Posts
As I was discussing the content of the last post with her, Mrs. Φ asked a question to which I didn't have a very good answer. She pointed out that we have three potentially contradictory sociological generalizations:
The number (indeed, the mere existence) of prior sexual partners strongly predicts marital failure;
Successful marriage has lately become the preserve of the upper classes; and yet
To the extent that Paul and Emma, or I am Charlotte Simmons, are representative, our future upper classes spend their college years whoring around.
It seems likely that at least one of these generalizations can't be as true as we think. Thoughts?
1 comment:
I think the answer may lay in selective amnesia. When the women are ready to settle down, they forget about their wild pasts.
I don't see them as contradictory. If you had an observable pattern where those people had a higher level of marital success (death), then it would be contradicting your trends.
Nor does one need to go to college to whore around. So the rest of society is pulling the trend line down, making the upper classes look good by comparison.
The final trend is that the upper classes may be sticking together in "unsuccessful" marriages for reasons other than marital comity. See "Bill and Hillery Clinton".
Post a Comment