Dating, education, and sex ratios
Counter-argument: <i>Pushing Boundaries: Female Sexuality From World War II to the Sexual Revolution</i> [0]<p>* Millions of eligible bachelors were shipped across the ocean, leaving a huge imbalance. And yet the sexual morals became <i>more</i> promiscuous.<p>&gt; Much of the literature surrounding women during World War II focuses on women in industry, family life, and military services and largely ignores those women who sought sexual liberation and freedom through promiscuity, casual sexual encounters, and a wide range of sexual interactions. These women faced a nearly impossible set of conflicting messages. For an odd slip of time, a vast majority of the female population was effectively single (Israel, 2002), and although they might not have directly challenged sexual mores, these young women left a legacy of “sexual self-assertion that would generate both conservative and liberal responses in the postwar years, inspiring calls for female autonomy during the ‘sexual revolution’ to come”<p>* Around the same time &quot;Calling&quot; was replaced by &quot;Dating&quot;, with a complete flip of gender expectations.<p>&gt; During the first several decades of the twentieth century, however, the calling system began to lose traction, as “courtship became more and more a private act conducted in public spheres. Dating had been established in urban, working-class youth in the first two decades of the twentieth century. By 1920, however, middle-class youth adopted the practice (Spurlock, 2016). The primary difference between the date and the call was where the event took place. The call always took place in the girl’s home and almost always with some level of supervision from her parents. The central aspect of the date was that it took place in the public sphere, at such places as restaurants, theaters, or dance halls. Along with the shift in courting systems from calling to dating came a reverse in the roles for men and women. If a young woman wanted to date, she could no longer extend an invitation to her home or ask the young man to take her on a date. The control in the dating culture moved from the woman’s sphere, the private sphere, into the man’s sphere, the public sphere.<p>* Dating in public became dominated by economics. With the flipped gender roles this economic burden fell on Men, while also introducing economic competition into the personal relationship.<p>&gt;  “Dating also moved courtship into the economy” (Bailey, 1988, p. 21), which required money- men’s money. Money became a fundamental part of the dating system, which led to increased competition in the American courtship system. The centrality of money in the dating system signified a system of exchange, with the woman contributing her company and the man contributing his company as well as his money. In economic terms, the woman was selling her company to the man (Bailey, 1988). Since the man was responsible for expenses, he decided when the dates would occur and with whom he wanted to spend his time. The culture of dating supported the economic system of scarcity and abundance, and thus created a culture of competition amongst America’s youth for the greatest resources, or the most popular date.<p>* With the competition there became a &quot;rating&quot; system (sound familiar?)<p>&gt; Under this complex, Waller theorized, college students used a system of rating and dating to place each other in a systematical hierarchy of eligibility based on traits they deemed desirable. Students, both men and women, who met certain criteria, were considered to be at the top of the social hierarchy: “they may be placed in a hypothetical Class A” (Waller, 1937, p. 730). For men to rate high they had to belong to one of the top fraternities on campus, be well-dressed, know how to dance, maintain a proper appearance, use good pick-up lines, have access to a car, and possess enough money to spend on dates. Women’s guidelines were similar in regards to appearance, but it was also important that she be considered a sought-after date (Bogle, 2008; Waller, 1937).<p>* Finally, &quot;Going Steady&quot; was a method women could use to <i>escape</i> the sexual double-standard and have sex (and other fun sex-related activities)<p>&gt; These relationships brought new opportunities and meanings for sexual intimacy, and teenagers, especially females, had to navigate the complex and often ambiguous social rules set forth. Going steady offered teens a level of commitment that allowed for more sexual freedom and young men and women could more easily explore the erotic (D’Emilio &amp; Freedman, 1988; Spurlock 2016).<p>&gt; any heterosexual teen couples that were engaging in sexual acts, including heavy petting and intercourse, were going steady and experimenting. These relationships allowed for young boys and girls to engage in sexual acts, basically hidden in plain sight. The level of commitment of these steady relationships “provided the context, setting, and rationale for widespread sexual experimentation among heterosexual teens and young adults in the 1950s” (Littauer, 2015, p. 118), which led to increased sexual intimacy for young people that were in these relationships. Engaging in intercourse while in committed, steady relationships allowed young girls the opportunity to explore the sexual minefield of contradictory beliefs. This “created a cultural middle ground between explicit sexual mores and tolerated sexual practices that would influence Americans’ beliefs about sexual acceptability for decades” (Littauer, 2015, p. 113). Teenage girls and young women had the opportunity to experiment sexually due to the belief that their actions were justified because of the loving nature of their relationships.<p>* And yet the double-standard empowered boys and men, while only giving partial power to women.<p>&gt; Although going steady afforded opportunities for increased sexual intimacy, young women and teenage girls continued to live with the cultural expectation that sex only occurred within the confines of marriage. There was little acknowledgement from older adults, the media, or society that women had interest in and the desire for sex. Girls were expected to act as if they wanted sex, but not act upon their urges (Littauer, 2015). In contrast, to be popular, girls were expected to participate in a certain level of sexual experimentation, at the very least petting, but they could not go too far or risk a bad reputation. The double standard that developed during the early part of the twentieth century persisted through the 1950s. It was very clear to almost every young girl that a double standard existed, yet where the line was drawn between just enough and too much was very ambiguous. If a girl’s sex life became a topic of gossip, she would be ostracized from the groups who were concerned over reputation, and to a vast majority of American, reputation was everything (Bailey, 1988; Bailey, 1999; Spurlock, 2016)<p>&gt; The sexual “double standard worked mainly to the benefit of boys,” yet “enforcement came from the girls” (Spurlock, 2016, p. 93). Boys were free to express themselves sexually, while girls were expected to adhere to the confusing set of ideological standards. Since girls were expected to set the limits, if a couple went too far, it was the female’s fault. Boys, however, pushed the limits and often crossed the line from subtle pressure to outright aggression (Bailey, 1999; D’Emilio &amp; Freedman, 1988). Young men were even taught by their peers and professionals various techniques to coerce women who expressed sexual reticence. Sexual coercion and aggression were seldom categorized as assault or rape during this time period. It was seldom that women reported sexual assault.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensiuc.lib.siu.edu&#x2F;cgi&#x2F;viewcontent.cgi?article=1891&amp;context=gs_rp" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensiuc.lib.siu.edu&#x2F;cgi&#x2F;viewcontent.cgi?article=189...</a>