being socialized to believe that the latter is all they can reasonably expect from young men now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From what I understand from my Ds, the word “dating” now means, “having sex.” That is a big change. I don’t think there exists an equivalent for the old usage of the word <em>dating</em> now, which used to mean seeing one another socially, without an inference of whether the couple was having sex, because it was no one else’s business.</p>
<p>
Huh? Based on what?? I would strongly disagree with this assumption.</p>
<p>And yes, relationships do take work. Perhaps the “irrational” feelings/emotions are not those of your partner. Food for thought.</p>
<p>
I have to say that I think Bay is exactly right about this. It makes me squirm a bit because it seems un-PC to recognize these kinds of differences between men and women, but I’ve seen it play out too many times over several generations to think that it’s all cultural. Relationship before sex, better chance of good relationship. Sex before relationship, good chance of no relationship at all.</p>
<p>
Thats an awfully big leap from Cobrat’s comment to that response, and I would not agree with that assumption. I think most young adults, when it comes to wanting to settle down, do not want the kind of people you describe. Women are wiser than that- and realize that a “bad boy” will not likely change his stripes. There is a big difference between brief flings and a serious relationship. Hopefully not all men have the mindset you describe either. Ick.</p>
<p>
Totally agree.</p>