In 2011, sociologist Mark Regnerus proposed that sex had become cheap – accessing it came to require less “emotional and financial investment” from men. While some have interpreted this idea as sexist or denigrating to women it is rather accurately describes a dynamic that has played out over the course of the past two decades with considerable consequences for both sexes. As men and women have adopted and manifested a consumeristic attitude towards each other, the result has been an overall decline in happy commitments – fewer and later marriages, higher rates of divorce and marital dissatisfaction, as well as higher levels of loneliness. These are the fruits of a culture that has failed to honor chastity, discernment, and indeed marriage as the locus of sexual activity, leaving young men and women with the sense that committed relationships are burdensome and complicated.
The Burden of “Defining the Relationship”
Anyone who has lived on a college campus in the past decade has either heard or been asked themselves: should I DTR? Dictionary.com provides a definition as vague as the phrase itself: “used in chat and texting, it implies a critical point in a relationship in which one person wants clear answers from the other.” The clarity to be achieved is whether (or not) to say you’re “officially” dating, or “in a relationship,” implying exclusive commitment. Either way, while this exclusive commitment may or may not include sex, DTR assumes that you’ve waited no longer than two or three months to have this conversation. Imagine that during the two or three months prior to this conversation, you’ve been “talking” – texting, flirting, meeting up, perhaps hooking up – without discussing where all this is headed. According to an article in Refinery 29 :
“It’s extra important for non-monogamous couples to ‘DTR’ so they can have a clear understanding of what their setup is going to look like. For example, you might decide to try an open relationship, with the caveat that you agree to not share details about your other partners with one another.”
All of this begs the question: what is really being valued here? Is it the person, or what a person can give you? Some non-monogamy proponents would argue that such an approach is “realistic” because sexuality is more fluid than traditional monogamy would allow. However, research and experience have shown time and again that men and women are wired for exclusivity. Why tolerate such an agonizing state of “what are we?” unless one gains some benefit from the arrangement?
Relational Investment and Sexual Consumerism
“Defining the relationship,” while it may be the way of dating today, is not the way things should be, but much of the status quo derives from a lack of clear physical and emotional boundaries in dating which should have been set long before the relationship began. The good doctor (PhD) who made the above quote about non-monogamous DTR’s later comments that “certain couples want to get married, others just want to keep it loose, and most settle somewhere in between.” People avoid labels and clarity due to “anxiety,” because relationship decisions, whether committing or breaking it off, involve the say of another person with needs that may complicate your own. Furthermore, who benefits from the “anxiety” produced by avoiding labels? A lack of clarity or relational investment clearly benefits the person who values pleasure above the person from whom they’re deriving said pleasure – whether physical or emotional. Sex and its relational backdrop inevitably come at a personal cost. By continuing to avoid and conceal the true cost of sex and its requirements we deceive ourselves about the desires we hold deep in our hearts: to love and be loved, unconditionally, for life.
What Does Justice Require of Relationships?
As Dr. Regnerus stated on the Institute for Family Studies blog, “I maintain, and still do, that cheap sex is best measured by the timing of first sex in relationships and the relational investments required for sex…cheap sex is about timing and investments more than it is about partner numbers.” Relational investments might include saving sex until marriage as well as beliefs about marriage and family formation, but also include emotional and physical exclusivity, regular one-on-one time, taking the time to learn about the other, meet their family and friends, etc. Cheap sex discounts all these aspects of the other person for the sake of maintaining a steady supply of sexual pleasure at no cost to you. But justice requires something of us in sexual relationships inherently by the very nature of our sexuality: it demands an acknowledgment of the cost of sexual activity to the woman, and the necessity of fatherhood to any potential child of sexual union. It requires, on the part of both men and women, a willingness to be disciplined and make sacrifices for the sake of the family unit formed by sexual intimacy. Even where there is no exclusive commitment or child produced by the sexual union of a man and woman, there is underneath all pretense the natural longing for sexuality to be an unreserved gift of self. So let’s face the truth about sex: it shouldn’t come cheap, because the stakes are too high to ignore for the sake of pride or pleasure.
