Q&A: Cheap Sex and why today’s young people are postponing marriage

Vladimir Mauricio-Perez

It doesn’t take much to realize that young men and women are waiting longer to get married. And although some of the most common reasons given tend to be “lack of responsibility,” “disbelief in marriage” or “desiring freedom,” Mark Regnerus says that in America, it’s mainly due to what he calls “cheap sex,” and he has evidence to back it up.

Regnerus, professor of sociology at University of Texas at Austin and senior fellow of the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture spoke with the Denver Catholic about his new book, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage and Monogamy, highlighting his research, in anticipation of his talk at the John Paul II Lecture Series in Denver Sep. 4 on the same topic.

Denver Catholic: In your book you mention that many young men and women still want to get married but are postponing marriage more than ever because of what you call “cheap sex.” Can you talk about this term and what you found in your research?

Mark Regnerus: As I describe it in the book, cheap sex is characterized by personal ease of sexual access and social perceptions of the same. Sex is cheap if women come to expect little in return for it and if men do not have to supply much time, attention, resources, recognition, or fidelity in order to experience it.

The reality of this tends to slow down marriage and make the process to get there more strewn with failed relationships, deceptions, and unmet expectations. Some people, typically men, object to this and tell me that sex seems very difficult for them to experience today. But I make the argument that digital pornography has brought the experience of realistic, “virtual” sex to the masses. It, too, is cheap sex — the cheapest really. And its wide use has made real relationships more difficult, as I would expect it to. After all, it is “competition” (to real persons) and competition tends to drive prices down.

The research is sociological — I focus on three quite different technologies that each contribute to the declining “price” of sex in America: contraception, pornography and online dating. Lots of Catholics are okay with critiques of the first two, but it’s inarguable that online dating — which can be used for good purposes — is part of the problem.

Too many options lead to choosier people who aren’t patient enough to navigate early relationship challenges. The speed of online dating certainly doesn’t train us to solve problems.

DC: Is this also the case among young Christians or is there a different reason?

Regnerus: It’s certainly the case among many Christians, if only by degree. The problem is that no one gets to opt out of the social environment in which this is happening. It’s not as if Christians look for a spouse in an alternative marriage market, like Mormons and Orthodox Jews tend to do. Hence the influence of cheap sex in the wider “market” affects Christians, too.

Christians are typically less enthused about this, and increasingly frustrated that sexual expectations characterize the commencement of new (and hence unstable) relationships. So yes, the same dynamics are operative among them. For example, I have heard many times that Christian online dating services often disappoint people who expected much better behavior from the people who are using the service. Sometimes it works out well, though.

DC: Many saw the invention of the Pill as something that gave women the equality and same liberty as men in society. You have mentioned that the American “mating market” is still dominated by men’s interest. How have the roles of men and women really changed and remained the same with regards to sex since?

Regnerus: In one sense, very little has changed about men and women, especially in their relationship preferences — what they are looking for. Those are old. What’s changed dramatically is the new terrain in which they do the looking. Women need marriage much less than previously, which will make them more selective. And they received a boost from the Pill here, enabling them to have relationships without fear of pregnancy.

I like to say that women got fertility control in exchange for men getting much more say over the timing of sex in relationships and over their progression toward marriage. After all, she won’t get pregnant. Why wait? Hence the road to marriage — which is still a very big deal, maybe bigger than ever — slowed down. No more shotgun marriages, which means we should be making better matches. But there’s a lot more cohabitation, which is not nearly as stable as marriage, and tends to blur our ability to see clearly, and adds constraints (like pets, bills, and a shared residence) to a relationship that may still be quite immature in lots of ways.

All of this tends to look better to men than to women. They get more time to “try out” relationships. Women, on the other hand, can be more certain about a man than in the past, but they’re being asked to wait longer and longer, which is a signal of his control over the future of the relationship. It is surprising today how many very successful young women feel like they cannot transfer their success into their romantic relationships.

DC: You performed a study in 2012 in which you concluded that the children of parents in same-sex relationships were more likely to develop a series of problems compared to those with parents in opposite-sex relationships. An academic complaint was filed against you, criticizing your methods. What was your experience going through that process and what would you say in that regard?

Regnerus: More than one complaint, actually, and it wasn’t simply about methods. Critics were firing in all directions. It was a difficult experience, and it unfortunately never leaves you. Enemies have long memories. But every time I formally defended the work, I’ve been successful. I was just recently promoted to full professor at the University of Texas. But the pathway to get there was painful. I like to use the imagery of a soldier who’s made it through a battle alive. You’re grateful, but you look around you and the terrain has been scorched and altered. Unfortunately, that study was not the only thing that critics have disliked about my research. Many have little love for this new book.

DC: On the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, how do you appreciate the document?

Regnerus: Paul VI understood something of the economics of sexual exchange, and worried about the Pill’s effect on relationships and sexual decision-making. In Humanae Vitae, he wrote, “Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings — and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation — need incentives to keep the moral law…” He’s saying that this is obvious to human observation, that it’s easy to see how this works.

His logic here could be taken a step further, though. In the era of the Pill, men and women increasingly need incentives not just to keep the moral law, but now even to marry. Marriage rates are tanking everywhere.

And something Paul VI didn’t predict is that men’s increasing irreverence toward women would become mutual over time. Men may reduce women to instruments, but women learn, too. Both men and women have become more adept at using each other. This is not the way love is meant to be.

 

St. John Paul II Lecture Series

Date: Sep. 4, 2018

Time: 7 p.m.

Place: St. John Vianney Refectory

Visit archden.org/lecture to RSVP

COMING UP: Our first and most precious freedom

Sign up for a digital subscription to Denver Catholic!

Our first and most precious freedom

What four recent Supreme Court cases say about the present and future of religious liberty

Eric Kniffin

In September 2015, Pope Francis called religious liberty “one of America’s most precious possessions” and urged American Catholics “to be vigilant, precisely as good citizens, to preserve and defend that freedom from everything that would threaten or compromise it.” For while “American Catholics are committed to building a society which is truly tolerant and inclusive,” the Pope noted “they are likewise concerned that efforts to build a just and wisely ordered society respect their deepest concerns and their right to religious liberty.”

Five years later, the vigilance Pope Francis spoke of is needed now more than ever. Over the first half of 2020, the Supreme Court decided four major religious liberty cases. The first case will open Christian employers up to a whole new slate of discrimination lawsuits, but overall the Court has expanded religious liberty protections. On the whole, I remain optimistic about the future of religious liberty. But, as Pope Francis cautioned, we as Catholics need to be vigilant about protecting this most precious freedom.

Supreme Court Overview

The case that has caused the most consternation for the Church is the June 15 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status.

The Court’s ruling sent shockwaves throughout the Church. Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of Los Angeles, president of the USCCB, lamented “that the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively redefined the legal meaning of ‘sex’ in our nation’s civil rights law,” calling it “an injustice that will have implication in many areas of life.”

Notre Dame law professor Rick Garnett agreed, predicting that Bostock may affect not only  Catholic employers’ hiring decisions, but also “universities’ residential-hall practices, sports-eligibility rules, government contracts and research grants.”

But while Bostock will certainly lead to more religious liberty conflicts, the Supreme Court’s other three religious liberty decisions demonstrate the Court’s strong commitment to what the USCCB has called our “First Freedom.”

In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Court finally confronted the ugly anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant history of “Blaine amendments,” provisions found in 37 state constitutions—including Colorado—that block state funds from going to religious schools. The Court held that Blaine amendments violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, which “protects religious observers against unequal treatment” and against “laws that impose special disabilities on the basis of religious status.”

Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania marks the Supreme Court’s latest foray in the nearly decade-long battle over the federal contraception mandate. The Court held that the Trump Administration acted lawfully when it created a broader religious employer exemption from the mandate, and affirmed that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) not only permits but requires federal agencies to consider whether regulations like the contraception mandate burden religious exercise.

The last religious liberty case of the term was Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru. which asked whether teachers at two California Catholic schools qualified for the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception,” a doctrine that keeps the government from interfering with the Church’s most important personnel decisions. The Court said yes, affirming that the ministerial exception should be interpreted broadly to protect the right of religious institutions “to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.”

Brokering a Fragile Peace

What do these decisions say about where we are as a society and the future of religious liberty? All four cases show the Supreme Court struggling with the reality that we live in a deeply divided, pluralistic society.

Luke Goodrich, Vice President at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, describes this standoff in Chapter 4 of his recent book, Free to Believe: The Battle over Religious Liberty in America. Goodrich notes that Christians believe in absolute truth, and among these truths are teachings about sexual morality and the nature of the human person. But an ever-growing portion of our society not only rejects these teachings, but sees them as bigotry that threatens the “pursuit of happiness” that is every American’s birthright.

Catholic leaders need to take advantage of good religious liberty decisions by taking concrete steps before conflicts arise. All Catholics should pray for our leaders, and that our nation will continue to honor our First Freedom.

How is the Supreme Court trying to manage this fundamental impasse? It seems the Court is willing to adopt the dominant progressive worldview, but with two important exceptions. First, the Court has continued to stand by our nation’s fundamental commitment to religious liberty. Second, it has refused to follow the left in condemning the Church’s teachings as hateful bigotry.

This is the same approach the Supreme Court took in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case that declared a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. That same decision also rejected efforts to conflate those, like Catholics, who believe in traditional marriage with racists: “Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.”

This fragile peace will be tested again this fall, when the Supreme Court takes up Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. That case asks whether the City can force Catholic Social Services to either place children with same-sex couples, in violation of its Catholic beliefs, or else abandon its foster care ministry altogether. The Supreme Court’s decision will be yet another test as to whether the First Amendment makes room for the Catholic Church to serve the public while remaining true to its unpopular teachings about the human person.

Practical Steps Forward

What do these high-stakes battles over religious liberty mean for Catholics today? The big picture concern, as Goodrich notes in Free to Believe, is that our “culture is changing. Religious freedom is not as secure as it once was.”

What does this mean for the Church and the Catholic faithful?  For the Church and other Catholic organizations, the fragile state of religious liberty means they need to take proactive steps to take advantage of available religious liberty protections. Goodrich urges religious leaders to take practical steps to “strengthen their witness and reduce their likelihood of conflict and loss.” “Far too often,” Goodrich warns, “religious organizations wait until a conflict is already upon them before seeking legal advice. By then, it’s often too late.” Goodrich’s advice echoes many of the strategies I outlined in a special report for the Heritage Foundation, Protecting Your Right to Serve: How Religious Ministries Can Meet New Challenges without Changing Their Witness. Taking these practical steps is a time-intensive and resource-intensive process, but as Goodrich shows, such planning is an increasingly important part of stewardship and prudent leadership.

But religious liberty is not just a concern for the institutional Church and those who agree with the Church’s teachings on culture war issues. That is because religious liberty, first and foremost is about liberty, freedom from government coercion. The USCCB calls religious liberty our “First Freedom” not just because it is listed first in the Bill of Rights, but because it is foundational to our other freedoms. To put it another way, if government can force Catholic nuns to buy contraceptives, what can’t it do?

The increasing legal and cultural pressures on religious institutions make the Supreme Court’s religious liberty decisions more important than ever. Catholic leaders need to take advantage of good religious liberty decisions by taking concrete steps before conflicts arise. All Catholics should pray for our leaders, and that our nation will continue to honor our First Freedom.

Eric Kniffin is an attorney in Lewis Roca Rotherberger Christie’s Religious Institutions Practice Group.

Image caption: Mother Loraine Marie Maguire, of the Little Sisters of the Poor, speaks to the media after aruments at the US Supreme Court, March 23, 2016 in Washington, DC. Today the high court heard arguments in Little Sisters v. Burwell, which will examine whether the governments new health care regulation will require the Little Sisters to change their healthcare plan, to other services that violate Catholic teaching. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)