What the hook-up culture has done to women.

[Javan]

Adult Friend Finder is the first that comes to mind

That site still exists?

That site is old. I remember hearing people talk about it (on AOL, of all things!) as far back as the year 2000, although from what I heard, finding actual women (as opposed to bots) was virtually impossible.

 

[LethalMouse]

That site still exists?

That site is old. I remember hearing people talk about it (on AOL, of all things!) as far back as the year 2000, although from what I heard, finding actual women (as opposed to bots) was virtually impossible.

From what I know AFF is largley botted due to age.

All the site have some, you learn to sift thru and master what is a bot. Some even will message and gove a phone number now and chat with you via text and always leads to some “check out my webcam” lol.

Tinder wasnt bad but got terrible with it.

OKCupid never really had a problem, but also a little more real dating friendly.

PoF was awesome, but not too long ago started to get a good bit of bot messages.

The worst part is not all are bots, but actual people operating advertising style lol, those are the ones that can half trick you for a minute. (Or maybe just some really great AI software?)

 

[Lost_Sheep]

A female friend of mine posted this on Facebook. It was written by a woman and directed towards women.

To my girls feeling lonely or waiting for love:

Yesterday we failed to make reservations at our favorite restaurant and got there with empty bellies only to find out there was over an hour wait. Irritated, we opted to check out the restaurant across the street. 45 minute wait there. Extra annoyed and super HANGRY we stormed off. Okay not really, but we were frustrated. We were so hungry that we decided to get dessert first. Just to keep our blood sugar up. As we finished our ice cream, we were still hungry. It helped, but didn’t quite do the trick. Thankfully, our table was ready and we sat down to eat a completely satisfying meal. I fell asleep as he drove me home, so obviously it was good.

So what’s my point? I think sometimes we turn people into ice cream cones. Like our hearts are so hungry as we wait and wait, as place after place we seek satisfaction from fails, that we settle. And that’s just it. Sometimes, we chase after a man, or run into an ice cream shop, for that quick little fix. Funny though, how we still feel hungry, or lonely, still. It’s not quiet enough.

I know because I do it. And I know what you’re thinking as you look at pictures of us grinnin’ & stuff: “big whoop. At least I’ve got a guy.” Well, yes, but that doesn’t just turn off lonely.

Because I’m a firm believer that the condition of loneliness has very little to do with a relationship status. But everything to do with God calling us to be alone with Him.
I’ve felt lonely time after time both in and out of a relationship. I get antsy when Matt doesn’t text back. I question if I’m a burden to him. I wonder if he misses me when we’re apart. I spend countless hours shuffling through lies in my head telling me I’m not quite missable or noticeable or love-able enough. Just like you do, girlfriend. Whether your single or madly in love.

So if you’re feeling lonely, look at what you’re filling yourself up with. Is it an ice cream cone, or in other words, a romance? OR is it the real meal? I’ll bet if you wait and seek a little longer, your table will be ready. And He will satisfy your hunger.

Because loneliness doesn’t exist in a place where God’s love dwells. I promise you that.

 

[MJJean]

Ok

Surely you cannot be astonished at this question.

It’s the fodder for about a million sitcoms, rom-coms, facebook updates, internet memes, journal entries, novels.

Why would a casual sex partner ignore you a few days later?
Because he used you* and doesn’t want you anymore.

That seems pretty clear.

*You is a rhetorical you. Not a personal you. I have no idea, of course, about the personal you.

When it’s casual sex, it’s a mutual “using”. I find it interesting that there seems to be some idea that the man is using the woman. It does go both ways. Just as the male may be “done” with the female, so may the female be “done” with the male.

I’ve never personally had any problems with former partners ignoring me. As I explained in my post, partners were either friends with occasional benefits, men I met who were casual partners first and then became friends, or men I never saw again.

LOL!

Seriously, you know the medications of all the folks you’ve had casual sex with?

Really? You wouldn’t have a problem with a hair from a casual sex partner in your food?

Oh, it most certainly does exist. You risk the risk of someone you know casually letting all of your friends know, “Guess what MJ did during sex–it was quite embarrassing. And let me tell you, she likes A, B and C and was horrible at doing D, E and F.”

To be sure.

I may have not been clear. The 30-35 folks I spoke of are a mix of former casual sex partners I keep in touch with and friends who were also part of the hook up scene who I still keep in touch with.

I am, irl, the kind of person strangers tell their life story to in line at the grocery store. I have no idea why, but it’s always been that way. Imagine how much TMI I get from friends!

Like I said, most are people I’ve known for 20 years. We talk. They have problems, I listen. Usually, if it sounds like depression, I try to convince the friend to see a doctor and be evaluated for possible medication and/or therapy. (My grandmother was a depressive and committed suicide, my mother was a depressive who tried many times. I know the symptoms and take it seriously). Naturally, I follow up. Or they do.

I also get the “My meds have sucky side effects. What do I do?” calls, but that’s another topic.

I spent a lot of time being den mother to a bunch of libertines.

I’m sure there has been some gossip, but that never bothered me. A lot of my partners knew each other because we were part of the same social groups. If they talked to each other about the details, meh, so what? I have no reason to hide my likes and dislikes. Everyone is welcome to their opinion re: skill. I can’t recall any embarrassing moments, but I view almost everything with humor where possible and appropriate. I’ll be the first to laugh at my bloopers.

I wouldn’t consider knowing or even discussing my sexual preferences emotional exposure. For me, it would be akin to having been to the gym with me and talking about my workout routine.

It has reduced some women to materialist objects. Is this what the liberals want?

Not just women. The flip side is that the hook up culture has also reduced some men to objects.

He could say stuff like that, sure.

And then she could turn around and say something along the lines of “…and it was so small! And he only lasted 10 seconds! What a waste of time, it was over before I even knew we had started!”

It doesn’t benefit anyone to gossip about their casual sex partners in such fashion. Most of the time I’ve ever heard anyone go on about one of their exes like that, it was after a really bad breakup, not a casual fling. There’s no point in trying to smear someone you had no attachment to.

I’ve never heard anyone smear a casual partner unless that person had wronged the speaker in some way after. Usually, that kind of thing was, as you say, reserved for those who had broken up and were hurt and/or angry.

 

[PRmerger]

When it’s casual sex, it’s a mutual “using”.

Firstly, it’s not a “using” in quotation marks.

It’s an actual USING.

I find the idea of USING a person repugnant, and contrary to the inherent dignity of the human person

Secondly, I’m quite sure that there’s many a woman who had great hopes that in letting a guy have sex with her, he will find her desirable in other ways.

I find it interesting that there seems to be some idea that the man is using the woman. It does go both ways. Just as the male may be “done” with the female, so may the female be “done” with the male.

Such a vile and profoundly sad way to discuss human interaction.

 

[MJJean]

Also, there’s the fact that you can’t really say what sexual practices you really like with a casual encounter. It’s just too intimate of a revelation.

And, as stated earlier by a practitioner of this type of sexual encounter, there is no intimacy here.

Why do you think you can’t tell or show a casual sex partner what you like? Of course you can! And vice versa. Generally, people who have casual sex are adventurous and not shy about expressing what they want. At least in my experience. Which is a bit dated as I met DH in 1999.

Then is viewing porn okay? If you can separate love and “just sex”, then why not? How about an extramarital affair? If it’s just a one night stand? Why not?

There are studies that claim that there is a chemical release during sex that bonds the participants together. I am not sure it can be purposely blocked.

I’ve viewed porn by myself and with partners. It wasn’t something that was very common, but it wasn’t off the menu, either. I’m not ok with it now, because the Church forbids it.

Extramarital affair? No.

When I was “married” to my first husband (since annulled), we both had multiple affairs. I didn’t have a problem with it. I didn’t love him and it was no skin off my nose. I married him because we had a child together and I thought it would be best for her. We mostly led separate lives and I preferred it that way.

I met DH, knew I loved him the minute I saw him, and everything changed. I started to experience possessiveness and jealousy for the first time in my life. I wanted to have a traditional monogamous marriage for life with him. Emotion being involved makes a very big difference.

Then I came to the Church and learned what marriage is in more detail.

People will do what they will do, free will and all, but my opinion is that anyone who desires sex with multiple partners or to have “open relationships” should simply not marry.

I’ve also read the chemical release studies and I do believe the science. I’ve never felt bonded to casual sex partners outside of feelings of friendship or general fondness. Certainly not anything like limerence or infatuation.

Here’s the interesting thing. I was facing some health issues and doing some research. I started to become interested in how hormones influence behavior. For a female, I have testosterone in the higher range. I later read something about some study that claimed men are a bit more immune to the bonding hormones than women and the theory was that they were somewhat shielded by testosterone. If that theory is true, maybe I was also shielded from the effects.

I had no trouble bonding to DH. One of our jokes is that I imprinted on him like a baby bird. I bonded to him fast and tight. He bonded to me the same way. And we were having a ridiculous amount of sex in those early months. If testosterone does offer some protection from the bonding chemicals, we probably flooded our systems and overwhelmed the shielding.

 

[anon67074017]

Why does the left tend to support the hook-up culture?

 

[MJJean]

Firstly, it’s not a “using” in quotation marks.

It’s an actual USING.

I find the idea of USING a person repugnant, and contrary to the inherent dignity of the human person

Secondly, I’m quite sure that there’s many a woman who had great hopes that in letting a guy have sex with her, he will find her desirable in other ways.

Such a vile and profoundly sad way to discuss human interaction.

And this is the part where I start to have trouble. If both partners are willing and mutually enjoy casual sex, how is that contrary to their dignity? I would understand if one was taking advantage of the other, if there were lies or covert manipulations involved, but if both are honest about their intentions…

The “done” phrasing. How to explain.

Ok, think of it like going on a date and the realizing your personalities don’t really mesh, you’re not interested in pursuing a relationship, and you don’t want to remain in contact. It’s like that.

 

[PRmerger]

Why do you think you can’t tell or show a casual sex partner what you like? Of course you can! And vice versa.

Well, because he might be like this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PRmerger]

Well, because he might be like this:

http://66.media.tumblr.com/817da200f9e09f612454093103ce8035/tumblr_inline_o95c0dTnG11r79k32_500.gif

Or like this:

 

[PRmerger]

And this is the part where I start to have trouble. If both partners are willing and mutually enjoy casual sex, how is that contrary to their dignity?

Firstly, how do you know that your partner is truly interested in *casual *sex?

What if he doesn’t want casual sex at all and, on the off chance that you discuss the terms of sex before you engage in it (which I find an amusing concept), he just tells you what you want to hear so he can have sex with you, but you and he are NOT on the same page on this?

And “casual” is a qualitative term. Some want more “casual”, some want less.

What’s the correct amount of casual that makes USING someone (still not sure why you had to qualify it with quotation marks initially–is that because you understand that an actual USING leads to despondence and depression, so by putting it in quotation marks it makes it easier to swallow?) permissible?

 

[EasterJoy]

And this is the part where I start to have trouble. If both partners are willing and mutually enjoy casual sex, how is that contrary to their dignity? I would understand if one was taking advantage of the other, if there were lies or covert manipulations involved, but if both are honest about their intentions…

The “done” phrasing. How to explain.

Ok, think of it like going on a date and the realizing your personalities don’t really mesh, you’re not interested in pursuing a relationship, and you don’t want to remain in contact. It’s like that.

Think of it this way: The Church teaches that sex belongs within the bonds of marriage. You, I would imagine, believe sex belongs within the boundaries of some physical privacy.

If someone were to ask you how it is contrary to anyone’s dignity to mutually enjoy casual sex on a commuter train, what would you answer? I imagine you can explain why it is upsetting to other people, but if everyone were gathering around in the train car cheering or simply didn’t care, could you explain why there was anything undignified about sex in that context, since everyone present is willing and mutually enjoying the whole thing?

 

[LethalMouse]

And this is the part where I start to have trouble. If both partners are willing and mutually enjoy casual sex, how is that contrary to their dignity? I would understand if one was taking advantage of the other, if there were lies or covert manipulations involved, but if both are honest about their intentions…

The “done” phrasing. How to explain.

Ok, think of it like going on a date and the realizing your personalities don’t really mesh, you’re not interested in pursuing a relationship, and you don’t want to remain in contact. It’s like that.

FWB girl, meet and she knows 100% what the situation is.
She knows I am going after another girl AND that I do not consider her gf material. 2nd night… “Idk why you wont have a relationship with me” blah blah blah.

FWB girl… still loves her ex bf… does casual sex alot… hooks up and then “well are you SURE you don’t want a relationship” (uhhh no lady) lol

FWB girl… well she was crafty, she did become my gf LOL

FWB girl, says absolutely no relationship, mutual friends all know she is honest about that. Also, supposedly very good at monogamous fwb status. To which she requires we agree… takes another dude home on a night I wasn’t out.

How often does it actually play out that casual doesnt involve someone wanting more and getting burned?

And yes woman can burn men, (my ex gf used me for sex at the end of the relationship… it was over before I knew, but she had no one else safe to have sex with)

But in casual deals it is a slight bit more common that the woman is the one who eventually wants more and goes off hurt.

 

[EasterJoy]

FWB girl, meet and she knows 100% what the situation is.
She knows I am going after another girl AND that I do not consider her gf material. 2nd night… “Idk why you wont have a relationship with me” blah blah blah.

FWB girl… still loves her ex bf… does casual sex alot… hooks up and then “well are you SURE you don’t want a relationship” (uhhh no lady) lol

FWB girl… well she was crafty, she did become my gf LOL

FWB girl, says absolutely no relationship, mutual friends all know she is honest about that. Also, supposedly very good at monogamous fwb status. To which she requires we agree… takes another dude home on a night I wasn’t out.

How often does it actually play out that casual doesnt involve someone wanting more and getting burned?

And yes woman can burn men, (my ex gf used me for sex at the end of the relationship… it was over before I knew, but she had no one else safe to have sex with)

But in casual deals it is a slight bit more common that the woman is the one who eventually wants more and goes off hurt.

If unmarried people are free to have casual sex, it is fair to ask when their eventual monogamous lifetime mate has the right to expect fidelity. Only after marriage? Oh, please, of course no one will believe the spigot that has been open full-blast will just be turned off without a drip thereafter. So six months before? A year?

The contemporary answer seems to be “when we started dating”–that is, the current moral code seems to be monogamy starting when the courtship is acknowledged as “serious”–but that still leaves a lot of trysts that may not be so meaningless as the parties to them try to pretend.

Emotions do not work like that. It is the nature of the marital act to unify, to leave the palpable feeling of loss that the acts did not reflect unity, permanence, or fidelity or else to inure one or both parties to the deep sense that the marital act has no inherent meaning to it all. All of those outcomes are damaging to marriage, when the parties to the acts are not married and never will be.

 

[EasterJoy]

I am saying that sex that fully intends to be meaningless hardens the heart against experiencing marital relations in a way that must be imbued with meaning in order to truly fulfill the function of the marital act within marriage. To engage in meaningless sex is to install an “off” switch on the connection between heart and the erogenous zones that is not in the nature of a healthy human psyche. It is damaging to have that switch there; the switch is a defense against harm in a situation that should be free of the fear of harm.

Yes, deliberately installing such a switch for the purpose of turning sex into nothing other than personal entertainment or physical gratification is contrary to our dignity as human beings.

 

[agapewolf]

I am saying that sex that fully intends to be meaningless hardens the heart against experiencing marital relations in a way that must be imbued with meaning in order to truly fulfill the function of the marital act within marriage. To engage in meaningless sex is to install an “off” switch on the connection between heart and the erogenous zones that is not in the nature of a healthy human psyche. It is damaging to have that switch there; the switch is a defense against harm in a situation that should be free of the fear of harm.

Yes, deliberately installing such a switch for the purpose of turning sex into nothing other than personal entertainment or physical gratification is contrary to our dignity as human beings.

It’s like tape. It’s really sticky the first time (bonding). But pulled off and restuck over and over it loses its stickiness.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I am saying that sex that fully intends to be meaningless hardens the heart against experiencing marital relations in a way that must be imbued with meaning in order to truly fulfill the function of the marital act within marriage. To engage in meaningless sex is to install an “off” switch on the connection between heart and the erogenous zones that is not in the nature of a healthy human psyche. It is damaging to have that switch there; the switch is a defense against harm in a situation that should be free of the fear of harm.

Yes, deliberately installing such a switch for the purpose of turning sex into nothing other than personal entertainment or physical gratification is contrary to our dignity as human beings.

Does that really happen though? That is what we are told but I see a lot of examples among friends and acquaintances that contradict that.

It’s like tape. It’s really sticky the first time (bonding). But pulled off and restuck over and over it loses its stickiness.

I’ve used that analogy myself, but I question that the bonding thing decreases and that analogy (and others) is more of a myth to manipulate people into behaving a certain way.

 

[EasterJoy]

Does that really happen though? That is what we are told but I see a lot of examples among friends and acquaintances that contradict that.

I am not sure what you mean by examples that contradict that. What do they tell you about their sexual history that tells you that none of that has happened? Do you mean no one has to learn to turn off the connection between their erogenous zones and their hearts? Do you mean that once you’ve done the emotional work to sever that connection, you have assurance that it leaves no trace? Or do you believe there isn’t any inherent connection between your emotions and the person you have sex with? Do you know people who can relate their first sexual experience with no emotion, that it was merely a pleasurable physical transaction for them, even that first time? Do you believe that? Do you believe a sexual history that carries progressively less emotional meaning with each additional encounter is a* good *thing?

Just to clarify, I do not mean that once the switch is there, it cannot be turned “on” instead of “off.” I mean to say there are ramifications both for installing the “off” switch and for having sexual trysts without any “off” switch between your body and your heart.

That is why I do not see how the experience of so-called casual sex can fail to have any effect: that is, because it teaches you how to engaging in the marital act with the intention of resisting both the unifying and the procreative effects. Whether you are “successful” in that or not, there are effects on you and on your partner.

The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside of marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one union (sexual) from all other kinds of union, which are meant to go along with it and make up the total union. The Christian attitude doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong about sexual pleasure…It means that you mustn’t isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, anymore than you ought to try to get the pleasure of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

With sex, though, it is not a matter of enjoying mere things…the objects of the pleasure in question are persons.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I am not sure what you mean by examples that contradict that. What do they tell you about their sexual history that tells you that none of that has happened? Do you mean no one has to learn to turn off the connection between their erogenous zones and their hearts? Do you mean that once you’ve done the emotional work to sever that connection, you have assurance that it leaves no trace? Or do you believe there isn’t any inherent connection between your emotions and the person you have sex with? Do you know people who can relate their first sexual experience with no emotion, that it was merely a pleasurable physical transaction for them, even that first time? Do you believe that? Do you believe a sexual history that carries progressively less emotional meaning with each additional encounter is a* good *thing?

Just to clarify, I do not mean that once the switch is there, it cannot be turned “on” instead of “off.” I mean to say there are ramifications both for installing the “off” switch and for having sexual trysts without any “off” switch between your body and your heart.

That is why I do not see how the experience of so-called casual sex can fail to have any effect: that is, because it teaches you how to engaging in the marital act with the intention of resisting both the unifying and the procreative effects. Whether you are “successful” in that or not, there are effects on you and on your partner.

The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside of marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one union (sexual) from all other kinds of union, which are meant to go along with it and make up the total union. The Christian attitude doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong about sexual pleasure…It means that you mustn’t isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, anymore than you ought to try to get the pleasure of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

With sex, though, it is not a matter of enjoying mere things…the objects of the pleasure in question are persons.

I don’t have time to give more detailed answers but after reading your queries and being busy with other stuff it hit me again: I. Don’t. Buy. It. I know that’s what we are told but I think it is a social construct that is specific to the abstinence/chastity culture. I haven’t taken a lot of time to consider everything but I’m not sure there is a “switch”. You think there is, you say it is but I have my doubts now. If there is a switch, I think we train that switch in various ways. If we tell people, especially young people, that chastity and virginity are important it changes how they see themselves and others. Consider how many young people post on CAF lamenting that the girl or boy of their dreams isn’t a virgin and are hurt by that. They have no right to be hurt by it unless we suggest that they are owed that through chastity education. Young people who are raised with different values but thoughtfully, so that respect, responsibility, consent, etc. are emphasized don’t seem to have the same baggage that Christians do. They bond just fine if they have healthy boundaries in other areas of their lives.

More later, maybe.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t have time to give more detailed answers but after reading your queries and being busy with other stuff it hit me again: I. Don’t. Buy. It. I know that’s what we are told but I think it is a social construct that is specific to the abstinence/chastity culture. I haven’t taken a lot of time to consider everything but I’m not sure there is a “switch”. You think there is, you say it is but I have my doubts now. If there is a switch, I think we train that switch in various ways. If we tell people, especially young people, that chastity and virginity are important it changes how they see themselves and others. Consider how many young people post on CAF lamenting that the girl or boy of their dreams isn’t a virgin and are hurt by that. They have no right to be hurt by it unless we suggest that they are owed that through chastity education. Young people who are raised with different values but thoughtfully, so that respect, responsibility, consent, etc. are emphasized don’t seem to have the same baggage that Christians do. They bond just fine if they have healthy boundaries in other areas of their lives.

More later, maybe.

A lot of people don’t buy it, but consider this: Pope Francis, in a question and answer session following a pastoral congress in Rome, said this: “We live in a culture of the provisional…and because of this the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say “yes, for the rest of my life!” but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.”

You say everyone else is “just fine,” but if that is true, why is the prevalence of couples who marry at all, even with the clear legal advantages it offers to couples who stay together, at an all-time low? Why is divorce so prevalent? Why did the explosion in divorces come concurrently with the explosion in so-called “casual” sexual encounters? Does the “chastity culture” teach us to want to be a one-and-only, when what we really want in our heart of hearts is to be a one-night stand?

It is just possible that there is a lot more baggage and a lot less foundation than many who have purchased this bill of goods realize. The provisional rootless life is the standard, it is what you see around you, it is what many have come to believe will give them the most satisfying life, it what anyone who believes in following their dreams is supposed to want, but that doesn’t mean this reliance on the provisional has had no profound consequences. It is a popular idea, but there isn’t a lot of evidence that it actually works as advertised.

I don’t believe for a single moment that lifelong fidelity between lovers is a social construct, something made up by some external “chastity culture.” Does this “chastity culture” write love songs? Does it force people to carve their initials on trees, surrounded by a heart shape? Does the “chastity culture” implant the idea that the wildly attractive person across the room is someone to be desired for all one’s life, rather than for tonight only, to be discarded tomorrow?

No, the most logical thing to believe, based on the evidence, is that we are primed to want to find a one-and-only who will love us and us alone, a person with whom we can share our deepest selves, not just our bodies. I believe that the desire to love and to be loved exclusively is the most natural thing in the world. The problem is that the societal support for a lifelong relationship of mutual love, the extended foundation that keeps couples stable and gives them the means to keep their vows, has been eroded by the people who really came along and invented their idea of how the human heart ought to work, totally ignoring what people are in favor of what they imagine people ought to be happier being, believing that humans ought to be or even can be purely rational and best served by divorcing themselves from the promptings of their most heartfelt emotions.

No, it is the “casual sex” culture that is a made-up fantasy without a root in how human hearts really operate, not the one that advises the virtue and advantage of chastity and fidelity.