Carolina Spiess Dr Freymiller, CAS 137H Paradigm Shift Essay

Spiess 1

Friends with Benefits is a movie starring Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis as a couple who agree to a strict physical relationship without emotional involvement (Dargis), but eventually they fall in love with each other. This is only one of the many examples that show that sex nowadays comes before emotional intimacy and commitment. This phenomenon is called hooking up; a concept that is difficult to understand for our previous generations. Sex was preserved for marriage and relationships were exclusive, but things change - even our behavior towards courtship and relationships. Primarily, Beth L. Bailey, a History teacher at the University of Kansas and the Assistant Professor in Sociology and Criminal Justice at LaSalle University, Kathleen A. Bogle, offer most of the research for this essay. Many other professionals support their ideas and also discuss the general trends for our dating behavior, which range from the conservative attitude in the calling era, to our widening opportunities in the dating era, and todays liberality towards sex. Hence, this essay discusses the paradigm shift how American youth forms relationships from the beginning of the 20th century until today. The Calling Era: The Beginning Before the 19th century, marriages were seen as the assets and nothing more. Colonial Americans generally cared more about the suitability of their marriage partners than about love, which they expected to develop after marriage (Wells) , which shows that relationships had a different purpose at that time. Intimacy and emotions only played a role when the knot was tied. In advance of the engagement, only respectful and intellectual conversations were held to find out the others status and assets they could bring into the merger. The higher up the social ladder, the more the girls were

Spiess 2 under pressure from their parents (Gardner) to find a suitable husband. Generally, the childs family determined the future and the main goal was to sustain their status. This changed in the 20th century when love played a larger role in courtship. The calling era emerged, which is determined by respectable men going on calling visits to impress their potential future family. On a woman's invitation, men conducted formal calls to her home, during which couples might converse, read aloud, play parlor games, or give a piano recital (Wells); parents closely supervised their children, allowing them to form an intellectual and emotional bond with little sexual intimacy. Only when the mother knew that her daughter really liked the young man (Bogle 12) were they given a little privacy. Although family members still largely controlled courtship, the couple slowly gained more say in their choice. According to Beth L. Bailey, At first [a young ladys] mother or guardian invited young men to call; in subsequent seasons the young lady had more autonomy and could bestow an invitation to call upon any unmarried man to whom she had been properly introduced at a private dance, dinner, or other entertainment (Bailey 15). Moreover, this shows that it was the women who ruled and organized courtship: In this system, the husband, though generally determining the familys status, was represented by his wife and was thereby excused from his social-status ritual. Unmarried men, however, were subject to this female-controlled system (Bailey 15). This explains why women spent so much time preparing these call visits. Because a myriad of rules governed everything: the proper amount of time between invitation and visit []; whether or not refreshments should be served []; chaperonage []; appropriate topics of conversation [] how leave should be taken [] , (Baily 16) much importance was placed on call visits. This was a test for suitability (Baily 16) and any

Spiess 3 deviations of this etiquette revealed a lack of breeding (Baily 16). Courtship offered a clear definition of how to act and behave in order to convince the aspired partner and his family to merge the families. This shows that the calling script was very clear and required a lot of effort and discipline because the ultimate goal for these visits was to find a suitable husband for the daughter who was able to afford the same or better style of living and to maintain their social class. Hence, it was the women who had the power to initiate relationships with the intention of finding a suitable husband that will maintain their social status, however only little privacy was given to limit sexual activity. The Rise of the Dating Era Next, the dating era slowly evolved in the 1920s. Since lower class families did not have the resources to entertain possible suitors at their home, many couples began leaving the house to spend time together (The History of Dating). However, this was seen as cheap because it was the courtship system of the lower class until the rebellious youth of the upper class saw the advantages in this way of courting. Like Bailey noticed: Young men and women went out into the world together, enjoying a new kind of freedom from adult supervision (Bailey 19). This act became known as going on a date. Inventions such as the automobile facilitated the system of dating because it allowed men to take the women out on the town: Cars had given youth mobility and privacy, and so had brought about the system (Bailey 19). Going on dates now seemed respectable among all classes because dating still required entertainment: A date might consist of a woman dining out alone with a man or going to the theate r (Bogle 13) whereas the men always invited the women. Different from the calling era where the girls family provided the entertainment, it was now the mens duty to pay for the date. Through this monetary move, there was

Spiess 4 also a shift of power: Money purchased obligation; money purchased inequality; money purchased control (Bailey 23). Most importantly, this also gave men the right to ask a woman out whereas the women could only accept or decline the offer. Moreover, the lack of parental supervision changed the standards of sexual morality: The terms necking and petting--the former referring to kisses and caresses above the neck, the latter to the same below it--entered public discussion, giving names to previously unspoken private activities (Wells). Therefore, dating brought a more liberal approach to relationships by giving man the power and by taking the control away from the parents. The Increasing Importance of Peers: Rating and Dating Complex As time went on, women moved more into the public sphere; they were [] with growing numbers attending college, taking jobs, and in general becoming more part of the public world that was still largely considered the province of men (Bogle 14). The sociologist Willard Waller conducted research in the 1920s and 1930s at the Penn State University and found the Rating and Dating Complex. Whilst the parents lost control over their children, their peers gained influence in determining an individuals social status: In order to have Class A rating they [men] must belong to one of the better fraternities, be prominent in activities, have a copious supply of spending money, be well dressed, a smooth in manners and appearance, have a good line, dance well, and have access to an automobile. (Waller) Appearance and popularity were the key for a successful dating and sex life where sex is defined as anything from kissing to sexual intercourse. To maintain the social status, boys should date Class A girls and vice versa. Girls were required to be seen with many different boys in order to be seen as available; avoid drinking alcohol in public; and only

Spiess 5 date Class A men. Sometimes, it was better to not date at all than to date someone other than a Class A man to eliminate the risk of losing rank. Also, Waller noted that this was a form of exploitation on both sides. When a woman exploits, it is usually for the sake of presents and expensive amusements-the common pattern of gold-digging. The male exploiter usually seeks thrills from the body of the woman (728). More importantly, Waller defines dating by distinguishing it from courtship: Courtship involves people of the opposite sex getting to know each other en route to marriage. Dating, on the other hand, is not true courtship because the intent is not to marry (727). This understanding made it socially acceptable to have multiple partners before marriage, which was impossible in the calling era. Therefore, men gained control in forming relationships because of the monetary shift; the enhancement of technology and the growing appearance of women in public. A major shift in societys norm also occurred as dating no longer had the intention to find a husband, but to find someone to spend time with. People desired comfort and security by Going Steady This attitude slightly changed after World War II. Men became a scarce resource and both genders wanted to settle down seeking security and comfort. The focus shifted from having multiple partners to having one steady partner. Another reason for this shift was a period of economic prosperity in the United States, which also had an effect on dating. Employment opportunities and the booming economy gave young men the financial stability to afford marriage sooner than they could in the previous era when they wanted to postpone marriage after graduation (Bogle 17). Peers still remained the major influence in determining the dating behavior: Young men were expected to take their steady girlfriends on a certain number of dates

Spiess 6 per week (Bogle 17) to show their commitment. Yet, it was still socially acceptable to have multiple partners before tying the knot because steady dating was not expected to lead directly to marriage (Bogle 17). Due to the longer relationships, however, the couples shared more intimacy and formed a deeper emotional and sexual bond. Surely this happened before, but it became more visible and acceptable in the going steady era. Even premarital sex now occurred more often, although, in many cases [it] was happening with ones eventual spouse (Bogle 20). The sociologist Martin Whyte called this phenomenon the intimacy revolution because women did not have sex with anyone, but their eventual husband (Bogle 454). Thus, changes in our economy also influenced societys relationships. Similar to the calling era, going steady focused on a single partner, but the partner did not necessarily have to be the future spouse. The Emergence of the Hooking Up Era Following the dating era, the Hippies started to question all sorts of social norms in the 1960s. One of them was dating; they challenged the prudish attitude towards sex. According to Paula England, a Sociology professor at New York University, a hook up is defined as Two people [] hanging out in the dorm or see each other at a party, start talking or dancing, and, sometime during the evening, go somewhere private (often a dorm room or apartment), and something sexual happens (England and Reuben 153). Drifting away from the image that sexual intercourse is reserved for marriage, society made it acceptable to become sexually active earlier; The advent and legalization of the birth control pill in the 1960s, and the legalization of abortion with a Supreme Court decision in 1973 made it possible to have sex without fear of ha ving an unwanted birth as technology made birth control and abortion accessible (England and Reuben156).

Spiess 7 Due to this change, men did not have the need anymore to ask women out on a date because they could receive sexual pleasure at any party. The traditional sense of dating diminished. The survey by England and Reuben proved this decline in dating as over half of both men and women had been on fewer than five dates (England 152). Taking someone out to a social no longer counted as a date; one of England s research participants said: I mean you can hang out But were only dating once weve decided we like each other and want to be in a relationship (England and Reuben 153). Just like in the dating era, an exclusive relationship was not the goal of a hook up. In fact, the outcomes of a hook up are unclear and unpredictable. They range from nothing; repeat hook ups where the same people hook up several times with no contact outside of these encounters; to seeing each other, which means that both pa rties also attempt to keep in touch during the week, either texting or hanging out together. All of those require a low level of commitment, but there is still the possibility to an exclusive relationship when the boy and the girl spend more and more time with each other and eventually, the woman wants to know where she stands with the guy (England and Reuben). This indicates that hooking up did not eliminate relationships, but it widened the possibilities for men and women to engage with each other sexually without being committed to each other. One explanation for this change was the increasing consumption of alcohol because it took away inhibitions and helped them to do things they [both men and women] wanted to but were too self-conscious to do when sober (England and Reuben 153). The social norm for girls changed as they were now allowed to drink in public. In fact, girls had an average of three drinks whereas boys had five (England and Reuben). Alcohol became so popular because it makes it easier to communicate sexual interest

Spiess 8 (Zalewski) as it no longer happened verbally, but with eye contact and body language (Bogle). In addition, Alcohol can be used as a built-in excuse (Zalewski), indicating that people had freedom because hooking up did not imply a serious relationship, but it could due to the influence of alcohol. Consequently, hooking up changed societys norms again. There were no more restrictions as to how people interact and alcohol made it possible to be sexually intimate before entering an exclusive relationship. Conclusion To conclude, todays young Americans have little in common with the boys and girls in the calling era. Whereas the youth in the 20th century wanted to find a spouse, they only want to spend time with someone they were attracted to in the dating era whereas today, the ultimate goal is to hook up to be sexually active. Reasons for this shift were the vanishing impact of the family and the increasing influence of the peers, as well as the move of power from women to men and the enhancement of technology, which also changed our social norms. Having multiple partners is now accepted and possible because we are able to prevent premarital pregnancies. Most importantly, the relationship order of commitment first, then sexual intimacy has reversed itself to sex first, then commitment. However, what does this reverse mean for us? It might show a lack of confidence because relationships often start when both parties are drunk or it illustrates the youths boldness because they are sexually active before committing to each other. However, this might also be an explanation for the delay in marriage. We refuse to commit to each other as we prefer our freedom and maybe because we just never practiced. We could be scared to make a definite decision we have to be responsible for and which we cannot change so easily.

Spiess 9 Works Cited

Bailey, Beth L. From Front Porch to Back Seat. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1988. 15. Print. Bogle, Kathleen A. Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. New York: New York University Press, 2008. Print. Dargis, Manhola. "Its Just Sex. Were Just Friends. You Know the Rules. Etc., Etc.." New York Times. (2011). Web. 3 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/movies/justin-timberlake-in-friends-withbenefits-review.html?_r=0>. England, Paula, and J. Thomas Reuben. Decline of the Date and the Rise of the Hook Up Family in Transition. Boston: Pearson, 2007. Print. Gardner, Andrew G. "Courtship, Sex, and the Single Colonist." Colonial Williamsburg. (2007): n. page. Web. 24 Oct. 2013. <http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Holiday07/court.cfm>. "The History of Dating." SexInfo Online. University of California, 13 05 2012. Web. 28 Oct 2013. <http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/history-dating>. Waller, Willard. "Rating and Dating Complex." American Sociological Review. 2.5 (1937): n. page. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083825>. Wells, Christopher W. "Courtship and Dating." American National Biography Online. 2001: n. page. Print. <http://www.anb.org/articles/cush/e0369.html?from=../14/1400729.html&from_nm=Mead, Margaret>. Zalewski , Suzanne. "Getting Messed Up to Hook Up: The Role of Alcohol in College Students' 'Casual' Sexual Encounters." Psychology Today. 16 06 2011: n. page. Print. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/partying-101/201106/gettingmessed-hook-the-role-alcohol-in-college-students-casual-sexual-enco>.