A Biochemist’s Argument Against “Hooking-Up”

[markeverett49]

This may sound like a moral theology argument but it is not. The author, a female biochemist, argues from scientific data alone that the idea that "women can ‘hook-up’ like men without consequences’ is false.

collegeinsurrection.com/2012/09/a-biochemists-argument-against-hooking-up/

 

[meme1961]

This may sound like a moral theology argument but it is not. The author, a female biochemist, argues from scientific data alone that the idea that "women can ‘hook-up’ like men without consequences’ is false.

collegeinsurrection.com/2012/09/a-biochemists-argument-against-hooking-up/

But it is, in fact, a moral theology argument.

Moral Philosophy, to be valid, must not be a human construct. It must be in conformance to the truth of both divine, supernatural law, and natural law.

This blog posting simply proves what Catholic’s have known since the time of our Lord’s visitation: that Church teaching is Truth. Not just a bunch of meaningless, made up rules, or arbitrary constraints, but in point of fact, a different aspect of the Truth.

The Truth is composed of multiple aspects. Atheists believe that only the objective and the natural is true. But as Catholics, we know that the natural AND the supernatural are each only a part of the truth. To discard one or the other entirely is to discard the Truth. But in combination, what is True is true both naturally, and supernaturally.

 

[markeverett49]

But it is, in fact, a moral theology argument.

Moral Philosophy, to be valid, must not be a human construct. It must be in conformance to the truth of both divine, supernatural law, and natural law…

I know what you are saying. The argument is in accord with natural law thinking but she isn’t arguing that way. (She makes no reference to natural law, much less theology, or even ethics.)

One could argue that she presumes an ethical truth–‘avoid evil,’ or things that are bad for you–but that isn’t explicit in the argument. I thought it a good example of getting a point across in way that those wary of “religious teaching” or “conventional morality” might accept. (Ya’ gotta start somewhere, right?)

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Very interesting. The book, Epidemic, by Dr. Meg Meeker talks about this also. Along with a whole host of other medical (physical and emotional) problems that stem from “hooking up” - especially for teens and younger women.

 

[markeverett49]

Very interesting. The book, Epidemic, by Dr. Meg Meeker talks about this also. Along with a whole host of other medical (physical and emotional) problems that stem from “hooking up” - especially for teens and younger women.

Mrs Sally, I hadn’t heard of that book. I’ll put it on my reading list.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Mrs Sally, I hadn’t heard of that book. I’ll put it on my reading list.

It is not for the faint of heart, the statistics about STDs among sexually active teenagers are just staggering. The book is a few years old now, but if anything things have just gotten worse.

 

[Bill_7154]

I believe there is some evidence women engage in this behavior moreso when they are fertile. If I’m not mistaken there is even evidence that some women will cheat with a ‘more genetically desireable male’ when they are fertile.

I could be mistaken, but in my past life (when I was away from the Church) I believe I came across some study or studies that showed this sort of thing to be the case to some extent when female sexual behavior under certain circumstances was studied.

Please correct me if I’m wrong (or link the study/studies if familiar with this and know it to be true).

Thanks,
Bill

 

[Bobby_Jim]

This may sound like a moral theology argument but it is not. The author, a female biochemist, argues from scientific data alone that the idea that "women can ‘hook-up’ like men without consequences’ is false.
%between%

I doubt that men can ‘hook up’ without consequences either…

 

[markeverett49]

I doubt that men can ‘hook up’ without consequences either…

Good point, Bobby Jim, but they are not the same biochemical consequences the author is talking about here. In other words, it is a case worth making but not a case this author is prepared to make.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’ve come across forms of this information before and I’m familiar with Oxytocin and some of the various conditions under which it increases (ex: during pregnancy, sex, breast feeding, so on). What still strikes me as odd is that I know two females that seem to have something against staying with one partner. One female will date some one for as long as he doesn’t show interest in a permanent relationship. If he ever shows interest she breaks up and moves to the next guy. The other female just seems to like sampling guys. She was married and still out having sex with different guys when ever her husband was out of town
until about a couple of years ago when her husband found out about a few of her episodes. Even taking Oxytocin into consideration there also seem to be other factors that cause these females to prefer to move from guy to guy.

Any idea why this would be so? I’m wondering if there’s a social factor because these two females know each other and they both lived in Florida for most of their lives.

 

[markeverett49]

I’ve come across forms of this information before and I’m familiar with Oxytocin and some of the various conditions under which it increases (ex: during pregnancy, sex, breast feeding, so on). What still strikes me as odd is that I know two females that seem to have something against staying with one partner.

One of my best friends is like this. She can fall for a guy who has little interest in her but she can’t fall for one who does. She says “bad boys are more fun.” I’ve known her now for,o, twenty years, and she is among the loneliest people I know. It’s sad. It’s almost as if she has rigged her life so that she can never be happy for very long, meanwhile reinforcing her belief that ‘love never lasts,’ so she ends relationships the moment they are less than scintillating every moment.

Though it is not germane to this post, she was the first woman I met who argued that the government should pay for ALL abortions because no woman should have to pay for one.

 

[beehumble]

We can easily see physical deformities, but we cannot readily detect mental deformities. Some of the people described in these posts have a mental deformity.

God bless you.

 

[markeverett49]

We can easily see physical deformities, but we cannot readily detect mental deformities. Some of the people described in these posts have a mental deformity.

It is ironic that during a period where few are schooled in classical philosophy, so many people think everyone should be guided by their own light, however dim.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

We can easily see physical deformities, but we cannot readily detect mental deformities. Some of the people described in these posts have a mental deformity.

That’s an interesting view. Though presently a mental condition is considered “disorderly” if it interferes with one’s life. It’s easy to show how the behaviour of the one that was married had interfered with her life. Not so easy for the other one given her expressed disinterest in being married or producing offspring.

One of my best friends is like this. She can fall for a guy who has little interest in her but she can’t fall for one who does. She says “bad boys are more fun.”

From what I’ve seen neither of the two women that I’ve described are attracted to “Bad Boys.” They seem to like certain physical characteristics and that is the strongest indicator (that I’ve noticed) of whether or not they like a guy. The second strongest seems to be his income level. Neither of the two are interested in getting money or gifts, but they have no interest in dating some one “below their level” or some one that is after their money. One person makes about 200,00 USD / year. The other makes around 150,000 USD per year plus income from some businesses that she owns.

Though it is not germane to this post, she was the first woman I met who argued that the government should pay for ALL abortions because no woman should have to pay for one.

I’m not quite sure what their stance is on abortion. They are both Catholic though. Not that it gives any hint as to what they think. With respect to certain teachings on the [Catholic] church one has said she’s not going to listen to what a “bunch of old guys have to say.” But find a guy that is serious about his religion to be a turn off. Both use birth control (one says she uses it for medical reasons, but she also started using it before those medical conditions arose, so I don’t think it’s her only reason).

As far as I can tell for the both of them “Being Catholic” just means you are part of a club. There don’t seem to be any moral or philosophical positions that they take away from it.