"Keeping score", learning to "hit it", and settling for second best

David at Sed Contra links to this article from Friday's Washington Post: "Score Card: For Some Young Women, Love Is a Numbers Game."

It begins thus:

Some young women keep it in their head, others in a drawer of their bedside table. One even preserves it on a spreadsheet in her laptop.

We're talking about "the number," that sum of sex partners that college women either have had or hope to goodness they can avoid reaching. In the highly sexualized atmosphere of campus, a number gives them something to compare and dish about with their close girlfriends.

It's not a particularly enlightening article, and I note that the students surveyed in the article seemed to be mostly white, middle-class girls at northeastern four-year universities. But what I did find striking was that the article makes an explicit connection between long-term career plans and an increase in promiscuity:

The search for the one man who will lead them to forsake all others is a process that will take longer for many young women than it did for their mothers. With college, graduate school, study abroad, or job changes ahead of them, "it doesn't make sense to start a serious relationship in college," says Susan Harrison, a senior at Brown University who keeps a mental list of her partners.

Anticipating these years on their own, the women begin indulging in short-term flings while worrying about bumping their number up beyond an acceptable limit.

The number of women who head off to college in search of what was once called the "MRS degree" has dropped sharply, and perhaps that is a good thing. What troubles me is the conviction that serious relationships are an impediment to (rather than a vehicle for) one's personal growth. One thing I hear over and over and over from my best and brightest female students is "I don't have time for a serious relationship". What I always gently ask them is: "When do you think you will have time? When you finish with grad school? When you are half-way up the corporate ladder?" In this intensely competitive society, when is -- exactly -- a "convenient" time for a relationship? I often ask them what the ideal age is to have their first child; more than half now say "over 30". (They are astonishingly confident about their own ability to get "pregnant on demand", no matter how old they are. They can't conceive -- pun intended -- of the fertility problems that come with postponing children. Ah, youth.)

But even if they do get the MBA at 28, marry Mr. Right at 30, and have the baby at 32, how on earth do they expect the arrival of a child in one's 30s (when they are just starting, with luck, to "make it" in their chosen profession) to be any less inconvenient? They have a ready answer: "I want to wait to have a child because I want the financial resources to be able to take care of a child on my own." And almost invariably, they add "And I don't want to depend on a man." Bingo. There's the rub.

I have enraged a few folks in my classes and in the blogosphere by suggesting that much (not all) of the modern feminist movement has its roots in a "profound disappointment in men." That does not mean that if men were perfectly reliable, every woman would be thrilled to pursue a life of happy Victorian domesticity! But it does mean that an enduring legacy of irresponsible male behavior (modeled with particular gusto by certain baby boomer men) has led an entire generation of women to conclude that trusting a man is a particularly bad investment.

Getting back to the whole "keeping score" business, to give one's body to one man is to take an enormous emotional risk. To give one's body to ten -- or twenty or more -- and to see oneself as a "player" in one's own right: that is to render oneself emotionally numb, and hence invulnerable (the best article on this I've seen is the marvelous "Hooking up, Hanging Out and Hoping for Mr. Right", available in PDF file right here.) The current phrase my high schoolers use to describe random sexual encounters is "hit it and quit it". (The feminist in me has been very unhappy with the recent adoption of the verb "to hit" to describe sexual activity; then again, given the state of the situation between the sexes, it may be apropos). My female students, like the hip-hop artists they seem to idolize, love to talk boldly about "hitting it"; the sense of power they seem to feel when they use that masculine and aggressive language is palpable! I may be wrong, but whenever I read or hear this kind of talk, the phrase "whistling in the graveyard" comes to mind. Even in this relatively breezy Washington Post piece, I can feel the anxiety and the uncertainty dripping through the words of these young women. I am absolutely convinced that when my younger sisters compile their lists and brag about their conquests, that they are doing so because they have made a conscious or unconscious decision to settle for second best.

I can tell you this much, I'm looking forward to reading what these young women have to say about their lives and their choices twenty or thirty years from now. For their sakes, I hope that when the bravado vanishes and the numbness wears off, the regrets will be few.

Comments

[ken]

Excellent post. And it goes without saying that it works the same way for men, too.

[Hugo]

Thanks, Ken; it does indeed.

[candace]

I wanted to comment but it's hard to say things on this topic without generating numerous assumptions about one's personal life!

I will say that I know for myself and for many of my friends, we have felt pressure that "the number" be somewhat high. In discussing my conquests with a friend just a week ago, her response to my behavior was "you are my hero!" My married friends, however, are much more concerned with my hook-ups, especially when I'm not tremendously enthusiastic about them.

Why is it heroic for people of either gender to accomplish something shallow? A one-time experience? Why is it something to brag about that you can't hold down a relationship and that's why you can have high numbers in a relatively short amount of time? There is always a want to be the most desired, true; I don't think that's escapable. But I'm quickly learning that when you are desirable, men want to keep you. It makes me wonder what happened to me and to my girlfriends that we're so arrogant as to not want to keep the men.

It's partly that they're oftentimes just not worthy (you linked to a great article on that before), and -- what I believe to be a progressive development -- we are a generation of women who know what we want and don't need to settle. On the other hand, every time we give so much as a hand or lips or ankle or tongue or words or emotions or even sometimes our phone number to yet another man, we're settling. Not that I'm tremendously "accomplished" (actually, I'm not fully certain where I stand comparatively), but I know that for myself, I wish I'd settled less.

And honestly, there was just a lot of pressure to fill up that little pink book.

[CW]

I have always sort of believed the old saying that you could multiply a woman's claimed "number" by three and divide a man's by three to get accurate figures.

Most of my "post modern" American girlfriends have asked me about "my number" - I haven't, and wouldn't, ask about theirs - then lied to me unbidden about their own number.

I've always thought the whole issue was pretty ridiculous. The only thing I want to know is "Do you have a communicable disease".

[Constantina]

Hugo,
I don't know if generalizations on infertility with age are all that accurate for everyone.__I have a sister that is 19 years younger than myself to prove it. My mom had Elena in her late 40s, my dad was 50 something.__ I remember my mom asking me what she should do....(this was obviously an accident.) I told her that she should have the baby. As it turned out, Elena was a super baby. She is 5-11",really smart and incredibly accomplished. But most importantly, she was there for my parents when all the rest of us had disappeared. _ There are families where special precautions must be taken to avoid pregnancy, it's just about genetics.
The moral of the story is: never say never.

[Constantina]

Hugo,
I never had a chance to finish my posting yesterday, I was in a rush.
This is my take on life as I see the relationship-dating-sex thing.__ I only have one rule. Never have sex with anyone that you are not in love with. Never marry anyone that you are not in love with. And never, ever have children with a person that you are not in love with.__I can tell you that if you follow these simple rules you will never go wrong in a relationship or in life. When I say in-love, I don't mean that you love the person. Being in-love with a person is very different from loving a person. You can love someone and not be in-love with them.
When I end my twenty-three year marriage this summer it will be for the simple reason that I am not in-love with my partner and I need to be independent. It won't end because I want to have a sexual relationship with someone else, nor will it end because I want to start another relationship__ I am simply tired of being in a partnership without being in-love, it really does not work...it is much better to be alone.
My 'take' on age in relatioships is simple; it is meaningless. Some people are immature forever, others mature early. What really matters is the chemistry between partners, not age.

[Hugo Schwyzer]

Constantina, thank you for sharing. I am glad that your emotions have proved such an accurate guide for your actions. I do wish you joy and peace as you go through this transition out of this marriage.

I must tell you, however, that in my experience the heart sometimes lies -- and the hormones that we mistake for the heart lie even louder! I am not the only person who on occasion has been betrayed by his own deep desires and longings.

We need sexual ethics that reach deeper than our own transient wants.

[Constantina]

Hugo,
I am not as effective a writer/communicator as I would like to be. I believe that you misinterpreted my previous comments.__I will re-phrase the comments using different terms to replace the words 'in-love'. " A person should not enter into a relationship with another unless they are connected spiritually, intellectually, emotionally and physically." (This is my definition of in-love...it is certainly more than emotions, and it has nothing to do with hormones.) You are right, emotions are certainly not a good indicator or guide to enter into a relationship, and it should never justify a sexual relationship.__ People should never have sex, marry or have children with another person unless all of the above criteria are present. If they are in a relationship that does not include spiritual, intellectual, emotional and physical connections it is a fraudulent relationship.
As far as sexual ethics are concerned, I can tell you without any hesitation that nobody in this planet has stronger values. I grew up in a very strict, traditional home with strong moral values. When I married at 27 I was still a virgin. I know this will shock most people, but I was never even tempted, my values were really strong! I have been married 23 yrs. in Feb., and I have never had any type of extra-marital affair. Honestly, I find people that seek sexual relationships as disgusting, nothing could repulse me more.

... This posting thing is getting really time consuming, I think I need to stop. This is absolutely my last post.

[mythago]

What Hugo said--especially as regards children. If you have children with another person, I think it wise to consider how you will feel about sharing parenthood with them if you don't love them anymore.

Constantina, not being tempted has nothing to do with "values". Even Jesus was tempted by Satan. It's *resisting* temptation that is a test of morality (as is avoiding being led into it). There's no superior virtue in rejecting urges you never felt.

[zuzu]

A person should not enter into a relationship with another unless they are connected spiritually, intellectually, emotionally and physically." (This is my definition of in-love...it is certainly more than emotions, and it has nothing to do with hormones.) You are right, emotions are certainly not a good indicator or guide to enter into a relationship, and it should never justify a sexual relationship.__ People should never have sex, marry or have children with another person unless all of the above criteria are present. If they are in a relationship that does not include spiritual, intellectual, emotional and physical connections it is a fraudulent relationship.

Well, I'm sure your system works for you, but I certainly don't consider my relationships fraudulent because I'm not in wuv with my partner or I don't buy into the soulmate crap pushed by Neil Clark Warren and his ilk.

Honestly, I find people that seek sexual relationships as disgusting, nothing could repulse me more.

How very special of you. Love to see those values on display.

[Joseph]

The feminist in me has been very unhappy with the recent adoption of the verb "to hit" to describe sexual activity; then again, given the state of the situation between the sexes, it may be apropos.

This bugs me too. I see women especially use the term "hitting on" to refer to someone taking the initiative to meet someone else for (possible) sex. Why the association between dating/sex and what can be construed to be a negative reference?