Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Sex and the Single (Working Class) Guy
In recent years, we’ve been treated to plenty of articles regarding the romantic and sexual habits of the young and college-educated. In general, the observation is that the ladies are finding it difficult to find men who are interested in committed relationships or marriage, while the guys are blithely bouncing from bed to bed. While no stereotype is true of the whole — as my early-20s self of a decade ago would have bitterly pointed out to you — this one seems to reflect at least a part of reality.
Though there’s no shortage of likely causes — including the ongoing effects of the Sexual Revolution — two factors that have rightly attracted attention of late are the power of scarcity within different dating markets and how those markets are largely demarcated by education (e.g., college graduates generally limit their dating pools to other college grads). Among college-aged Millennials, for instance, there are four women for every three men. In that demographic, this means that men’s preferences dominate, not in spite of their low numbers, but because of them. Consequently sexual mores tend to be loose and committed relationships relatively rare. (“Won’t sleep with me? Sorry, baby, there’s plenty who will.”) When you factor in youthful hormones, it’s little wonder that sex tends to happen relatively early and requires less commitment.
(The outcome is deeply ironic, given that most feminists seemed to assume that, as college become more dominated by women, their preferences would become ascendant. Chalk this up as yet another example of the dangers of political thinking divorced from economic understanding).
Of course, if women are over-represented among college graduates, then that also means that they’re underrepresented among those without a degree. Indeed, according to Jon Birger in this Cato Daily Podcast interview, there are about 9.5 million single, working-class men in their 20s and only 7 million comparable women. And while this demographic’s romantic life has fewer think pieces and Hollywood screenplays devoted to it, the dating market here is apparently much more commitment-friendly. As such, we’re in the weird position where even Pajama Boy types can wrack up notches on their headboards, while middlingly-attractive working-class guys either marry relatively young or go to bed alone (I’m not wholly sure how to reconcile this with Coming Apart, though I sense part of the answer is that Belmont and Fishtown are extremes, and that Birger’s research focuses more closely on the young).
Birger predicts that something is going to break, and that the most likely point is our hang-ups about inter-class dating; specifically, that college-aged women are going to start dating (and marrying) firemen, plumbers, soldiers, and technicians who are skilled and gainfully employed, but lack a college degree.
Given that many of these careers now offer impressive salaries based on a few years’ training and education, going to technical school just became that much more attractive.
Published in Culture, Marriage
Revealed preferences appear to indicate otherwise.
I remember my great Aunt Jemima (yes, I had an Aunt Jemima….) commenting “The first one is always early”……
I remember asking my mother why…….
They could talk about Leo Strauss’s writings, the Archaeology of Medieval Ireland, or the American occupation of Japan after the war. It’s sometimes nice not to have to talk about work at home.
If you know any firemen or music ladies who know about Leo Strauss–hell, they don’t even have to be firemen!–let me know. I’d love the conversation.
So show me the coke commercial featuring a nerdy guy with receding hairline.
I’m not sure that’s any more telling than romances where a nice young miss gets married to a decent guy after some troubles.
Granted, but that’s what I prefer. Give me a professor, an IT guy, or an organist any day of the week. The obviously good looking guys might be nice to look at, but I wouldn’t want to marry one.
Not sure if that’s a general statement or regarding my specific revealed preference, heh, well. I can truthfully say I did not notice how incredibly cute my husband was until I had spent a couple months carpooling with him. He had braces, and looked dorky in a suit. Once I noticed, I must admit, it was a factor. But if he had not made a good impression in conversation, his looks would not have smitten me. I liked his confidence and competence first.
General observation.
We know who is getting responses on dating and hook up apps.
Guys are A/B testing it like pros. Girls had conceits like “we don’t respond to guys with their shirts off” (not you but this was in an article about dating apps destroying dating), and the guys said “[REDACTED], I had a profile with my shirt on, and then I changed the pic to one with my shirt off and I started getting responses.
Why choose? (intended as a joke)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6yBidFh49I
It might pique the interest of women, but I wonder how many serious dates those guys actually went on as a result. Women might like to look, but if the personality and intelligence isn’t there to back it up, that will kill the deal. Women aren’t as apt to marry a man purely for looks, the way men are apt to marry a woman because she’s hot.
Zero experience with dating and hook up apps, here. The very concept of hook up app is repugnant, so I cannot at all relate to women who would participate. If all you want is a roll in the hay, though, what the guy looks like with his shirt off would certainly be crucial information.
For dating with an eye to spending a life together, I would think posing shirtless would be a strike against a man. Or a woman.
Do people really want to take their shirts off when rolling in the hay? Is that prudent?
But she will walk away from her marriage, for said same.
It is not. I recommend against it.
It’s a euphemism, Titus. I’ll explain it when you’re older.
Let me help with this…
Well, you can roll in the euphemisms!
I thought this was going in a not entirely different direction–shiny, shiny boots of leather…
If I posted pics with my shirt off I’d definitely get less positive response than otherwise. Just sayan’.
Well, YMMV…
You must be beating them off with a stick!
I would like to offer a bit of encouragement. I’m a little afraid that it may seem quite small or insignificant, but see what you think.
Stipulating that I do not want to put words into Tom’s mouth, or assume that he was having emotions that he may not have had…
This is for any man here who feels envious (or negative in any way) that he has not gotten his “share” of sex as a single man…
I would like to say thank you.
I am grateful that you did not contribute to the problem of abortion, to the problem of single motherhood, to the problem of a child being raised with unmarried parents, to the health problems of women using hormonal contraceptives, to a shotgun marriage due to pregnancy that later results in divorce…
You didn’t contribute to those problems. Those other men, the men you might be tempted to feel envious of? They contributed.
This means you guys are heroes. Those other men? Not heroes. They need to be invited to change their ways. They need to be shown how much harm their “liberty” means for the next generation.
Maybe you wished to be like them and circumstances didn’t line up with your wishes. I see that as a mercy.
God bless all the men who feel like that. They did not contribute to those problems.