Once again, you begin from a tautology: alternatives cannot be chosen if they don't exist. Agreed.

If so, the net result may be a reduction in the number of long-term intimate relationships (defined as a commitment for at least the remainder of the individuals’ natural lives).

Next step: you conclude, without further intermediate cogitation, that it "may be" (weasel words designed to make a non-proposition appear to be thoughtful moderation) that there will be fewer long-term intimate relationships, because people have more choices. An experiment on this point has been underway for the last five thousand years, which you don't mention, consider, or reflect upon: cities. You notice that rural Wyoming is different from downtown San Francisco, but you don't ask whether, after the US became a divorcing culture, rural divorce rates were lower or higher than urban divorce rates, for example. People have more relationships where there are more people to relate to. Do they have fewer "long-term" relationships, or even fewer or less long-lived marriages?

There's no data here. Obviously, there couldn't have been "anecdotal reports" (another name for "contemporary folklore") about infidelity and divorce related to the Web before there was the Web. We don't talk much about infidelity and divorce related to "moving pictures" much anymore, or related to automobiles either, because we've come to take them for granted. Every divorce has a "cause," which of course doesn't mean that whatever it is "causes" divorce. What causes divorce is marriage.

I do not disagree with Kendall’s ultimate conclusion that there is not a sufficient amount of information to reach an ultimate conclusion on the effect, if any, of the internet on long term relationships. However, I do tend to agree with the numerous commentators (Kendall citing commentators but ultimately disagreeing with their conclusions) who have speculated that the most likely effect will be to decrease rather than increase long-term relationships.

In other words, you don't disagree that there's no basis for a conclusion, but you're going to reach it anyway.

While many believe that search costs are an important component in the longevity of relationships Kendall appears to be one of the few who argues that better search ability prior to entering into a relationship provided by the internet increases the success of long term relationships.

Really? As I pointed out last time, demographers currently report dropping rates of marital fracture among highly-educated urban couples, and persistently high rates, above 50%, of marital dissolution among less-educated less culturally privileged couples. Apparently, if one likes jumping to silly sociological conclusions on the basis of scant evidence, more educated searching produces more durable relationships. Of course, you still haven't addressed the difference between "relationships" (your ostensible subject) and "marriages," which are something else again.

While this factor would admittedly appear to favor longevity it does not seem to be a sufficient advantage to overcome the detrimental effect of reduced search costs for replacing an existing partner. This seems true in part because, based on my own observations of peoples' behavior in my home-town, as well as the observations of others--that often the reason that people stay in relationships is a perceived lack of options rather than the desire to be with that person. Consequently, the availability of potential new partners to replace an existing partner presented by the internet may decrease the number of long-term relationships.

Maybe it will simply complete the desertion of monogamy. Perhaps people will accept in the age of the Net what most couples have implicitly accepted throughout history, that the seeking of sexual variety (by at least the dominant sex) is not a particularly sound reason for breaking up the economic and parenting partnership that is marriage? Why did you construct the false dichotomy between "more opportunities for experience" and "fewer long-term relationships"? If two people are married to one another, and each also has several durable extramarital involvements, has the number of long-term relationships gone up or down?

Apparently the criticism of your original approach made it necessary for you to dig in, rather than reconsidering more fundamentally, which I think would have been a better choice. I agree that you removed some, not all, of the elements that most troubled your colleagues, but what you're left with is still a fallacy.

We have moved over the course of this academic year from essays that reflected no legal or social analysis and included many factually inaccurate and unchecked statements to essays reflecting almost no legal and social analysis from which the glaring factual inaccuracies have been removed. This is progress to be sure, but slight. This essay now depends crucially on your ability to find someone who dismisses your argument as unsupported by real evidence, but which you nevertheless use as authority for the assertion of the very conclusions even your source rejects. The whole, as I have pointed out, is based on an illogical association (more marital dissolution equals fewer long-term relationships) for which there is at least some partially disconfirming evidence ready to hand. The whole is no more than a cocktail of techno-hype: the Net being offered solemnly as a cause of social "degeneracy" as rock music, TV, radio, cheap literature, and other cultural novelties have been in their time. Did the comparatively sudden move from a non-divorcing to a divorcing society after the Korean War reduce the number of "long-term" relationships? Did the Pill? Could the Net possibly have a larger effect on these matters than no-fault divorce and effective convenient contraception?

Dear Stephen,

Thank you for your comments. I have revised the essay to hopefully address and clarify some of your concerns. Others, I believe are already addressed--such as divorce rate--to the extent that they can be within the space constraints. Yet others--such as variations of affect upon specific demographics--are far beyond the scope of the essay.

Also, you are certainly correct that the relevant dichotomy is not Wyoming in the 70s and 80s compared with more populous regions today. That was not the intent of the comparison. Rather, the comparison simply serves as an example of people's behavior in a society with very few alternative choices (based both on time-frame and geographic location) on one hand and people's behavior in a society with many alternative choices on the other hand.

Thanks again for your comments and I hope that my revisions addressed at least some of your concerns.

-- BrettJohnson - 26 Jan 2010

The basic thesis of this paper, which is never clearly stated, appears to be (1) that the Internet permits individuals to cheaply (and successfully) search far and wide for a desirable sexual partner at a low cost and (2) that this will cause people to have shorter-term sexual relationships. Neither part of this two-part thesis seems to be well supported by any empirical evidence. Has the Internet had an effect on divorce rates? Marriage durations? Providing empirical answers to these questions or any number of others might help improve this paper.

Furthermore, the effect of the Internet on sexual relationships may be different among teens, college age persons, and adults. It may be different for different races or classes. The point is that this paper provides the reader with no definition of “long-term” and does not define who it is really talking about. On average, individual definitions of “long-term” probably change as one ages and cultural definitions of “long-term” may be different within different segments of the American population.

-- StephenClarke - 26 Jan 2010

Relationships in an Internet Society

Conclusion

Dear Dana,

I am going to post a revised version of the paper that will most likely eliminate the parts that you found so “sex[ist]” and “gross” in large part because I do not have the space to analyze all issues so I have divided the topic. However, in light of your allegations please explain exactly what you found “sexist” and “gross.” Was it my observation that men are generally bigger and stronger than women? Was it my observation that me generally used to have an advantage in jobs that required physical labor such as throwing 100 lb bales of hay over their head onto a buck-wagon all day long and that physical advantage is no longer an advantage in most careers? Is it my observation that women are no longer finically dependant on men as they once were? If so, I stick by those observations.

Frankly, I feel that it is a very cheap and immature tactic to rely on political correctness in lieu of real analysis to support your position. Since you took the time to comment on my essay please quote language from my original essay, explain the meaning that you attribute to such language, and explain why that language is sexist or gross.

With respect to the Wyoming issue I was certainly not disparaging the state. I hope to retire there one day. The technological picture I outlined was simply a recounting of my childhood. Also, if you would like to visit my home-town I will be happy to introduce you to more than one couple who are married to their second cousins. That is not disparaging—it is simply a fact.

-- BrettJohnson - 24 Jan 2010

<--/commentPlugin-->

Oh, Brett. I recognize that there isn't much to say about your paper that Eben hasn't covered, but I feel compelled to comment--- your paper is simply too offensive not to. I won’t repeat what he’s said, but I just want to say that if you expect to be taken seriously as a person or as a scholar, you might want to consider toning down (if you can’t bring yourself to drop it) the blatant and frankly kind of weird sexism pervading this piece. It’s just gross.

On another note, hi, I’m from Wyoming, too, and I’ll be damned if we don’t have TV, radio, and gee, even the Internet (and for the record, I have never once considered dating my cousin, thank you very much). It’s not that I don’t think being from a rural place, particularly Wyoming, doesn’t mean something different in the very technological age in which we live (I do), but your depiction of Wyoming as a place entirely removed from “technology” writ large is not true now, if it ever was. It’s as unfair and inaccurate as anything else in your paper, which means it warrants revision.

-- DanaDelger - 23 Jan 2010

• This is an extraordinary claim for which no evidence whatever is presented, and so far as I know personally, for which none is available.

The condition of the internet, in conjunction with changes in societal norms and the ability of both genders to equally sustain themselves in a technological society will cause a decrease in the number of long term intimate relationships.

• "Will cause"? That's an even more extraordinary claim.

• The adjective "traditional" apparently means "a few generations ago, the ideal family was ..." But there's no reality to either the claim: (a) that's what "the family" "was," or (b) that's what people thought "the family" "was." Family where? Rural or urban families? Free ones or slave ones? Why no "grandparents" no "uncles and aunts"? Do you mean to claim that the "American nuclear" family style was dominant "a few generations ago"? If so, what's the evidence? The statement above is not historical demography, it's not census statistics. It might be tendentious right-wing bullshit. With some actual evidence it might be an argument. Right now, it's just offensive.

Wife’s contribution was to take care of the home and the children. Because she had little income potential, Wife was entirely dependent upon Husband for support of basic needs including food and shelter. Probably at least in part because of this dependence on Husband, marriage occurred at a young age and divorce was uncommon.

• Evidence? When and where?

• In industrial society, lawyers had to be big and strong, so women didn't apply to law school? What crap is that? Perhaps you mean to say that many social forces (including among those you do not mention the birth control pill and the civil rights movement) began the destruction of anti-feminist social restrictions that kept women out of the learned professions. So the liberation of women is one of the deplorable factors deteriorating the "traditional family"?

• Yes, everyone knows that. WTF?

• The US has been a divorcing society since the late 1950s, slightly before "the Internet." The overall divorce rate reached 50% in this society in the late 1970s, also slightly before "the Internet," and is now falling. Marital stability in the US now correlates significantly with educational level, and a number of studies this decade have shown that the correlation is increasing: well-educated women are now substantially less likely to divorce than less well-educated ones, and the gap is increasing. As usual, despite my many warnings on the subject, you are still just making stuff up. You need to revise this paper comprehensively, to provide factual support for whatever your positions turn out to be once you have done some research.

The "Traditional" Family Model

Movement Away from the "Traditional" Family Model

This ability to connect with people, in conjunction with changes in professional opportunities for women is likely to cause fewer and fewer “traditional” families in future generations. Many past long term relationships, such as the proverbial sixty-year marriage of great-grandma and great-grandpa were probably driven as much by a lack of other options as eternal loving bliss. In an internet society, with our shortened attention span, people will be less likely to work at relationships (or stay in bad relationships) because it is so easy to replace their partner. This is not to suggest that there will never again be sixty-year long relationships. Undoubtedly, there are connections where both people desire to be together in a monotonous [sic monogamous] relationship with the same person for their entire lives. However, for better or worse, the condition of the internet society, making relationships much easier to develop and replace is likely to cause a further reduction in “traditional” and even long term relationships.

Introduction

The “Traditional” Family Model

Movement Away from the Traditional Family Model

An Extreme Example of a Non-Internet Society

Relationships in an Internet Society

Next...

-- By BrettJohnson - 24 Dec 2009

Introduction

By giving people readily available choices the internet has the effect of shortening peoples’ attention span. This shortened attention span affects not only entertainment choices but also personal relationships. The condition of the internet, in conjunction with changes in societal norms and the ability of both genders to equally provide for and sustain themselves in a technological society will cause a decrease in the number of long term intimate relationships.

The “Traditional” Family Model

A few generations ago the traditional family included a man (Husband), who worked outside of the home and contributed all financial support for the woman (Wife), and their two or three children. Wife’s contribution was to take care of the home and the children. Because she had little income potential in that paradigm, Wife was entirely dependent upon Husband for support of basic needs including food and shelter. Probably at least in part because of this dependence on Husband, marriage occurred at a young age and divorce was uncommon.

Movement Away from the Traditional Family Model

For a variety of reasons that dependence began to change. One contributing factor was the evolution from an industrial society, where most professions involved physical labor for which men generally had an advantage because of their relative greater size and strength, to a technological society where many more professions do not require physical labor and which provide equal opportunity for both genders. Therefore, along with a change in social expectations, many more woman obtained educations and entered the labor force. For example, in 1963, just 3.7% of law school students were women. By the year 2000, more women applied to law school than did men and presently there are nearly as many women associates in law firms as men. Statistics illustrate that divorce rates have increased as women have had more opportunities to provide for themselves. Because of this independence, neither men nor women now “need” to be in a long-term relationship in the sense of being able to provide for their own basic needs. This independence is one factor in a movement away from a traditional family with the internet being a second factor.

An Extreme Example of a Non-Internet Society

The effect of the internet on personal relationships may be demonstrated by first looking at what occurred in a very non-internet society. I grew up in a tiny town in Wyoming and graduated from high school with eighteen classmates. The closest stoplight was 30 miles away; we had one convenience store/gas station, a church and a post office. The sign entering “town” said “Population 100” but when I returned to visit a few years later it said “Population 200,” which leads me to believe, based on the round numbers, that the survey methods may not have been precise. There was no satellite television and cable was not available. We had a single television station (NBC), and our 19” tube television, adorned with tin-foil antenna, allowed us a fuzzy (black and white in my early years) picture. Competing with the television was one FM radio station and two AM stations, one of which was talk radio and the other was a country format so they were not of great value to a child/teenager. Under those circumstances, we were willing to tolerate poor quality television because it was the only game in town. We would sit loyally through atrocious local commercials, blackouts, and poor quality programming. Nobody would have endured that had today’s entertainment options been available.

Similar to a lack of entertainment choices, my home town provided a very limited supply of potential dating/marriage partners. Persons who were no closer related than second cousin—on rare occasions first cousin once removed (she was hot and alcohol was involved) were fair game as a potential mate. Because of a lack of other options, there were many pairings of people who probably did not have a lot in common and would most likely have not even associated with each other had there been other options. Just as we watched poor quality television programming, however, people made due with what was available in the dating/marriage department. It is apparent that one reason people seek out and stay in relationships is because they do not have better options.

Relationships in an Internet Society

With the internet, we have become a society of instant gratification as a natural consequence of the number of options that we have at our disposal, resulting in a lack of patience for something/somebody that/who is not currently meeting our needs. There are websites specifically devoted to meeting and dating, Match.com, EHarmony, and Plenty of Fish as well as the social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook. If one is too successful with his or her internet dating experiences there are even specialty sites devoted to meeting others similarly situated. Through these sites it is easy to initiate contact without fear of rejection and the risk of the walk of shame after being rebuffed in front of one’s friends (which is less of a problem after a few cocktails but poses a substantial deterrence to a sober person). The internet has made alcohol unnecessary.

This ability to connect with new people, in conjunction with changes in professional opportunities for women is likely to cause fewer and fewer “traditional” families in future generations. Many past long term relationships, such as the proverbial sixty-year marriage of great-grandma and great-grandpa were probably driven as much by a lack of other options as eternal loving bliss. In an internet society, with our shortened attention span, people will be less likely to work at relationships (or stay in bad relationships) because it is so easy to replace their partner. This is not to suggest that there will never again be sixty-year long relationships. Undoubtedly, there are connections where both people desire to be together in a monotonous [sic monogamous] relationship with the same person for their entire lives. However, for better or worse, the condition of the internet society, making relationships much easier to develop and replace is likely to cause a further reduction in “traditional” and even long term relationships.

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, BrettJohnson

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list