What the hook-up culture has done to women.

[EasterJoy]

PS: Does anyone think the hook-up culture is not a subsection of the binge-drinking culture, the I-bought-you-dinner-now-I-expect-sex culture, the culture that talks about “getting some” and “putting out,” the culture that brings out a fear or a sneer when it hears the words, “I love you”?

What kind of good sex makes anyone either afraid or contemptuous of or sorry for a heartfelt “I love you”?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

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.

I am with Bruised Reed on this one. I remember hearing all of these chastity talking points as a teen and being unconvinced because it didn’t mesh with the world around me. 15 years later, that’s still the case.

The most glaring problem with your theory is that you make a lot of assumptions. For example, the rise in divorce and premarital sex could be (and probably is) due to many complex factors. Technology, a changing economy, more cultural sharing, less religiosity, etc. all play a role in both phenomena. The second big problem is that the one man, one woman, for life ideal is far from a universal, timeless norm. Heck, it isn’t even the norm in the Bible! Chastity education/advocacy would do better to just honestly state that saving sex for marriage is a religious mandate because it pleases god. End of story.

I doubt many college kids are moping because their heart’s desire is for a spouse but instead they’re staring down a lifetime of casual sex.

 

[EasterJoy]

I am with Bruised Reed on this one. I remember hearing all of these chastity talking points as a teen and being unconvinced because it didn’t mesh with the world around me. 15 years later, that’s still the case.

The most glaring problem with your theory is that you make a lot of assumptions. For example, the rise in divorce and premarital sex could be (and probably is) due to many complex factors. Technology, a changing economy, more cultural sharing, less religiosity, etc. all play a role in both phenomena. The second big problem is that the one man, one woman, for life ideal is far from a universal, timeless norm. Heck, it isn’t even the norm in the Bible! Chastity education/advocacy would do better to just honestly state that saving sex for marriage is a religious mandate because it pleases god. End of story.

I doubt many college kids are moping because their heart’s desire is for a spouse but instead they’re staring down a lifetime of casual sex.

You don’t think there is moping? Oh, I beg to differ. If you think that there are not any college kids moping because they recognize that their hearts desire is for sex that occurs within an enduring relationship while instead they are having casual sex with people they do not respect, you don’t read enough of the poetry being published by college literature departments. There may not be any moping among those living an un-examined life, I have not talked to them and have no window into what they’re thinking, but the poets are not giving rave reviews to sex with the shallow. It provides a bottomless well of ennui and angst, as nearly as I can tell. It is very sad poetry.

Let’s remember that the thread is about the hook-up culture, not merely about sex outside of marriage. Sticking with that topic…

I think you’d agree that sexual relations in the context of some sort of enduring relationship is different than sex between two people when at least one ardently wants to avoid having any kind of relationship even result from the sexual encounter, never mind having a relationship of some kind established prior to the sexual encounter.

On the continuum between a lifelong marriage and I’m-a-gonna-get-me-some-tonight, after all, where would you put serial monogamy? Closer to lifelong marriage, isn’t it? Would you say that I’m-a-gonna-get-me-some-tonight is indeed anything like an “ideal”? In what way? I’m asking you–who is it out there who really wants that? Users want that, people who objectify their partners want that, that is who wants that. It is a recipe for acquaintance rape, if you ask me.

I would argue that even someone with no theistic inclinations whatsoever is eventually going to find a regular diet of casual sex to be an emotionally numbing experience. That kind of habitual choice does not leave one with a wildly diverse bouquet of lovely memories. People do not do that for a lifetime and look back in fond appreciation on their past partners. If that were a sexual model that ultimately enhanced the value one puts on one’s lovers, there would be poems or songs about it. No, the ones that talk in favorable terms of serial *casual *sexual encounters are crude and demeaning towards past partners. I don’t think that is some vestigial guilt or shame from the “chastity culture”–no, not based on the contempt these same poets have for religion. The poets can’t fake it: casual sex is repulsive to the emotions, deadening to the emotions, wounding to the emotions. It just is, and it is clear even to those who won’t let the Bible tell them so.

 

[HouseArrest]

I am with Bruised Reed on this one. I remember hearing all of these chastity talking points as a teen and being unconvinced because it didn’t mesh with the world around me. 15 years later, that’s still the case.

The most glaring problem with your theory is that you make a lot of assumptions. For example, the rise in divorce and premarital sex could be (and probably is) due to many complex factors. Technology, a changing economy, more cultural sharing, less religiosity, etc. all play a role in both phenomena. The second big problem is that the one man, one woman, for life ideal is far from a universal, timeless norm. Heck, it isn’t even the norm in the Bible! Chastity education/advocacy would do better to just honestly state that saving sex for marriage is a religious mandate because it pleases god. End of story.

I doubt many college kids are moping because their heart’s desire is for a spouse but instead they’re staring down a lifetime of casual sex.

I was in college quite awhile ago, so maybe that is why I see a difference, but I promise you that every single one of my friends who was having casual sex on weekends was looking for a boyfriend. Every single girl left her phone number and waited for a call.

 

[JimG]

Chastity talks apparently are not effective. But college students packed the room for a talk on how to go on a “real date.” An unexpectedly hot topic.

However, both men and women, in my –albeit limited- experience, are harboring a great secret: they want to know how to date, and even more, they want to go on, and be asked on, real dates . . . I witnessed this secret desire firsthand when I organized a ‘Bring Back the Date’ event at Georgetown University. . . . At Love Saxa, we were accustomed to small turnouts and contentious audiences. However, for this talk, I watched in shock as a packed room of students sat spellbound while Cronin relayed anecdotes, both humorous and poignant, from her “dating experiment.”

From Regina

 

[EasterJoy]

I was in college quite awhile ago, so maybe that is why I see a difference, but I promise you that every single one of my friends who was having casual sex on weekends was looking for a boyfriend. Every single girl left her phone number and waited for a call.

There was a guy in our dorm who was into casual sex and very successful at getting it, by the accounts of his partners. He’d focus on one woman for, oh, maybe a month straight, I suppose, and so he had who knows how many women actually* fighting each other *over him (sometimes even literally) by the time spring term rolled around. Why they were all angry at each other, I have no idea. It was a small dorm, but for some reason every new conquest thought she was the one he’d settle down and be monogamous with. When he moved on to someone new, for some reason it was the new partner who got all the blame, even though these were women who themselves had been the new partner not so long ago.

Someone can say, oh, they didn’t want to be chaste, which is true, strictly speaking. They did all want a relationship in which both parties were faithful, though. They didn’t seem to think ahead to what was going to happen if a marriage didn’t ensue eventually. Based on a track record of which all but the first few were entirely aware, there was no reason at all to believe that a faithful marriage was ever going to happen with this guy. It was all driven by wishful thinking. (Maybe he lied, too, but good grief, what could he possibly say that would speak louder than the way he’d been acting right in front of them?)

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You don’t think there is moping? Oh, I beg to differ. If you think that there are not any college kids moping because they recognize that their hearts desire is for sex that occurs within an enduring relationship while instead they are having casual sex with people they do not respect, you don’t read enough of the poetry being published by college literature departments. There may not be any moping among those living an un-examined life, I have not talked to them and have no window into what they’re thinking, but the poets are not giving rave reviews to sex with the shallow. It provides a bottomless well of ennui and angst, as nearly as I can tell. It is very sad poetry.

Let’s remember that the thread is about the hook-up culture, not merely about sex outside of marriage. Sticking with that topic…

I think you’d agree that sexual relations in the context of some sort of enduring relationship is different than sex between two people when at least one ardently wants to avoid having any kind of relationship even result from the sexual encounter, never mind having a relationship of some kind established prior to the sexual encounter.

On the continuum between a lifelong marriage and I’m-a-gonna-get-me-some-tonight, after all, where would you put serial monogamy? Closer to lifelong marriage, isn’t it? Would you say that I’m-a-gonna-get-me-some-tonight is indeed anything like an “ideal”? In what way? I’m asking you–who is it out there who really wants that? Users want that, people who objectify their partners want that, that is who wants that. It is a recipe for acquaintance rape, if you ask me.

I would argue that even someone with no theistic inclinations whatsoever is eventually going to find a regular diet of casual sex to be an emotionally numbing experience. That kind of habitual choice does not leave one with a wildly diverse bouquet of lovely memories. People do not do that for a lifetime and look back in fond appreciation on their past partners. If that were a sexual model that ultimately enhanced the value one puts on one’s lovers, there would be poems or songs about it. No, the ones that talk in favorable terms of serial *casual *sexual encounters are crude and demeaning towards past partners. I don’t think that is some vestigial guilt or shame from the “chastity culture”–no, not based on the contempt these same poets have for religion. The poets can’t fake it: casual sex is repulsive to the emotions, deadening to the emotions, wounding to the emotions. It just is, and it is clear even to those who won’t let the Bible tell them so.

I guess where you and I differ is on the idea that hooking up and eventually getting married are mutually exclusive. I was told over and over that people who hook up hurt their chances of marriage. But, I looked around and the people closest to me who had wild pasts were often the most happily married. As an adult, I know what I did and I know what my friends did, and we are all very happily married now. The past has never caused a single problem in my marriage.

The on/off switch, the tape analogy, and other theories built around scaring people into believing that contact with another’s genitals will forever change them just don’t resonate with me. Sure, you can find examples like college poets, and so can I. People are all different and very complex. Chalking up all of these massive social changes to premarital sex is a serious oversimplification if not outright dishonest.

 

[PRmerger]

I guess where you and I differ is on the idea that hooking up and eventually getting married are mutually exclusive. I was told over and over that people who hook up hurt their chances of marriage. But, I looked around and the people closest to me who had wild pasts were often the most happily married. As an adult, I know what I did and I know what my friends did, and we are all very happily married now. The past has never caused a single problem in my marriage.

I don’t think anyone is saying that they are mutually exclusive, BEL.

But what is reasonable to posit is this: if you marry someone who has hooked up in the past, you know, with 100% certainty, that this man is willing to have sex outside the bounds of marriage.

Sex doesn’t belong in marriage. In his eyes. You know that.

So it’s quite reasonable to conclude that, should the time be right, the situation be amenable, he’s going to have sex outside of marriage again.

*again, “you” here is rhetorical. Not personal.

 

[MJJean]

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?

I didn’t quote the posts with the images because I didn’t want to eat up a page.

Sure, I’ve suggested something I was interested in that a partner was not. I’ve had partners suggest things that I didn’t find appealing, too. It happens. You just move on to something mutually enjoyable. Mismatches were rare for me, though. I tended to gravitate toward a type of man and that type suited me well in matters of tastes.

There are many ways to know a partner is only looking for casual sex. The easiest way is to simply state your intentions and/or ask your partner to state theirs once you realize that sex is likely. It’s not hard to work some variation of “I’m not looking for a relationship. Are you?” into the conversation.

I believe in personal responsibility. I always made my intentions clear. If a partner was interested in more, told me what I wanted to hear, and then got his feelings hurt, I believe the fault would be his for the dishonesty.

The quotes are because the word using implies someone being taken advantage of. In casual sex, the idea is that both parties participate with their eyes wide open and no one be taken advantage of.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, I’ve suggested something I was interested in that a partner was not. I’ve had partners suggest things that I didn’t find appealing, too. It happens. You just move on to something mutually enjoyable. Mismatches were rare for me, though. I tended to gravitate toward a type of man and that type suited me well in matters of tastes.

Curious–are one’s “sexual tastes” congruent with other tastes?

That is, do vegans, for example, have the same (in general) “sexual tastes”?

(No need to answer specifically for vegans of course. It’s simply an example to clarify my question).

There are many ways to know a partner is only looking for casual sex. The easiest way is to simply state your intentions and/or ask your partner to state theirs once you realize that sex is likely. It’s not hard to work some variation of “I’m not looking for a relationship. Are you?” into the conversation.

Except if he’s lying just to get in to your pants tonight and then your life tomorrow morning.

I believe in personal responsibility. I always made my intentions clear. If a partner was interested in more, told me what I wanted to hear, and then got his feelings hurt, I believe the fault would be his for the dishonesty.

Of course.

The quotes are because the word using implies someone being taken advantage of. In casual sex, the idea is that both parties participate with their eyes wide open and no one be taken advantage of.

Ah. I see.

But there is no denying the fact that there is a USING of each other. Quotation marks intentionally not inserted.

 

[MJJean]

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?

Errm, this doesn’t work for me because I know people who have participated in orgies and wouldn’t have sex on a commuter train with an audience.

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

I don’t have stats, but I’ve seen it happen. It’s a risk people take. Relationships not heading toward marriage end and usually one or both partners feel hurt and grief when that happens.

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?

Usually, there is a discussion about exclusivity at some point during dating.

 

[PRmerger]

Errm, this doesn’t work for me because I know people who have participated in orgies and wouldn’t have sex on a commuter train with an audience.

Would you mind answering the question posed in that post, MJ?

 

[MJJean]

Would you mind answering the question posed in that post, MJ?

I really can’t because public sex has never appealed to me. I am just not exhibitionist by nature.

If one lived in a culture where public sex was acceptable and they chose to engage in public sex, I wouldn’t think it against their dignity. From their view of human behavior, that would be well within the norm and not offensive.

 

[PRmerger]

I really can’t because public sex has never appealed to me. I am just not exhibitionist by nature.

No, MJ. It’s a philosophical question. Not a question about your personal preferences.

Can you please answer?

 

[PRmerger]

If one lived in a culture where public sex was acceptable and they chose to engage in public sex, I wouldn’t think it against their dignity. From their view of human behavior, that would be well within the norm and not offensive.

Let’s just limit the discussion to our culture.

 

[EasterJoy]

I guess where you and I differ is on the idea that hooking up and eventually getting married are mutually exclusive. I was told over and over that people who hook up hurt their chances of marriage. But, I looked around and the people closest to me who had wild pasts were often the most happily married. As an adult, I know what I did and I know what my friends did, and we are all very happily married now. The past has never caused a single problem in my marriage.

The on/off switch, the tape analogy, and other theories built around scaring people into believing that contact with another’s genitals will forever change them just don’t resonate with me. Sure, you can find examples like college poets, and so can I. People are all different and very complex. Chalking up all of these massive social changes to premarital sex is a serious oversimplification if not outright dishonest.

You and your friends are one thing, but the statistics say that even though fewer people marry there is a higher divorce rate. We don’t have a culture that results in durable marriages. Make what you want of that, but there it is.

Well, you did say, “I doubt many college kids are moping because their heart’s desire is for a spouse but instead they’re staring down a lifetime of casual sex.” No, they aren’t thinking “I want to get married,” that is true. They are thinking, however, “I want to find someone who won’t break my heart, I want to find someone* I will want a permanent relationship with*.” The problem is that the culture of the provisional does not carry a relationship through hard times and it does not give people a feeling of security. It kills the courage to marry.

To clarify: I didn’t chalk up all these massive social changes to premarital sex. I’m saying that the “Question Authority” mindset that throws out social conventions is not the gateway to happiness it purports itself to be. I’m not talking about “contact with genitals” changing people. I’m talking about reducing people to a body with genitals to be used and discarded changing people.

I will concede this: I do not think the damage done to young men and their families by World War II has ever been recognized. I think there was a lot of internalized emotional trauma from that war that families were made to bear, by wives and children who didn’t even know they were bearing it, because the returned soldiers observed a code whereby they didn’t talk about what they went through or how it affected them.

If you were to argue that sending such a huge fraction of very young men off to fight in the most brutal war in history and then bringing them back to be fathers–treating them like heroes without giving them any help in coping with the emotional damage that came from those years of brutality–was perhaps the root cause of “Question Authority” and all the social erosion that came out of it, I would concede that this is most likely to be true. It is the most likely explanation I can think of.

 

[Chayla]

To those women who did participate in the “hook-up” way of life in their teens & 20’s:

Background: When I was that age, I avoided casual sex, not just for religious reasons, but because I was terrified of an unplanned pregnancy, especially knowing that most likely the man would disappear. No birth control is fool proof. I would not allow myself to bring a child into that type of environment, when I was single and in college, with no resources. And abortion would have NEVER been an option. When I asked my friends who were sexually active what they would do if they became pregnant, they said they’d have an abortion. Yes, my Catholic faith formed by views, but there was more to it.

So, where you not concerned about the consequences, or did you not just not think about it?
It was, and it is a way of life that I have a difficult time understanding.

 

[CthgeDelendaEst]

I guess where you and I differ is on the idea that hooking up and eventually getting married are mutually exclusive. I was told over and over that people who hook up hurt their chances of marriage. But, I looked around and the people closest to me who had wild pasts were often the most happily married. As an adult, I know what I did and I know what my friends did, and we are all very happily married now. The past has never caused a single problem in my marriage.

The on/off switch, the tape analogy, and other theories built around scaring people into believing that contact with another’s genitals will forever change them just don’t resonate with me. Sure, you can find examples like college poets, and so can I. People are all different and very complex. Chalking up all of these massive social changes to premarital sex is a serious oversimplification if not outright dishonest.

You are likely right on the point I emphasized in bold. Women are fortunate - there are a lot of thirsty men out there who will still marry them when they decide to hang up their diaphragm. But are these marriages happy/successful? This is where I would diverge sharply from the rest of your statement. Your personal experience is irrelevant. What is this doing to society as a whole? I’ve linked to a study that links high female “notch counts” to higher divorce rates - if you don’t care to read it, at least review the charts:

family-studies.org/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/

As the study shows, the chance of finding yourself divorced after five years is presently 560 percent greater if you marry a woman with 10+ partners than if you marry a virgin. Unfortunately for marriage minded men, virgins are getting pretty hard to come by. If you think this doesn’t threaten civilization, I have some swampland in Arizona you might be interested in.

 

[EasterJoy]

You are likely right on the point I emphasized in bold. Women are fortunate - there are a lot of thirsty men out there who will still marry them when they decide to hang up their diaphragm…

No, I’d say that whether you are a virgin or spent many years being sexually active without a thought for tomorrow, there are not a lot of men thirsty to marry. There are, instead, a lot of men who look around at their peers who have married who are afraid of marrying someone who will discard them, anyway, take their children away from them, but hold on to their bank account and their earning potential.

The past half-century of “emancipation” has given people, men and women, some reason to be cynical or fearful about marriage.

 

[HouseArrest]

Chastity talks apparently are not effective. But college students packed the room for a talk on how to go on a “real date.” An unexpectedly hot topic.

However, both men and women, in my –albeit limited- experience, are harboring a great secret: they want to know how to date, and even more, they want to go on, and be asked on, real dates . . . I witnessed this secret desire firsthand when I organized a ‘Bring Back the Date’ event at Georgetown University. . . . At Love Saxa, we were accustomed to small turnouts and contentious audiences. However, for this talk, I watched in shock as a packed room of students sat spellbound while Cronin relayed anecdotes, both humorous and poignant, from her “dating experiment.”

From Regina

Could be just how the talk was worded that made it well received as opposed to the chastity talk.