Yesterday Newsweek ran a story entitled “Like A Virgin No More: MySpace Generation Brides Go For Sexy, Not Virginal,” and explored “why modern brides are opting for racy gowns, wild bachelorette parties and sexy Maxim-style pre-wedding photo shoots.”

Newsweek reports:

Two decades ago, when young girls wondered how brides were supposed to look and behave, they’d most likely conclude—with some prompting from Cinderella—that on their big day they’d be a princess. They’d be blushing, virginal and wrapped from head to toe in tulle and lace.

So why is it that these days, some brides seem to be taking their cues more from Jessica Rabbit than Cinderella? More vamp than virgin, they’re having bachelorette parties that are as raunchy as their fiancés’ sendoffs. They’re selecting cleavage- or lower-back-baring bridal gowns that might get a gasp from conservative relatives. “A big-selling style is a sheer lace corset midriff,” says Millie Martini Bratten, the editor in chief of Brides magazine. “It’s clearly meant to look like you’re seeing through someone’s shirt.” And today’s wife-to-be is hiring photographers for what are called “boudoir shoots,” where they pose Maxim magazine-style in lingerie or nothing at all and give the prints to their grooms—a trend that Bratten says began about three years ago. “It’s the ultimate display of freedom and empowerment,” says Bee-Bee Kim, the founder of Weddingbee.com, a wedding-planning site that gets more than a million unique visitors a month.

What is going on here? Lucky for us, they consult several sociologists…

Newsweek’s assessment?

While most sociologists agree that women admitting to lust and wanting to be sexually empowered is a good thing, they see a problem with making exhibitionism the centerpiece of the wedding ceremony: it might crowd out other aspects of the marriage. “You’re highlighting what should just be a piece of the relationship,” says Stephanie Coontz, a social historian and the author ofMarriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage, which looks at how recent the idea of marrying for love is. “I worry that it can take over. The message you’re sending about your appearance can override other conversations you should be having about your future.” And in what she wants for the future, Jessica Rabbit has got nothing on the average American bride.

Read more.

With the murder of a physician who was a regular target of anti-abortion activists this past Sunday, news outlets have returned to covering the schism in our country on the abortion issue, this time focusing on a new study linking the likelihood of having an abortion to religiosity.

MSNBC reports:

Unwed pregnant teens and 20-somethings who attend or have graduated from private religious schools are more likely to obtain abortions than their peers from public schools, according to research in the June issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.

“This research suggests that young, unmarried women are confronted with a number of social, financial and health-related factors that can make it difficult for them to act according to religious values when deciding whether to keep or abort a pregnancy,” said the study’s author, sociologist Amy Adamczyk of John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center, City University of New York.

More from Adamczyk…

Adamczyk examined how personal religious involvement, schoolmate religious involvement and school type influenced the pregnancy decisions of a sample of 1,504 unmarried and never-divorced women age 26 and younger from 125 different schools. The women ranged in age from 14 to 26 at the time they discovered they were pregnant. Twenty-five percent of women in the sample reported having an abortion, a likely underestimate, Adamczyk said.

Results revealed no significant link between a young woman’s reported decision to have an abortion and her personal religiosity, as defined by her religious involvement, frequency of prayer and perception of religion’s importance. Adamczyk said that this may be partially explained by the evidence that personal religiosity delays the timing of first sex, thereby shortening the period of time in which religious women are sexually active outside of marriage.

Despite the absence of a link between personal religious devotionand abortion, religious affiliation did have some important influence. Adamczyk found that conservative Protestants (which includes evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians) were the least likely to report having an abortion, less likely than mainline Protestants, Catholics and women with non-Christian religious affiliations.

Regarding the impact of the religious involvement of a woman’s peers, Adamczyk found no significant influence. However, Adamczyk did find that women who attended school with conservative Protestants were more likely to decide to have an extramarital baby in their 20s than in their teenage years.

“The values of conservative Protestant classmates seem to have an abortion limiting effect on women in their 20s, but not in their teens, presumably because the educational and economic costs of motherhood are reduced as young women grow older,” Adamczyk said.

The LA Times also picked up on the story in their Health section this week. They report: 

In a study published in the June issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, a sociologist at the City University of New York analyzed the abortion decisions of unmarried teenagers and young twentysomethings. Specifically, she was looking at how those decisions were affected by personal religious devotion, schoolmates’ religious devotion and the type of school (public or religious).

Come decision-making time, religiosity —  the importance attributed to religion and the involvement in it — didn’t make much difference.

Maybe that’s surprising to you, maybe not.

But of note, she writes: “Conservative Protestants appear less likely to obtain abortions than mainline Protestants, Catholics, and women of non-Christian faiths. Regardless of personal religious affiliation, having attended a school with a high proportion of conservative Protestants appears to discourage abortion as women enter their twenties. Conversely, women from private religious high schools appear
more likely to report obtaining an abortion than women from public schools.”

Read more from MSNBC.

Read more from the LA Times. 

The New York Times ran a story today about a new study out of Denmark suggesting that frequent moves increase the risk of suicide for teens. The study found:

Adolescents ages 11 to 17 who had moved three to five times were about twice as likely to have attempted suicide as those who never had changed residences, while those who had moved more than 10 times were four times as likely to attempt suicide. Youngsters who had moved more than 15 times were almost five times as likely to attempt suicide, the study’s authors found. The researchers adjusted the figures to account for other difficulties in the children’s lives that might have influenced the risk of suicide. All changes of residence except those along the same street were defined as moves.

The study’s author elaborates on these findings…

According to lead author Dr. Ping Qin, an associate professor in psychiatric epidemiology at the Centre for Register-Based Research at Aarhus University in Denmark, the analysis does not prove a causal relationship between frequent changes in residence and suicidal behavior but does suggest “a true connection between the two events.”

“We found a strong association between frequent changes of residence and suicidal behavior among children,” Dr. Qin said. But, she added, “We could not distinguish whether the mobility was a causal risk factor or merely an intermediate variable of other risk factors.”

The sociological commentary…

The report corroborates earlier studies that have found an association between frequent mobility and children’s mental health. But the new report goes further, because it used actual medical records rather than self-reported survey data and looked at moves throughout childhood rather than just at recent moves, said Dr. Scott J. South, professor of sociology at the University at Albany, State University of New York, who was not involved in the Danish study but has studied the impact of frequent moves on children.

“The evidence is becoming quite compelling that there is a causal effect of children’s residential mobility on a variety of negative behavioral outcomes,” Dr. South said. “[The children] do worse in school, they are more likely to drop out of high school, and I published a study that found they’re more likely to engage in sexual behavior earlier.”

Read more.

In light of increasing media coverage about the drug trade in Mexico, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a story yesterday about how the U.S. appetite for illegal drugs appears to be insatiable, fueling drug trafficking from Mexico to the United States.

The Chronicle reports:

The Mexican drug cartels battling viciously to expand and survive have a powerful financial incentive: Across the border to the north is a market for illegal drugs unsurpassed for its wealth, diversity and voraciousness.

Homeless heroin addicts in big cities, “meth heads” in Midwest trailer parks, pop culture and sports stars, teens smoking marijuana with their Baby Boomer parents in Vermont – in all, 46 percent of Americans 12 and older have indulged in the often destructive national pastime of illicit drug use.

This array of consumers is providing a vast, recession-proof, apparently unending market for the Mexican gangs locked in a drug war that has killed more than 10,780 people since December 2006. No matter how much law enforcement or financial help the U.S. government provides Mexico, the basics of supply and demand prevent it from doing much good.

The sociological commentary…

The Mexican cartels are eager to feed this ravenous appetite. Once used mostly to transship drugs from South America, Mexico is now a major producer and distributor; its gangs control cocaine networks in many U.S. cities and covertly grow marijuana on U.S. public lands.

For now, the Mexican government is fighting the cartels and working with U.S. authorities who have promised to stop the southbound flow of weapons and cash – but all parties are aware of the role played by the U.S. market.

“When the U.S. government turns up the pressure a lot, then is when you see a return to the old formula of saying (to Americans), ‘You also have corruption, you consume the drugs, you’re the biggest drug consumer in the world,’ ” said Jose Luis Pineyro, a sociologist at Mexico’s Autonomous Metropolitan University.

Another sociologist weighs in…

Studies of youth drug use in Western Europe show a few countries with serious problems, but overall a far lower portion of young people there are abusing drugs than in America. Elsewhere around the world, drug use also is widespread, though data is generally not as thorough as in the United States.

“There’s no escaping the fact that we have the highest drug rates in the world,” said Craig Reinarman, a sociologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Read more.

The Tampa Bay Tribune ran a story today about whether or not environmentalism and ‘green living’ have become truly mainstream. In the article, they include some interesting sociological commentary about the movement and individual behavior.

Brian Mayer, who teaches environmental sociology at the University of Florida in Gainesville, said researchers are intrigued by what makes some people embrace a sense of personal responsibility.

The economy definitely can play a role, he said. Some people might hang on to or reuse items that otherwise would have gone to the landfill, but others experience a shift in priorities. Mayer cited a recent health survey in which migrant workers in Apopka were asked to rank their most pressing issues, including the environment. No. 1 was crime. No. 2? Adequate streetlights to prevent crime.

“Environmental issues are not always of concern in populations with unmet needs, even if their working environment is unsafe,” said Mayer, author of “Blue-Green Coalitions: Fighting for Safe Workplaces and Healthy Communities” (ILR Press, 2008).

During the 1960s and 1970s, the ecology movement, with its own green flag, was one of many popular social causes. People vowed to save the planet and clean up its waters. Earth Day was founded in 1970 as an “environmental teach-in.”

Cynicism, a sense of powerlessness, a decline in social involvement and a belief that individual needs were more pressing than collective concerns contributed to the decline in interest.

Mayer said he thinks many people have substituted a sense of personal responsibility for a group effort that would prove more effective in the long haul. “We’ll buy green products or bottled water, but critics say we’re missing the larger problem,” he said. Environmental sociologists call it “inverted quarantine” – people trying to keep themselves safe while keeping out the dangerous world.

Another sociologist considers this part of a larger historical pattern…

In “Shopping Our Way to Safety: How We Changed From Protecting the Environment to Protecting Ourselves,” (University of Minnesota Press, 2009) author and sociologist Andrew Szasz argues that people are buying products that give them a sense of safety while ignoring bigger environmental dangers.

Similar behavior occurred when Americans in the early 1960s built bomb shelters in their backyards, Szasz says.

Read more.

Science Daily (a press release service) brought a new study by sociologist Gerald Mollenhorst to the attention of the Crawler today, which examines how “the context in which we meet people influences our social network. One of his conclusions: you lose about half of your close network members every seven years.”

His research offers several important findings…

Limited in your choices

Mollenhorst investigated, for example, whether the social context in which contacts are made influences the degree of similarity between partners, friends and acquaintances. It was expected that the influence of social contexts on similarity in relationships would be stronger for weak relationships than for strong ones. After all, you are less fussy about your choice of acquaintances than your choice of partner. In relationships with partners, Mollenhorst indeed found more similarity than in relationships with friends. Yet interestingly, the influence of the social context on similarity did not differ between partners, friends and acquaintances. This reveals how strongly opportunities to meet influence the social composition of personal networks.

With his research Mollenhorst has confirmed that personal networks are not formed solely on the basis of personal choices. These choices are limited by opportunities to meet. Another strong indication for this came from the fact that people often choose friends from a context in which they have previously chosen a friend. Moreover, the extent to which our friends know each other strongly depends on the context in which people meet each other.

Individualism

Many sociologists assume that our society is becoming increasingly individualistic. For example, it is held that we strictly separate work, clubs and friends. Mollenhorst established, however, that public contexts such as work or the neighbourhood and private contexts frequently overlap each other.

Furthermore, Mollenhorst’s research reveals that networks are not shrinking, whereas American research reveals such a decline. Over a period of seven years the average size of personal networks was found to be strikingly stable. However, during the course of seven years we replace many members of our network with other people. Only thirty percent of the discussion partners and practical helpers still held the same position seven years later. Only 48 percent were still part of the network. Therefore value the friends you have. As long as you have them that is.

Read more.

The New York Times has posted a story entitled, “For Teenagers, Hello Means ‘How About a Hug?'” But does the dramatic rise in teen hugging really signal a culture shift?

The Times reports:

There is so much hugging at Pascack Hills High School in Montvale, N.J., that students have broken down the hugs by type:

There is the basic friend hug, probably the most popular, and the bear hug, of course. But now there is also the bear claw, when a boy embraces a girl awkwardly with his elbows poking out.

There is the hug that starts with a high-five, then moves into a fist bump, followed by a slap on the back and an embrace.

There’s the shake and lean; the hug from behind; and, the newest addition, the triple — any combination of three girls and boys hugging at once.

There seems to be some inter-generational bewilderment about these rituals…

Girls embracing girls, girls embracing boys, boys embracing each other — the hug has become the favorite social greeting when teenagers meet or part these days. Teachers joke about “one hour” and “six hour” hugs, saying that students hug one another all day as if they were separated for the entire summer.

A measure of how rapidly the ritual is spreading is that some students complain of peer pressure to hug to fit in. And schools from Hillsdale, N.J., to Bend, Ore., wary in a litigious era about sexual harassment or improper touching — or citing hallway clogging and late arrivals to class — have banned hugging or imposed a three-second rule.

Parents, who grew up in a generation more likely to use the handshake, the low-five or the high-five, are often baffled by the close physical contact. “It’s a wordless custom, from what I’ve observed,” wrote Beth J. Harpaz, the mother of two boys, 11 and 16, and a parenting columnist for The Associated Press, in a new book, “13 Is the New 18.”

“And there doesn’t seem to be any other overt way in which they acknowledge knowing each other,” she continued, describing the scene at her older son’s school in Manhattan. “No hi, no smile, no wave, no high-five — just the hug. Witnessing this interaction always makes me feel like I am a tourist in a country where I do not know the customs and cannot speak the language.”

For heaven’s sake, call in the sociologist!

Some sociologists said that teenagers who grew up in an era of organized play dates and close parental supervision are more cooperative with one another than previous generations — less cynical and individualistic and more loyal to the group.

But Amy L. Best, a sociologist at George Mason University, said the teenage embrace is more a reflection of the overall evolution of the American greeting, which has become less formal since the 1970s. “Without question, the boundaries of touch have changed in American culture,” she said. “We display bodies more readily, there are fewer rules governing body touch and a lot more permissible access to other people’s bodies.”

Hugging appears to be a grass-roots phenomenon and not an imitation of a character or custom on TV or in movies. The prevalence of boys’ nonromantic hugging (especially of other boys) is most striking to adults. Experts say that over the last generation, boys have become more comfortable expressing emotion, as embodied by the MTV show “Bromance,” which is now a widely used term for affection between straight male friends.

…But some sociologists pointed out that African-American boys and men have been hugging as part of their greeting for decades, using the word “dap” to describe a ritual involving handshakes, slaps on the shoulders and, more recently, a hug, also sometimes called the gangsta hug among urban youth.

Read more.

University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal this past weekend entitled “The Real Pregnancy Crisis.”

What sparked this piece? Wilcox writes,

Earlier this month, Bristol Palin turned herself into a poster child for the nation’s continuing effort to prevent teenage pregnancies. She made the rounds on the morning TV show circuit and spoke at town hall meetings to drive home the point that other teens shouldn’t make the same mistake she did. Ms. Palin’s campaign could not have come at a better time. According to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. — after witnessing a 14-year decline in teenage childbearing from 1991 to 2005 — saw the number rise from 2005 to 2007. In 2007, the latest year for which data are available, about 450,000 adolescents gave birth.

The recent uptick in teenage childbearing has public-health experts, scholars and government leaders concerned. “Let’s hope this sobering news on teen births serves as a wake-up call to policymakers, parents and practitioners,” said Sarah Brown, CEO of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, “that all our efforts to convince young people to delay pregnancy and parenthood need to be more intense, more creative and based more on what we know works.”

He offers several explanations and recommendations…

Here are three more likely explanations: First, young Americans have been postponing marriage, but they are not postponing sex and cohabitation. Indeed, my own research indicates that cohabiting couples are much more likely to get pregnant than couples who do not live together. Second, working-class and poor men have seen their real wages fall since the early 1970s, which makes them less attractive as husbands to their girlfriends and to the mothers of their children. This also helps explain why nonmarital childbearing is concentrated among blacks, Latinos, and working-class and poor whites.

Third, the meaning of marriage in the U. S. has changed over the past 40 years. As sociologist Andrew Cherlin has noted, marriage used to be the “foundation” for adulthood, sex, intimacy and childbearing. Now, marriage is viewed by many Americans as a “capstone” that signals that a couple has arrived — financially, professionally and emotionally.

This also helps to explain why college-educated mothers are bucking the trend toward having children out of wedlock. It is easier for these women to attain the level of achievement that the newer, luxury model of marriage before childbearing requires. Only 7% of college-educated women are having children out of wedlock, compared with more than 50% of women with a high-school degree or less, according to a recent Child Trends study.

So the next time you hear a college-educated academic or advocate talking about marriage and motherhood, do as they do, not as they say.

Read more.

In reporting on the recent swine flu panic that has swept the globe, The Australian
ran a story over the weekend about “sorting panic from pandemic,” citing how “some health experts say that although the latest developments are cause for concern, the extent of the threat has arguably been exaggerated even by other experts and some organisations.”

Luckily, they call in a sociologist…

Sociologist Claire Hooker, co-ordinator of the medical humanities program at the University of Sydney, agrees with Collignon that officials here and overseas did go a bit overboard, at least initially.

“At the beginning I was concerned about some comments that seemed to be unwarranted by events as they then sat … (such as) a call that people may want to get prepared by making face masks,” Hooker says.

She was worried this might alarm the public, although there was scant evidence this happened. “Although there was a run on Tamiflu at the time, which would be a problem if you really had the flu and wanted to get some,” she says.

“Early on there was an attitude that you have to scare people enough to get them to wash their hands properly, but not so much that they turn up in droves to be tested.

“In my view that’s a silly way to look at it: there’s no way you can make people what you imagine to be the right amount of frightened. What’s more important is to treat the general public with respect, and expect them to be able to understand the complexity and the uncertainty.”

Hooker thinks the degree of hype applied to swine flu was modest, and evident only early into the outbreak. Official pronouncements more recently have been measured, she believes. But that doesn’t apply to some measures given the big news treatment, such as thermal image scanners, used to detect feverish passengers disembarking from an airliner.

“I know that thermal scanners were used to scan about 180 million people during SARS, and they detected maybe three cases,” she says. “But they look good on TV.”

Read more.

Inside Higher Education reports this week on the rapidly disappearing rural sociology programs at universities around the country. They report that rural sociologists are now combined with other social science departments in many land grant universities. Inside Higher Education notes, “many professors in the field say that they have seen a slow erosion in support and expertise as retiring professors in these departments are replaced with sociologists who focus on other areas.”

Sociologists have been up in arms about the disappearing field in recent weeks…

These concerns [about putting rural sociology programs in other departments] are nothing compared to the anger that has spread through the rural sociology world in the last few weeks, however, as word spread that Washington State University wasn’t planning to merge its rural sociology program with another unit, but to simply eliminate it.

That a land grant university would simply abolish the discipline — and in particular a rare freestanding program that is well respected nationally — stunned rural sociologists. Many have come to expect that sociology departments (general ones) will be more occupied with issues of criminology and sexuality and suburban youth than with aging populations in rural towns or the new immigration that is changing those communities.

The Rural Sociological Society issued a statement on Washington State’s plan:

“We are deeply concerned for the personal welfare of the department’s faculty members and staff, but we also believe that this action sends a powerful negative message to the land grant university system that applied research and outreach focused on problems and opportunities experienced by rural people and communities is expendable,” says an advertisement published in two newspapers in Washington State Friday and signed by the president, president-elect and 19 past presidents of the Rural Sociological Society.

Rural sociologist Kenneth Pigg comments:

“There aren’t very many rural sociology programs around. There’s a general perception that rural doesn’t matter anymore. Whenever financial problems arise and administrators get a little touchy about how they are going to manage budgets, this is the sort of thing that happens,” said Kenneth Pigg, a rural sociologist at the University of Missouri at Columbia, one institution that still has a freestanding program.

Pigg said that social sciences were once viewed as central to the land grant mission — that departments of rural sociology (or agriculture economics) were applying research to help rural communities. “Now, with the emphasis on life sciences generally, you don’t see that at a lot of universities,” he said. Pigg’s work currently focuses on the impact of technological change in rural areas. While many have said that the Internet is “a savior” for rural life, Pigg said that there’s not nearly enough attention paid to the impact it has and the lack of real access to technology of many people outside of urban areas.

He said that there is nothing theoretically wrong with having rural sociology as part of other departments, but that the discipline in its entirety doesn’t pay much attention. A list of sections of the American Sociological Association includes on on urban sociology, but nothing specifically on rural areas. And while there is a section on animals and society, paper and book topics there appear more focused on pets than on farms.

Read more from Inside Higher Ed.