What the hook-up culture has done to women.

[edwest2]

Sexual sin has always been around, but the last 40 years saw an explosion of false freedoms. I think the biggest factor to consider is that throughout the years of the Baby Boom – 1945 through 1964, couples had families, society was stricter regarding behaviors, strippers could be arrested, comedians who cussed and swore could be arrested. It was common to hear: “Don’t talk like that around women and children” and total strangers were respected if they saw you do wrong and said, “You should be ashamed of yourself.” No, it was not perfect but a clear trail of coordinated events led to the selling of immoral behavior to people.

1960 The Pill is approved by the FDA. But it is only available by prescription. My mother thinks it’s useless and the average number of kids since 1955 is TWO. For miles around.

1967 The false freedom gets its marketing push by selling fear as freedom and liberation. Fear of what? That gift from God? That bundle of joy? Yes. Babies.

content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843551,00.html

1968 sees the culmination of a great call for freedom to have sex with anyone in any way desired. The Church responds to the Sexual - without love - Revolution when Pope Paul VI has Humanae Vitae published.

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

And some inside the Church respond.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

The evangelists for gradually turning love into “it’s just sex” began appearing in our neighborhoods to preach about their lifestyle: sex, dope and who needs a piece of paper to live with whoever woman they wanted. I was there. I thought it would fade away, but the next step was marketing abortion.

1969 NARAL, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. Bernard Nathanson was its co-founder. He later told us how the marketing plan was implemented:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

1970s Adult bookstores selling graphic porn appear everywhere. Who asked for it? When Christians complained, their high-priced lawyers knew how to shut down ‘religious nuts.’ In fact, they said they had the First Amendment Right to do this. Millions of dollars were spent on buildings, printing, prostitutes and photographers. It was legal did not make it OK.

1973 A more trusting nation is stabbed in the back when the Supreme Court, not the people, legalizes abortion. Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade never got an abortion. Her real name is Norma McCorvey and she’s pro-life now.

The Women’s Liberation movement creates class warfare. Women become the eternal victims class and men became the eternal enemies class. Men were called ‘male chauvenist pigs’ because they treated women primarily as sex objects, they said. But the Women’s Libbers were not protesting in front of the newly opened topless bars and strip clubs (still called Gentlemen’s Clubs right on the building today). “Women’s Studies” classes were offered as if men and women did not even have a species relationship.

In fact, feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” She’s still active today. In 1970, she was the co-founder of Ms. magazine.

1980s I open the newspaper and see a lot of classified ads like this: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.” Children are traumatized when No-Fault Divorce is created out of thin air.

Cable TV, which promised lots of good things, starts showing porn.

And who are the primary consumers of all this? Men. Who runs all this? Men. Who confuses women about who they are? A group of women who want women to do what they preach.

Then the internet appears, exploiting women as never before seen in history. I lived through all that. Those pushing for no-limits sex are working as hard as the most committed evangelists everywhere to keep what they started going until any kind of sex is legal, which does not make it right.

In 1960, there were only two STDs of major concern. Today, there are a lot more.

Ed

 

[JimG]

This is true, but there was an explosion of this at that time.

The epidemiologits are saying there is, unfortuantely, a new explosion coming with young people who see HIV as a treatable disease. When there was something to fear, it put the brakes on at least some people. When there is less to fear, well, many of us go through a phase of life when we really do believe we are young enough and special enough that life’s rules do not apply to us.

It is not as if divine law were arbitrary. The hook-up culture is extremely damaging. Secular sources have started calling it the “rape culture,” because of how often there is this sense of entitlement that a night spent in someone’s company implies a promise to have sex as a concluding event. They’re not even bothering to blame it on choice of clothing, any more. It is more: “You had to know what I wanted. I gave you all the signals. I never acted like someone who strikes out. How* dare you* waste my time if you weren’t going to consent to what you knew I wanted?”

Yes. Sexually transmitted diseases were once feared. I recall even the military enlistees were shown documentaries to warn them of STD’s. Now, HIV and HPV is almost taken as something to be expected.

 

[PRmerger]

Getting naked isn’t technically required. I knew some women in college who only ever wore skirts/dresses on nights they expected might end hooking up with someone, for ‘easy access’.

It’s a metaphorical nakedness.

Although, upon closer examination, it’s a literal nakedness, even with part of one’s clothes still on. You give yourself, expose yourself to another in sex.

And, there’s always the literal nakedness which can occur, too.

I hope that folks can see the cognitive dissonance this engenders for those of us who embrace our dignity as women: how is it possible to be naked with a complete (or partial) stranger?

You wouldn’t want a drop of this person’s saliva on your food, in the bar, but hours later there you are exchanging that, and more, in an intimate act in their bedroom.

#Idontgetit

 

[HouseArrest]

It’s a metaphorical nakedness.

Although, upon closer examination, it’s a literal nakedness, even with part of one’s clothes still on. You give yourself, expose yourself to another in sex.

And, there’s always the literal nakedness which can occur, too.

I hope that folks can see the cognitive dissonance this engenders for those of us who embrace our dignity as women: how is it possible to be naked with a complete (or partial) stranger?

You wouldn’t want a drop of this person’s saliva on your food, in the bar, but hours later there you are exchanging that, and more, in an intimate act in their bedroom.

#Idontgetit

I don’t understand it either.

Let’s say that there are those who are just that completely comfortable with intimacy with strangers. I wonder, then, if sex is or can be anything special with his/her spouse? If so, how?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t understand it either.

Let’s say that there are those who are just that completely comfortable with intimacy with strangers. I wonder, then, if sex is or can be anything special with his/her spouse? If so, how?

Oh, I wouldn’t call it “intimacy” they’re experiencing, except as a euphemism.

The exquisite, searing, piercing intimacy that is objectively part of the sexual union is inhumed.

It has to be.

Otherwise the human person simply could not withstand such an act with a complete (or partial) stranger.

 

[HouseArrest]

Oh, I wouldn’t call it “intimacy” they’re experiencing, except as a euphemism.

The exquisite, searing, piercing intimacy that is objectively part of the sexual union is inhumed.

It has to be.

Otherwise the human person simply could not withstand such an act with a complete (or partial) stranger.

Oh sure, I will agree with that. Just not sure how that same act can become anything more with a spouse, especially after many trysts with strangers.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh sure, I will agree with that. Just not sure how that same act can become anything more with a spouse, especially after many trysts with strangers.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes. Sexually transmitted diseases were once feared. I recall even the military enlistees were shown documentaries to warn them of STD’s. Now, HIV and HPV is almost taken as something to be expected.

By some. One does not have to hold to a religious prohibition on extramarital sex to have more common sense than that.

Take HPV as an example. This is what the Centers for Disease Control have to say, hardly an arm of the USCCB:
“Abstaining from sexual activity is the most reliable method for preventing genital HPV infection. Persons can decrease their chances of infection by practicing consistent and correct condom use and limiting their number of sex partners. Although these interventions might not fully protect against HPV, they can decrease the chances of HPV acquisition and transmission.” and “Condoms used consistently and correctly can lower the chances of acquiring and transmitting HPV and developing HPV-related diseases (e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer). However, because HPV can infect areas not covered by a condom, condoms might not fully protect against HPV.”

They do not say, “Get the vaccine and don’t worry.” No, they point out there are hundreds of HPV viruses known, condoms provide some protection, and that vaccines can provide some protection against some of the worst ones.

The “hook-up culture” wants to ignore even the common sense that the most secular health sources are giving out. It is based on an extreme level of denial concerning the risks involved, from physical to emotional to legal.

 

[Sarcelle]

By some. One does not have to hold to a religious prohibition on extramarital sex to have more common sense than that.

Take HPV as an example. This is what the Centers for Disease Control have to say, hardly an arm of the USCCB:
“Abstaining from sexual activity is the most reliable method for preventing genital HPV infection. Persons can decrease their chances of infection by practicing consistent and correct condom use and limiting their number of sex partners. Although these interventions might not fully protect against HPV, they can decrease the chances of HPV acquisition and transmission.” and “Condoms used consistently and correctly can lower the chances of acquiring and transmitting HPV and developing HPV-related diseases (e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer). However, because HPV can infect areas not covered by a condom, condoms might not fully protect against HPV.”

They do not say, “Get the vaccine and don’t worry.” No, they point out there are hundreds of HPV viruses known, condoms provide some protection, and that vaccines can provide some protection against some of the worst ones.

The “hook-up culture” wants to ignore even the common sense that the most secular health sources are giving out. It is based on an extreme level of denial concerning the risks involved, from physical to emotional to legal.

Unfortunately what you don’t know or what you deny can really hurt you.

 

[EasterJoy]

Unfortunately what you don’t know or what you deny can really hurt you.

Moral law prevents the harm, but since not everyone follows it, it cannot even protect the innocent entirely. This is why Our Lord said, “Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.” (Matt. 10:16)

Someone asked me why my children could possibly need to have an HPV vaccination, since the virus is spread by immoral behavior the vast majority of the time. The reason is that a virus doesn’t take a moral inventory before it infects someone. If your spouse does not (or did not, prior to meeting you) follow moral law at all times, you protect yourself and any future spouse you may have later in life by being vaccinated and not contracting or passing on the virus. Moral law can preserve us from many kinds of harm, but that does not imply we should not care about intervening on behalf of those who might suffer harm or perpetrate harm on others because of their foolish or sinful choices.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

By some. One does not have to hold to a religious prohibition on extramarital sex to have more common sense than that.

Take HPV as an example. This is what the Centers for Disease Control have to say, hardly an arm of the USCCB:
“Abstaining from sexual activity is the most reliable method for preventing genital HPV infection. Persons can decrease their chances of infection by practicing consistent and correct condom use and limiting their number of sex partners. Although these interventions might not fully protect against HPV, they can decrease the chances of HPV acquisition and transmission.” and “Condoms used consistently and correctly can lower the chances of acquiring and transmitting HPV and developing HPV-related diseases (e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer). However, because HPV can infect areas not covered by a condom, condoms might not fully protect against HPV.”

They do not say, “Get the vaccine and don’t worry.” No, they point out there are hundreds of HPV viruses known, condoms provide some protection, and that vaccines can provide some protection against some of the worst ones.

The “hook-up culture” wants to ignore even the common sense that the most secular health sources are giving out. It is based on an extreme level of denial concerning the risks involved, from physical to emotional to legal.

I remember hearing that multiple sexual partners was a cancer risk for women back when I was 14 (I’m 46, so even before HIV was well known) I used to like to read and study things on my own. I found out at the library when researching how to avoid cancer.

 

[Naskor]

It’s everywhere, and it has been since the '80s. Many of my friends who were big into the late night booty calls from boys were there to learn skills to do a job and move on with life… during the day. At night and on weekends, well, it was quite a different story.

Most state colleges have their orientation days filled with safe sex meetings, playing condom bingo and other such silly games meant to help students protect themselves physically. I know of several students in these past few years who turned down RA positions because of what they were required to teach the freshmen.

One school had a basket of condoms at the front desk, just like you’d normally see a basket of mints at a restaurant. If it were just a subset of students, I don’t think all that would be happening.

This pretty much describes my college experience. Despite its Catholic history too.

 

[MJJean]

Why are you shocked? It’s honestly quite common to see girls behaving like that nowadays. There are women who are, well, horny, and will have one night stands without thinking twice. No alcohol or drugs. It’s not just guys that behave that way

I am in the midwest. It’s been fairly common here for as long as I can remember.

And no regrets with getting naked with someone you just met at a party?

Someone you shared body fluids with but wouldn’t share anything else confidential with?

No regrets about this the day after, the week after? At all? Ever?

This question wasn’t addressed to me, but I also enjoyed the hook-up culture when I was in my late teens and early 20’s. More than 20 years later and no regrets here, either.

I think alcohol and drugs are involved in almost all of these hookups.

Alcohol and/or drugs can be involved in hook-ups, but plenty of hook-ups happen among sober people, too. I have now and have had in the past many friends who do not drink or do any other drugs, ever, and have casual sex semi-regularly or regularly.

I don’t understand it either.

Let’s say that there are those who are just that completely comfortable with intimacy with strangers. I wonder, then, if sex is or can be anything special with his/her spouse? If so, how?

There is a difference between sex and intimacy. For some, sex is purely physical and intimacy is mental/emotional. It’s possible to have one without the other.

Oh sure, I will agree with that. Just not sure how that same act can become anything more with a spouse, especially after many trysts with strangers.

The simple answer? Love. Emotional bonding and intimacy. Having casual sex was an expression of physical desire and physical desire only. Having sex with DH is an expression of physical desire, but it’s also an expression of love and commitment. I enjoyed the casual sex I had, but I enjoy sex with DH on a deeper level.

 

[EasterJoy]

Having casual sex was an expression of physical desire and physical desire only… I enjoyed the casual sex I had, but I enjoy sex with DH on a deeper level.

All made possible by contraception.

Sex that is about gratification only is sex that has been divorced from procreation. When you may conceive a child any time you have intercourse, sex that is only about physical gratification with someone you have no future with requires foolishness, desperation or callousness on a far more obvious level.

 

[PRmerger]

This question wasn’t addressed to me,

There is never a need, in a forum, to make the above preamble.

All members are welcome to comment on all posts.

but I also enjoyed the hook-up culture when I was in my late teens and early 20’s. More than 20 years later and no regrets here, either.

Fair enough.

But I still wonder…no regrets…at all? So you had casual sex with someone, saw him 2 days later and he ignored you–you didn’t regret getting naked with him, exposing yourself (sexually, emotionally, bodily-- not necessarily literally)?

Alcohol and/or drugs can be involved in hook-ups, but plenty of hook-ups happen among sober people, too. I have now and have had in the past many friends who do not drink or do any other drugs, ever, and have casual sex semi-regularly or regularly.

Not that you could answer this, but I wonder how many of these people are on anti-depressants.

Just a thought…

There is a difference between sex and intimacy. For some, sex is purely physical and intimacy is mental/emotional. It’s possible to have one without the other.

Sex is the source of life, so in order to assert that sex can be purely a recreational activity is to deny a basic fact.

It’s like those dwarves in CS Lewis’ “The Last Battle”–they are being shown flowers but their adamantine refusal to see truth, see only manure.

 

[SusanneT]

All made possible by contraception.

Sex that is about gratification only is sex that has been divorced from procreation. When you may conceive a child any time you have intercourse, sex that is only about physical gratification with someone you have no future with requires foolishness, desperation or callousness on a far more obvious level.

A perfect illustration of one of the many evils of contraception.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

Getting naked isn’t technically required. I knew some women in college who only ever wore skirts/dresses on nights they expected might end hooking up with someone, for ‘easy access’.

Grossly disgusting. Yuck. I’ve preferred just to keep my legs shut. No diseases, no pregnancies. I wear skirts and dresses every day/ night, and the only “easy access” is for myself for a quick little trip to the Ladies Room.

 

[Still_Hoping]

It is interesting to see the different mind sets people have when it comes to sex. As I stated in a previous post it is all about perspective and how you are brought up. I was brought up to abhor and even be afraid of sex as if it was something disgusting and impure. My elders didn’t teach me that it is a beautiful expression of a God given, natural response to share with the person that we love and are espoused to. So I was deeply ashamed of men’s advances towards me and deeply aware of my sexuality as a teen and having to repress it and be constantly guilty or ashamed for having feelings of this nature.

As I got older I was aware of how my body responded to certain men and situations. I refrained not only because of my upbringing but because of the natural consequences of sex such as STD’s, unwanted pregnancies, possible exposure to mental and emotional abuse or addiction to sex and developing feelings that might change in the aftermath and leave you feeling empty or wanting more either of which is not conducive to a healthy, disciplined behavior for a growing teen who is confused about life and doesn’t know what they want. I also refrained because I have respect for my body that is the temple of the holy spirit.

I have been faithful even as a young girl and wanted to follow in the footsteps of the great saints of our Church. If one does not have this reverence for their body or for God then having casual sex is no issue and can be enjoyable for the time being. Eventually, I believe EVERYONE WANTS A DEEPER CONNECTION IN SEX.

I think teens especially should abstain for all these reasons from the hook up world. They are not equipped psychologically to deal with this even if their hormones say otherwise. that is my honest opinion.

 

[MJJean]

All made possible by contraception.

Sex that is about gratification only is sex that has been divorced from procreation. When you may conceive a child any time you have intercourse, sex that is only about physical gratification with someone you have no future with requires foolishness, desperation or callousness on a far more obvious level.

It’s not just that sex has been divorced from procreation, but that procreation has been divorced from marriage. Many men and women don’t think a personal relationship between a mother and father is required to raise a child. They think that being civil co-parents in separate households is enough.

There is never a need, in a forum, to make the above preamble.

All members are welcome to comment on all posts.

Fair enough.

But I still wonder…no regrets…at all? So you had casual sex with someone, saw him 2 days later and he ignored you–you didn’t regret getting naked with him, exposing yourself (sexually, emotionally, bodily-- not necessarily literally)?

Not that you could answer this, but I wonder how many of these people are on anti-depressants.

Just a thought…

Sex is the source of life, so in order to assert that sex can be purely a recreational activity is to deny a basic fact.

It’s like those dwarves in CS Lewis’ “The Last Battle”–they are being shown flowers but their adamantine refusal to see truth, see only manure.

No, no regrets in all these years. Which is actually something I struggle with because I know that, purely based on religious grounds, if nothing else, I should regret those years. But I just don’t.

Why on Earth would a casual sex partner ignore me a few days later? I’ve never had that happen. Most were guys I casually knew from the area, same hang outs, same social groups. Others were guys I met at parties or bars or concerts/festivals and either became friends with or never saw again. A few were long time friends, some from as far back as elementary school, who I still keep in touch with here and there because we all live near-ish where we grew up, have kids around the same ages, and know all the same people.

Out of the whole lot that I still keep in touch with, about 30-35 people, I believe 5 are or have been on anti-depressants. All of them much later, after they’d settled down, and all of them after either a major medical event or the death of a spouse, child, or parent.

As far as physical, emotional, and sexual exposure…hmmm, how to explain? I’ve always been very comfortable with my body, so I’ve never felt uncomfortable with physical exposure. Sexual exposure is mutual, so I’ve never been uncomfortable with that, either. Emotional exposure didn’t exist within casual sex, so wasn’t a problem.

I know it’s difficult to understand for some people. The idea that sex should be reserved for marriage is something I have struggled to understand.

 

[SusanneT]

Grossly disgusting. Yuck. I’ve preferred just to keep my legs shut. No diseases, no pregnancies. I wear skirts and dresses every day/ night, and the only “easy access” is for myself for a quick little trip to the Ladies Room.

I love that - me too on both counts.