Boo, Hoo, Hookup
Yet another piece -- this one by Charles M. Blow in The New York Times -- lamenting the hookup:
I should point out that just because more young people seem to be hooking up instead of dating doesn't mean that they're having more sex (they've been having less, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) or having sex with strangers (they're more likely to hook up with a friend, according to a 2006 paper in the Journal of Adolescent Research).To help me understand this phenomenon, I called Kathleen Bogle, a professor at La Salle University in Philadelphia who has studied hooking up among college students and is the author of the 2008 book, Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus.
It turns out that everything is the opposite of what I remember. Under the old model, you dated a few times and, if you really liked the person, you might consider having sex. Under the new model, you hook up a few times and, if you really like the person, you might consider going on a date.
I asked her to explain the pros and cons of this strange culture. According to her, the pros are that hooking up emphasizes group friendships over the one-pair model of dating, and, therefore, removes the negative stigma from those who can't get a date. As she put it, "It used to be that if you couldn't get a date, you were a loser." Now, she said, you just hang out with your friends and hope that something happens.
The cons center on the issues of gender inequity. Girls get tired of hooking up because they want it to lead to a relationship (the guys don't), and, as they get older, they start to realize that it's not a good way to find a spouse. Also, there's an increased likelihood of sexual assaults because hooking up is often fueled by alcohol.
That's not good. So why is there an increase in hooking up? According to Professor Bogle, it's: the collapse of advanced planning, lopsided gender ratios on campus, delaying marriage, relaxing values and sheer momentum.
It used to be that "you were trained your whole life to date," said Ms. Bogle. "Now we've lost that ability -- the ability to just ask someone out and get to know them."
Now that's sad.
The truth is, I spent my 20s hooking up, and feeling sort of bad about it. The truth was, I wasn't ready for a relationship. When I was, I started dating. This is what'll happen with these people -- Blow even points it out. It's not sad, it's not terrible. It's really not a big deal. It's just what you do, these days, until you're ready to do something else.
And I've always admired how the French go out in groups. You're much more yourself in a group than you are in the stagey world of dating. If you like somebody you meet in the group situation, you get together with them again -- and often end up having sex with them. Of course, in France, there's no word for dating. The fact that our culture is more like this now is a good thing. Would somebody please get the word to the old fogeys employed by The New York Times and other papers?
Who are these people, who actually spend time worrying about and getting upset about this stuff? What person in their 40s, in their right mind, actually gives a crap about the dating habits of college kids? What terrible things do they think are actually going to happen? If college girls get tired of hooking up before the guys their age do, they should just start dating older guys. Duh.
Pirate Jo at December 14, 2008 6:09 AM
"The fact that our culture is more like this now is a good thing. "
Sorry, This is just making lemonade from lemons.
"You're much more yourself in a group than you are in the stagey world of dating."
Because that's where real intimacy is displayed- in a crowd. (sarcasm/off)
Regards
Thomas Hazlewood at December 14, 2008 6:16 AM
Looks like men won in the end. A ready supply of women willing to put out with no expectations whatsoever - not even dinner and a movie.
Brilliant!
TRO at December 14, 2008 6:19 AM
Hooking up might not be a trajedy but the culture of hooking up is. We see far less family formation (certainly stable families), fewer kids from those marriages that do emerge from today's culture and more divorce than we had before the cultural revolution of the 60's. Long term this does seem to mean we do not have children at replacement level, and our marriages are more tentative and colder.
And, I candidly admit this is not scientific, but the women who are not married after 35 seem pretty sad in a lot of ways. The culture that would have had many of them married formerly is gone and they are the "losers" for it.
jjv at December 14, 2008 6:24 AM
Two thoughts: One, "Heh heh heh heh. Charles M. Blow. Uh huh huh huh huh huh."
Two, he's got a point. I wish I'd known how to actually date when I was in and just past college vs. just hanging out and angling for a hookup 99% of the time. I'd have had more actual girlfriends, and I very strongly suspect I'd also have gotten laid a lot more. I'm pretty damn sure I would have been a lot happier, too.
Mickster at December 14, 2008 6:36 AM
As a creature of the 70's, I grew up being fed a pretty steady diet of sex, drugs and rock and roll.
And, except for the drugs part, I sort of bought into it.
Now, I'm not so sure.
I would observe that whenever a culture really gets in touch with their sexuality, they stop having children, and their demographics go catty-wampus.
The strong sex drive of youth is there for a purpose. Channeled properly, it ensures our very survival. Letting that pressure leak out into meaningless hookups can be hugely appealing to the individual, but ultimately it's death to our society.
It seems to me that as a society matures and becomes more complex, more educated, and more sophisticated, the cost/benefit equation for children gets bad enough that you inevitably see a decrease in child-bearing in sufficient numbers as to make your society unsustainable.
I can't help wondering if all civilizations contain the seeds of their own destruction.
As I look across the pond at the dying of Europe, I cannot help wondering if my parents were right all along.
fustian at December 14, 2008 6:40 AM
I'm 55 and married 32 of them and I'm with ya sista. If I had to do it again I wouldn't get married. In fact the institution of marriage should be eliminated. I would satisfy my natural need for female companionship anyway I could with anyone that was willing. Men are geneticly hard wired to spead their DNA around in the noble effort to create genetic diversity anyway. (Monogamy is an unnatural restriction on men foisted on us by women who are weak and vulnerable when they have children.) Then in the unlikely event of a pregnancy the child would just be give up for adoption or be a ward of the state provided she didn't abort in the first place. The advantages are many. I could have sex when ever I want. I would not have to share my income and assets with a wife so I will be wealthier as I get older. This will be needed to help persuade young women to get in bed with me because they would not otherwise. With rising life expectancy it is unreasonable to expect couples to stay together so long.I could have a long term relationship or many shorter ones with out the financial drain of divorce. I could do what I want until I'm ready to do something else.
Yes my tongue is in my cheek.
klypherd at December 14, 2008 6:42 AM
Does anyone think "hooking up" is God's plan for His creation? Have so many among us become a Godless society, where morals and principles are abandoned for a few minutes of anticipated/hoped for physical pleasure?? And great thinkers and journalists of our day wonder what has happened to the family unit? God help us; we obviously are becoming unable to make wise choices as He would direct us.
James at December 14, 2008 6:42 AM
If a twenty-something who can't get a date is classfied as a loser, what do you call a forty-something who spent her twenties and thirties hooking up, then spent her forties wishing she was married and had a few kids.
Diggs at December 14, 2008 6:47 AM
Those forty-year olds might be interested in what college age kids do if their kids, particularly their daughters, were among them.
Bill at December 14, 2008 6:49 AM
Fustian has it right. I'd add that the very first quote from Mr. Blow about the "collapse of planning" might be a bigger factor in social distress than we imagine. In the medium to long term, life satisfaction is a much greater contributor to happiness than pleasure. It sounds like the hook-ups contribute to please but, by undercutting the ability to form a soul-satisfying emotional bond with others from an earlier age.
Having said all of that, I am at least encouraged that Amy sees some alternate trajectory that ultimately reaches a stable family.
Amy, I almost hate to ask, but do you have this? You know, a stable marriage and children? If you don't then I don't think you'll ever "get" how we, who have achieved it, think about the world no matter how well you intellectualize the lack thereof. It is almost like trying to explain sex to a virgin.
Wildmonk at December 14, 2008 6:53 AM
That should be "contribute to pleasure" in the second sentence, not "contribute to please."
Wildmonk at December 14, 2008 6:54 AM
What person in their 40s, in their right mind, actually gives a crap about the dating habits of college kids?
Parents. Particularly parents of daughters.
Mark in Texas at December 14, 2008 6:57 AM
With two boys in college and one just out, my experience is that their social scene is quite a bit healthier, more sensitive to others and more inclusive than the one I went thru.
I can see that Blow's description roughly fits, but he leaves it open to the conclusion that social life among the young is rapidly descending to the muck. Just the other way around.
Charlie at December 14, 2008 7:04 AM
I'm with Amy... hook-ups happen when people are young, then they grow up and get serious.
The problem is, if the hook-up mentality spills over into the 30s, for a woman. Then it gets ugly... at least, if she is looking for a relationship.
NicoleK at December 14, 2008 7:06 AM
Also, this means boys are not treated so much as ATMs. It's much more comfortable for me to meet somebody in a group situation, and I also arrange "blind dates" that way -- ideally, with neither party knowing they're going to meet somebody who's a possibility. That way, if nothing clicks, nobody has bad feelings, and also, I can't think of anything that makes me feel more like a plucked chicken left out in the cold than being out with a total stranger who I'm supposed to maybe be into and vice versa. Ickorama.
For the uninitiated, I met my boyfriend at the Apple Computer store at the Grove, and flirted my ass off, and he asked me out for an Orange Crush. (We're both from Detroit, so this has some significance.) The lack of planning, the lack of knowing I was going to sit down with a cute guy, made it so much easier. And he did the thing men these days, and especially in L.A., don't often do (and I can't blame them, since women give them no signals, except maybe that they're mad at them for being alive)...he not only asked me out, after we talked for three hours, he walked me to my car, grabbed me and kissed me. We've been together ever since, just celebrated our sixth anniversary in Paris.
Oh, and regarding Mr. Blow's sad predictions, on our first official first date, we had dinner plans, but he came to pick me up and we never left my house, so we ended up going out for breakfast instead.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 7:14 AM
Amy, I don't disagree with the proposition that there's nothing wrong with hookups, per se. That said, there's nothing terribly right about them either. At the end of the day, hookup upon hookup can tend to inure one to real intimacy...and for some the moment of epiphany where they realize this comes too late when they are less "marketable".
So, yeah, the land of hookup is a magical land...but it lays in that part of the map that says "here there be monsters".
Lastly, being married and having kids rocks...but I'll grant that it's not for everyone. To be successful at it, it requires that one not be egocentric (which is not to say that the unmarried and kidless are, necessarily, egocentric).
Seth Williams at December 14, 2008 7:29 AM
In the course of my long and adventurous single life (traded in for happily married life in my late 30s), I never once used the terms "dating" or "hooking up" , the latter of which I first learned from undergrads while I was in grad school in the late '80s. As described to me, this was a sad version of the "casual" sex I recall from my college days. These students (so they said) were aware of their biological urges, but wanted to avoid the ambiguities and risks of sleeping with someone without predefined emotional boundaries. If "hooking up" is in any way a new phenomenon, it is in its sad, bloodless calculation.
Namazu at December 14, 2008 7:30 AM
I'm dying for an explanation of the significance of Detroit and Orange Crush.
Dexter Westbrook at December 14, 2008 7:31 AM
Sonnet 129.
Of course, Bill wrote that a long time ago, so it (and everything else he wrote) probably doesn't mean shit today.
easyliving1 at December 14, 2008 7:35 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613445">comment from Dexter WestbrookDetroit and Orange Crush? I dunno...it seems to be a Detroit drink. Around a lot there, don't see it lots of other places.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 7:41 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613446">comment from Seth WilliamsAt the end of the day, hookup upon hookup can tend to inure one to real intimacy...and for some the moment of epiphany where they realize this comes too late when they are less "marketable".
Didn't work that way for me. People start behaving differently when they want something differently. I see it in e-mail after e-mail from readers.
On a different plane, snacking when you're in a rush doesn't inure you to eating a sit-down lunch.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 7:43 AM
Oh no! People are having more fun, getting married later, and having fewer kids! Oh no! How are we ever going to get the population to 10 billion? Young people today are making the world their own and dating and mating in the way that seems best for them! Oh no! It must be the end of the world!
Pirate Jo at December 14, 2008 7:47 AM
My sense is the "hooking up" phenomenon is accompanied by A LOT of alcohol consumption to ease the process.
In earlier years I dated two women (sequentially) who were recovering alcoholics in their 30s. They were attractive and brave, yet also clearly suffering from ten or more lost years of early adulthood. Alcoholism is a danger in all of this free-and-easy life style, it seems to me, and does a lot of damage.
JohnR(VA) at December 14, 2008 7:56 AM
Didn't work that way for me. People start behaving differently when they want something differently. I see it in e-mail after e-mail from readers.
Sure, they find they want something different after they realize that 'hooking up' goes nowhere, but their intimacy has been sold so cheap for so long, they may not have anything genuine left to offer.
dfenstrate at December 14, 2008 8:00 AM
Sure, it may not have worked that way for you, but I can certainly show you cases where it did work that way. Many of them, in fact.
Easy sex is fun, but not always satisfying. Once habituated to the former, some people can't figure out how to get the latter. Call it addiction, if you want.
I don't want to suggest that people shouldn't be free to make bad choices (free to do so or not, people will still make bad choices sometimes). Accepting that they are free to do so doesn't make me any less free to lament those bad choices.
Seth Williams at December 14, 2008 8:08 AM
Will someone please explain to me why sex is bad? Seriously, this article is way too tsk-tsk-ey. I think the writer is pissed that he's not getting any.
Why is the assumption that men aren't looking for a relationship? A lot of them are. I also don't think age is a factor when it comes to the absence of social skills. I've come across that at any age
Marketability is something that you work on and certainly doesn't dimish with age, your market niche just changes, and you also become better at selecting a guy who's worth your time.
Chrissy at December 14, 2008 8:22 AM
I agree that it's not a moral issue. It's not a question of whether hooking up is good or bad. The real problem is that the VAST majority of young women are dissatisfied with the hooking up scene. Consider the following statistics:
• 91% of students reported that hooking up was very common or fairly common on their campuses.
• 87% of college students report having hooked up.
• 73% of girls wish dating was more common.
• 12% of hookups eventually lead to relationships.
• 60% of sexually active teenagers will at some point have sex with someone they are not dating.
• 49% of students who had intercourse during a hookup never saw the other person again.
• 61% of women who say hooking up makes them feel desirable also say it makes them feel awkward.
• During hookups, guys have orgasms 44% of the time. Girls have orgasms 19% of the time.
• 12% of women say that it is sometimes easier to have sex with a guy they don’t know than to make conversation.
(See the About page at www.HookingUpSmart.com for sources.)
Women want more relationships than sex. Guys want more sex than relationships. Advantage: Guys. Until women return to being gatekeepers and demand love and respect in exchange for sex, guys will continue to call the shots.
Susan Walsh at December 14, 2008 8:24 AM
Looks like men won in the end. A ready supply of women willing to put out with no expectations whatsoever - not even dinner and a movie.
Posted by: TRO at December 14, 2008 6:19 AM
- And it was all thanks to feminism - got to love the irony
Hooking up might not be a trajedy but the culture of hooking up is. We see far less family formation (certainly stable families), fewer kids from those marriages that do emerge from today's culture and more divorce than we had before the cultural revolution of the 60's.
Posted by: jjv at December 14, 2008 6:24 AM
- Now is that because of hooking up or women filing for divorce when they get bored?
It seems to me that as a society matures and becomes more complex, more educated, and more sophisticated, the cost/benefit equation for children gets bad enough that you inevitably see a decrease in child-bearing in sufficient numbers as to make your society unsustainable.
Posted by: fustian at December 14, 2008 6:40 AM
- Again is that because of hooking up or the throw away marrige culture that treats men like walking wallets?
Does anyone think "hooking up" is God's plan for His creation? Have so many among us become a Godless society, where morals and principles are abandoned for a few minutes of anticipated/hoped for physical pleasure?? And great thinkers and journalists of our day wonder what has happened to the family unit? God help us; we obviously are becoming unable to make wise choices as He would direct us.
Posted by: James at December 14, 2008 6:42 AM
- grow a brian, when was the last time you saw anyone raisng the dead or preforming miricles as proof they were a messenger of god?
For all you know this is a part of gods plan, after all why would he give us something and then tell us to deny it? Kind of a stupid thing for an all knowing being to do
Oh no! People are having more fun, getting married later, and having fewer kids! Oh no! How are we ever going to get the population to 10 billion? Young people today are making the world their own and dating and mating in the way that seems best for them! Oh no! It must be the end of the world!
Posted by: Pirate Jo at December 14, 2008 7:47 AM
- I can see why they are concered Jo, they will be at an age soon where they cant get to a voting booth on their own, and with fewer younger people to pay into social security (or drive them to voting booths to renew their theft of the young)they will lose a massive windfall and it scares them
I have a question though, whats worse hooking up or getting married and raising a kid when studies show there is a 25% to 33% chance that the husbands arent the father?
lujlp at December 14, 2008 8:25 AM
To me, it's like any other convenience. You pay a price for it. Not having the pressures of a relationship can be great, but it doesn't teach you much. The things that relationships teach are pretty important when it comes to attracting a mate, and I don't know many people my age that have them. One, the only way men get to be any good in bed is having a girlfriend. Most women are complicated machinery, and you don't learn how to make an engine purr on a block-long jaunt. Two, when all you need to worry about for the first 25+ years of your life is yourself, it sort of becomes a habit. And last, there's a line in that article that says it all. Most of these girls are actually hoping things will turn into a relationship. They're not all the free love bunnies a hookup culture would imply. They get hurt when they realize they're not the only one, so a lot of the guys lie. There is a level of dishonesty arond the whole process, on both sides. It's certainly not facilitating clear and honest communication.
Christina at December 14, 2008 8:32 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613460">comment from Seth WilliamsEasy sex is fun, but not always satisfying. Once habituated to the former, some people can't figure out how to get the latter.
Oh, this is just silly. Simple advice, in every damn advice book out there, pretty much: want a boyfriend? Don't have sex on the first date. Of course, there are also people like me, who are undesperate for a boyfriend, and who are willing to take the risk that sex on the first date will be sex on the last date.
If easy sex isn't fun for you, don't have it. Simple enough.
Some women fall for any guy they sleep with. Those women learn, just like kids learn about falling down and getting a cut knee, what hurts them, and can then make a decision to behave otherwise.
I do think a lot of this is tacit jealousy on the part of the tsk-tskers. All these kids having sex, without giving it much thought! The horror, the horror! Yeah, whatever.
Again, when people are ready for relationships, they behave differently; men and women. I've seen it probably a thousand times, and then see it in my mail every week.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 8:35 AM
Will someone please explain to me why sex is bad? Seriously, this article is way too tsk-tsk-ey. I think the writer is pissed that he's not getting any.
Sex is good. Sex with a lot of people in a very casual manner hurts your ability to form a meaningful, intimate relationship.
dfenstrate at December 14, 2008 8:39 AM
I* am quite thankful for this group mentality. I am not very good at the inane notion of "picking up" women, never have been. But I am very good with small, intimate groups where I can just be me and not worry about impressing anyone in particular.
And the hook-up scene is a very reasonable way to grow up. Sure it's messy sometimes, signals cross and occasionally people even get hurt. But there is a big difference between the hurt of a partner you've slept with casually a few times and the hurt caused by someone you truly believed you were in love with and might have spent your life with. Not to say that both aren't learning experiences, but the former is much easier to deal with than the latter and the lessons are ultimately very much alike.
This is ultimately the problem with the forty year old/seventeen year old paradigm. Someone young, should enjoy the time and opportunity to learn about/explore themselves and their sexuality. Not getting caught up in the need to have a permanent, or long term partner leaves a lot of room to do that, dating is just a distraction. That's not to say that everyone should be fucking like a bunny, just that focusing on a life-partner is absurd, when one barely understands who they are.
There was a time when there were ample reasons to hurry it along. There is a reason that the female body is prepared to start reproducing around the age of thirteen. But those pressures no longer exist. We live much longer lives today and women are capable of bearing children for a much longer portion of these longer lives. We now have the luxury of actually growing up, getting to know ourselves, before we ever think about ensuring the survival of the species. And there are a lot of advantages to taking that time.
This is not the downfall of society, that problem is being caused by people who don't want to accept a very reasonable concept of growing up and create a conflict with emerging values. Teach kids how not to make kids, even if they happen to fuck. Stop pushing outmoded and unnecessary values as though they are essential. When these outmoded values cease to be such a strong factor, the problems many here are pointing to will cease to be a problem.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 8:40 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613465">comment from dfenstrateSex with a lot of people in a very casual manner hurts your ability to form a meaningful, intimate relationship.
Um, why? On what evidence? At a certain point, I stopped wanting to fool around, and wanted a serious relationship, so I stopped fooling around. Again, I'll bring up the snack metaphor. Because you snack a lot during the week, does that make you incapable of sitting down to a meal on the weekend? When you feel like dinner, don't you just make dinner?
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 8:44 AM
"Would somebody please get the word to the old fogeys..."
Old fogeys, huh? You mean those who are old (experienced) enough to be honest when they trace the trajectories of their choices and see that they were (as the young are now) self-deceived. Yeah, we made our choices "in the day" only to find years later that we had thereby, unwittingly, chosen our future. The warnings of the old are not to frustrate the pleasures of the young but to help them avoid foreclosing on their futures. But the human mind (young or old) is never more brilliant than when engaged in self-justification.
Lane at December 14, 2008 8:55 AM
I met my dear husband at 19, we married shortly thereafter while both still in college. I'm now 31, he's 34, third child on the way.
One issue many women I went to school with have with marrying young is they fear spending thier youth on someone who might leave them with kids and no means for caring for them, so we get our degrees and build our careers delaying marrying or at least childbirth until later, and by then it is a huge adjustment, and the cost of daycare for two kids nearly negates our incomes. I'm delighted to be able to stay home now, but I have to admit my bachelor's and master's degrees can be seen as nothing more than an expensive insurance policy until my kids are older and I wish to return to work having lost seniority and starting over afresh.
It is all worth it to us, but both of us are very driven individuals who quickly learned how lonely the 'hook-up' business was in college and we both were willing to work and sacrifice for a much more meaningful future. That long range thinking others often lack in their 20's (if they ever gain it). Our culture at least downplays the value of this if not demoralizing it entirely.
I didn't even see a keg until my senior year, but I never felt I missed out. Hubby and I did a lot of traveling and now I'm young enough to enjoy my kids while having a sort of security blanket. Had I delayed marrying, I would have really missed out on many important memories and probably delayed child birth too. Getting my master's with a little baby in tow wasn't easy, but we took turns supporting each other through his MBA and my M.ED. While others were dropping money like it was nothing on beer, movies, and hooking up, we made more conservative choices. This means that we are finally comfortable, at our young age, and even with three kids. I am so glad our money stress is less than that of my peers, although we are by no means wealthy.
Secondly, I think many women don't know how to be a wife and mother anymore, and society doesn't support men who make the family choice either. I wish I'd been better prepared and could have been a better wife and mother from the get go, but in reality, I had no clue, but lucked out with a very supportive man.
k1023 at December 14, 2008 8:57 AM
Sex is good. Sex with a lot of people in a very casual manner hurts your ability to form a meaningful, intimate relationship.
Bullshit. I would argue that the opposite is true. Having had a lot of the sex, I have no curiosity what sex outside my meaningful, intimate relationship would be like, because I've been there and done that. I haven't the least interest in cheating on my partner, because I lack that curiosity. I am confident that I'm not missing something, because I have only been with a limited number of partners.
I am also not naive enough to assume that sex makes the relationship or creates the intimacy. The intimacy of my relationship with my partner is based on a much deeper, much more solid foundation, because it is based on who we are as individuals and who we are together - outside the bedroom. Sex is a very small part of our relationship and our relationship is quite profound for both of us because of that.
We are struggling with serious and significant problems right now, due to a relatively rare genetic disorder. If we didn't have the foundation we do, if our relationship was founded on mere sex and sexuality, I wouldn't be capable of dealing with it and would have taken the boys and left her to her family to deal with. As it is, it is likely that we will have to separate for the sake of the boys eventually anyways. But due to the incredible foundation we have created, I am not willing to give up so easily.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 9:01 AM
"Sex with a lot of people in a very casual manner hurts your ability to form a meaningful, intimate relationship."
What horse squeeze. Maybe what it does is make a lot of people rethink whether they really want a meaningful, intimate relationship in the first place. And so what if they decide no? Or at least, not right now?
Articles like this are written by handwringing old scolds who really need to be told to mind their own business.
When Elvis came on the scene, it was the downfall of civilization. Then it was the Beatles with their long hair, and it was heavy metal music for a while. Dungeons & Dragons, video games, trans fat, and body piercings have all taken turns being the end of the world as well. Now it's hooking up. Pardon me while I hit the snooze button and go back to sleep.
Pirate Jo at December 14, 2008 9:03 AM
Again, when people are ready for relationships, they behave differently; men and women. I've seen it probably a thousand times, and then see it in my mail every week.
Sure they behave differently.
I reckon' that the low value they have placed on physical intimacy up to that point is a huge burden on their ability to have a quality relationship.
Sure some may overcome it, but we see plenty of children running around in adult's bodies, engaging in idiotic, destructive, self centered acts that sabotoge their relationships.
These people never figured out that there is another person in their relationships, because they never had to.
dfenstrate at December 14, 2008 9:11 AM
dfenstrate -
I reckon' that the low value they have placed on physical intimacy up to that point is a huge burden on their ability to have a quality relationship.
And I would argue that the profound import that so many people place on physical intimacy is the biggest burden on their ability to have a solid foundation for their relationships.
Physical intimacy is not a solid foundation for any relationship. Especially so, when one partner is struck with an inability to have the sex or at least enjoy it. No matter where my partner and I end up, it will not be a lack of sex that gets us there. Ultimately if we do split, it will be because of her inability to deal with our children and caring for their needs.
And no matter where our relationship is pushed, I will always love and cherish her. If we separate, it will create a massive hole in my life, because she has been my partner in everything I've done since we built our relationship and I have been the same for her. Even when we were separated, we were partners in most aspects of our lives.
So don't give me some pat bullshit about the value of physical intimacy. That value is entirely relative to the value of the relationship it is a part of. And if the physical intimacy is the foundation, the relationship is bound to fail - one way or another.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 9:30 AM
Hey Chrissy, engage your "brian" and read about God's plan for sex in the Bible (Gen. 2:24 is a good place to start); you'll also read about "preforming miricles" . . . He still does miracles today. We're about to celebrate the gift of His plan; not a messenger of God, but God Himself in the body of a man, and He came for me and He came for you, too! Merry Christmas!
James at December 14, 2008 9:35 AM
"As she put it, "It used to be that if you
couldn't get a date, you were a loser." "
No, that's still pretty much true. You're still a loser, this is just a way to pretend you are not.
Les Nessman at December 14, 2008 9:35 AM
"The truth is, I spent my 20s hooking up, and feeling sort of bad about it. "
You were in your 20s and still thought of yourself, and acted like, a child. But with an adult body and adult 'rights'.
There's a lot of that going around.
Les Nessman at December 14, 2008 9:39 AM
The reason the young are casually screwing without attachment is the same reason they're such gigantic fatasses: instant gratification.
Why bother building a meaningful relationship when you can just get on MySpace and find a random person to get your rocks off with? Why bother learning to cook a healthy meal when you can go to McDonalds and cram a dozen McNuggets down your gullet?
And I'm annoyed as hell that Akon thinks that "group dating" is some marvelous French invention. That was pretty much the *standard* form of initial American dating in the evil old 50s, with dances and cookouts for the various teenyboppers to mingle. Even the ancient "Ice Cream Social" goes back to the Victorian era, the main difference being that blowjobs weren't a standard way of saying goodbye.
Oh, and one last beef. Most "casual sex" isn't sex at all. It's just assisted masturbation.
Jre at December 14, 2008 9:41 AM
Hey Les, I still think the turkey drop was a great idea!
James at December 14, 2008 9:45 AM
How does the hookup culture affect friendship? If the people involved casually toss away their sex partners, will they do the same with the other people they hang out with when they become boring? Being a true friend isn't as much work as being a spouse, but it still takes a lot of commitment.
Observation: a lot of kids today have no boundaries when it comes to public confessions. They'll update their Facebook with their innermost thoughts, problems and fears. Could it be they doing this because they have no one in real life to talk to? No *real* friend that will drop what they're doing and support them, since all the people they know are just "hook ups?"
Shazbot! at December 14, 2008 9:58 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613497">comment from JreAnd I'm annoyed as hell that Akon thinks that "group dating" is some marvelous French invention.
It's Alkon, and I write about relationships, sex, love, and dating, and know a few things about them -- all of which I do not mention in every single sentence I write. It's a recent thing, this shift in how it's done in America. I realize you must have a burr in your pants about the French. The reality is, they do some things very well, and many things very poorly. My least favorite thing about France is the way their society is so permanently hierarchical for most people. If you are a carpenter's son, you will most likely never be able to become more than a carpenter.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 10:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613498">comment from Les Nessman"The truth is, I spent my 20s hooking up, and feeling sort of bad about it. " You were in your 20s and still thought of yourself, and acted like, a child. But with an adult body and adult 'rights'. There's a lot of that going around
Oh, please. How creepy-arrogant of you to tell me what I was thinking and doing.
I "felt bad" about it because I thought I SHOULD want a relationship but I didn't.
That smug assumption thing get you real far?
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 10:12 AM
> What person in their 40s, in
> their right mind, actually gives
> a crap about the dating habits
> of college kids? What terrible
Good point, Peej. But...
> Sorry, This is just making
> lemonade from lemons.
And...
> Because that's where real
> intimacy is displayed- in a
> crowd. (sarcasm/off)
Good points from Hazelwood, too. I think think these matters have important influence on the Big Issue of our time (divorce), and so they deserve consideration. To wit:
> We see far less family
> formation (certainly
> stable families)
...Which is true and tragic. But:
> I would observe that whenever a
> culture really gets in touch
> with their sexuality, they stop
> having children, and their
> demographics go catty-wampus.
Demographics is probably not the best weathervane for policy. China's been brutally manipulating their demographic balance for years, and it's getting worse.
> as a society matures [...] you
> inevitably see a decrease in
> child-bearing in sufficient
> numbers as to make your society
> unsustainable.
There's no point in being a Negative Nelly. First of all, the problem with humanity is never staffing, per se. There's always someone on the globe to fill every position. The trick is to get them trained for it. Nobody in America is concerned about immigration when immigrants readily assimilate . (Fertility in the US isn't the problem that it is elswhere.)
> Does anyone think "hooking up"
> is God's plan for His creation?
In many instances, He's probably cool with it. (PS- You are so on the wrong blog.)
> there's nothing wrong with
> hookups, per se. That said,
> there's nothing terribly right
> about them either.
Excellent point. One phrase Amy used that I found telling was "these days", a passage people use when they're explaining why further consideration should be abandoned.
Pairing patterns are in transition, and there's no reason to think this is a particularly refined moment; it's just the present moment. (I used to scuba dive a lot, and was often the first one into the brine and the last one out. Divers look up from the coral every several breaths to take a head count and be sure the group is OK. I often had to look backwards to do this, and would remind myself that I wasn't therefore the leader; I was just in front.)
> for some the moment of epiphany
> where they realize this comes
> too late when they are less
> "marketable".
And for others, the lessons learned about human nature (their own and their partners) are essential preparation for a final bond. Maybe watching themselves and their (various) partners age was an a necessary part of the process. I agree with you to a large extent: It's important for women to understand what looks mean to men. (BTW, Dennis Prager agrees with you too, which is ought to frighten you a little.) If teaching better lessons about human nature to growing children, no epiphany would be necessary, and everyone would still get laid.
> Alcoholism is a danger in all of
> this free-and-easy life style,
> it seems to me, and does a lot
> of damage.
Hard to tell which is the symptom and which is the disease.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 14, 2008 10:15 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613501">comment from JreHere's one more hilarious one from Jre:
Most "casual sex" isn't sex at all. It's just assisted masturbation.
How much experience do you have with "casual sex," and how would you define it? I've slept with friends of mine who I adored and continue to. I had a thing with a guy who could never really be my boyfriend for years, and loved him then and still love him. If he called right now and needed my help, I'd be there. Some people can sleep with their friends and have it just be another part of the friendship. Because some can't get their tiny little impacted-bowel minds around that sort of thing doesn't change that.
You really can't make a blanket statement about casual sex. Take it from me -- I write about sex and relationships, and make a serious study of the subject. And have, since the 90s. I'm guessing a number of you who are huffily commenting here about "them young people" are just not able to consider things being done -- and working for some or many -- in a way other than the way you believe (and experienced) them being done before all that hair started sprouting out of all the wrong places and disappearing from all the places you'd really like it to be.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 10:18 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613502">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]And for others, the lessons learned about human nature (their own and their partners) are essential preparation for a final bond.
Crid makes a great point here.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 10:21 AM
Thanks, you gave us a good practice lap awhile back.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 14, 2008 10:25 AM
Just because there is nothing wrong with sex does not mean that it's a good idea to use it any old way you please.
I was going to use the gun analogy, you know, guns don't kill people, people kill people, and all that...
Instead, I think I'll use chocolate. Nothing wrong with chocolate. Everyone likes chocolate.
And it might seem like a good idea to make it the basis of your entire diet.
Except it isn't.
I think you need to be very careful about how you use something as powerful as sex. It's a big deal.
Like I said before, I'm a child of the 60's and 70's. And I'm starting to think that a lot of what we thought back then isn't working out very well. Drugs for sure. Rock and roll as a music form seems to have some lasting value, but as a lifestyle, it's not going well.
And we're in the middle of a great big experiment concerning the effects of a society that separates sex from its primary function of making children. Europe is further down this road than we are.
That experiment is not going well for them.
And, by the way, if you always wanted to see Europe, I suggest you do it now. I don't expect it to last much longer without children to populate it.
I like sex (and chocolate). I always have.
But, I just don't see that the casual hook-up is good for anybody. Not so much because it's bad in itself, but more for what it replaces I suppose.
Societies and countries are like giant pyramid schemes. They fall pretty quick if you can't get that next group of suckers to buy in.
fustian at December 14, 2008 10:36 AM
Okay, I have to respectfully disagree with one writer. It was my experiance that it was better to grow together young before you are set in your ways. I know several people who waited to marry and had a harder time adjusting. Also, part of who I am is through my choices and experiances with my family and friends, and we are ever evolving people. To say that it is better to wait until you know yourself is to say you think you will one day be a complete static person, when hopefully, you will instead never stop learning, growing, and changing.
Also, sex has its risks. Condoms reduce them but don't remove them entirely. Trust me on this. Keep playing the field and you'll in time end up with a nasty, even if you are using condoms all the time.
k1023 at December 14, 2008 10:41 AM
Hey Crid, does God's presence bother you?? The truth is, a society of casual sex will take the same paths and end up the same as that other great civilization experiment a few centuries ago; we know them as the Roman Empire. Whether you want Him around or not, He is in control . . . and yours, and mine, and everyone else's eternal home is determined by our acceptance of that. And He doesn't have to blog to get His message out.
James at December 14, 2008 10:43 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613518">comment from JamesJames, I realize you've most likely been TOLD there's a god, but what evidence do you have that god actually exists?
And how do you know your god, and not the Jewish one (assuming you're not Jewish), Muslim one, and not Zeus, is the real deal? If you were born Muslim, and equally credulous, don't you think you'd be believing, sans evidence, in Allah, instead of believing, sans evidence, in your particular Big Man In The Sky?
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 10:47 AM
> And He doesn't have to blog to
> get His message out.
And yet here you are, as if to cover his absence.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 14, 2008 10:48 AM
First of all James my name is lujlp not chrissy so lets look into getting you a brain one more time ok?
Now onto the good book.
Gen 2:24 has nothing to do with sex you fucking tool, it is part of the creation myth.
For chrsits sake you'd think that in your attempts to defend that collection of toilet tissue you'd have bothered to, I dont know, READ IT??
Lets contine shall we?
Gen 2:24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh
A few things
1. Have you any knowledge of to sexual parteners mergeing and becoming one person?
2. Given the ambiguity of this turn of phrase is it suggesting that children stop having sex with their parents once they are married?
3.Might it be talking about the bilogical progression of every mamillian species wherein sperm fertilzes egg, leading to a live birth, growth and development and a physically mature offspring goes off to repeat the cycle?
4.Are you fucking illeterate?
Get back to me when you have bothered to read that paper weight you kinda based your life on
lujlp at December 14, 2008 10:52 AM
fustian -
And it might seem like a good idea to make it the basis of your entire diet.
Except it isn't.
I would like to thank you for supporting my point about sex and the foundation of relationships. You're absolutely correct, it isn't the basis for the entire diet, but that is exactly what you and others seem to be making of it.
I think you need to be very careful about how you use something as powerful as sex. It's a big deal.
No, it's really not. What should be a big deal is relationships that are founded on mutual love and respect that transcends sexuality.
I have had a whole lot of sex, with a whole lot of people (including quite a few friends I love dearly today). I've also done a whole lot of drugs. I don't have much of either today and I'm ok with that.
I also have a partner who I cherish and will love most dearly until the day I die. Regardless of the path my life takes from here, that simple fact will never change. How do I know? Because up until very recently our lives were so intertwined that it was hard sometimes to see where one stopped and the other began.
We were separated for about a year and a half, mainly due to our inherent tendency for being loners. Yet even during that time, our lives were inextricably meshed and far beyond the context of raising our child. Neither of us has ever been any good at non-platonic relationships, but we are very good at having such a relationship with each other.
And none of it is based on the sex. We have had very wonderful sex, that has improved with the experience with each others bodies. But honestly, both of us have had better.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 10:54 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613522">comment from fustianNothing wrong with chocolate. Everyone likes chocolate. And it might seem like a good idea to make it the basis of your entire diet. Except it isn't. I think you need to be very careful about how you use something as powerful as sex. It's a big deal.
Or it isn't. Depends on who you're having sex with and why, and whether you have the power to stop.
Since you use the chocolate analogy, I'll use a chocolate example from my own life. When I go to my French class, somebody will sometimes make those brownies with the chocolate chips, caramel, and coconut in them. They're fabulous. And what remains after class often goes home in a baggie in my purse. Why? Because, I guess, others there don't have the willpower to have them in the house. I do. I just bought a bunch of boxes of chocolate in France. I didn't wolf every ounce down when I unpacked them. I'll keep one box and one bar for myself and give the rest to friends and neighbors.
I applied the same sort of thinking and behavior with casual sex, having it when I felt like it, when it was appropriate to what I wanted in my life, and not having it when it no longer was. I'm not damaged or incapable of having a relationship -- I simply stopped having casual sex because I have a boyfriend I love very much, and I get what I need without having to run around. It's a different time and I have different needs now. So I behave differently. Not really a big deal.
There are women out there who can't compartmentalize, who fall "in love" (or something) with every guy they sleep with. I advise them to avoid having casual sex, because it's damaging for them and can give them a hateful outlook on men. Maybe some women have to experience this once or twice to figure out that it's not for them. Not really a big deal. You hurt, you learn, and if you're not an idiot, you behave differently the next time.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 10:55 AM
Quote: "I do think a lot of this is tacit jealousy on the part of the tsk-tskers. All these kids having sex, without giving it much thought! The horror, the horror! Yeah, whatever." End Quote
As was pointed out by others some of us tsk-tkers aren't jealous -- just been there, done that and realized it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Oh, and maybe we've moved to a point where we don't have to pretend it was one of the greater moments in our lives any longer. And maybe, just maybe -- we would like to see the young not have to learn that lesson themselves.
CharterMom at December 14, 2008 11:05 AM
"Societies and countries are like giant pyramid schemes. They fall pretty quick if you can't get that next group of suckers to buy in."
That is one of the best one-liners I have read in a while. Good work! (Seriously.)
Spartee at December 14, 2008 11:07 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613525">comment from CharterMomAnd maybe, just maybe -- we would like to see the young not have to learn that lesson themselves.
Skinned knees hurt, too, but getting them teaches kids physical boundaries, and risks they can take and can't. American parents are way too protective of their children. I am thankful for all of my mistakes. They pointed me in the right direction. And sometimes, per what Crid said, you need to make a mistake to really learn.
I feel I have the kind of relationship I do with my boyfriend (strangers somtimes think we're newlyweds -- and no, we're not engaging in disgusting physicality) because I had enough experience before him to know how to behave, to know what I wanted in a man and a relationship. I also got damn lucky finding him.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 11:09 AM
These sorts of discussions make me crazy.
In my 20s, I was very shy and socially awkward - in spite of being rather cute. I found developing long-term relationships much easier than finding "random" women to have sex with. Yet I had the typical desires of men of that age - to screw around. Painful.
Now I'm in my late 40s, happily married (for the most part) to my fourth LTR. But I am living with a mountain of regret for the fun I missed out on when I had the chance. I hear about "kids these days" and am being eaten alive with envy.
So, from my perspective, hooking up is a very healthy phenomenon. Would that I'd were so healthy.
equitus at December 14, 2008 11:09 AM
Some of this has to do with differences in personal preferences. I always knew I wanted a close connected bond and that casualness wasn't for me and never would be. My hubby wanted the same. Some people want more breathing room and they want it in different ways and for different reasons. Others, like us, don't. We cherish our time together because we know how valueable that is to us. We aren't sexual prudes, quite the opposite, but I would also say that some 'old, out dated' values aren't always a bad thing. Every long term relationship will have its challenges, and those values see them through, if that is with friends or lovers.
For the record, I'm still dear friends with my ex before hubby, but my relationship with ex was based on far more than sex so when that was removed it wasn't a big deal to still be friends. I tried remaining friends with a few casual hook-ups to no long term avail. Nothing else was built to make for a relationship, so when my life changed, there was nothing left in common with said casual friends. Just my experiance.
k1023 at December 14, 2008 11:10 AM
Amy, the empty tomb, as personally witnessed by many, is all I need to prove God's existence; however, I see His existence every day from each fertilized egg and each newborn child to the myriad of galaxies that surround us.
And lujlp, before you label someone as illiterate, you should remember that you obviously don't have the crutch of spellcheck with your blog entries. As for your spiritual knowledge, I can only say God help you. The truth of God's Son will someday prevail . . . every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! Merry Christmas!
James at December 14, 2008 11:15 AM
k1023 -
Okay, I have to respectfully disagree with one writer. It was my experiance that it was better to grow together young before you are set in your ways.
First, if I am set in my ways before I'm on my death bed, I sincerely hope that someone shoots me. Being older, does not mean one is no longer malleable. Indeed, I am far more open minded now, than I was in my late teens/early twenties, when I knew everything and was right about everything.
Second, I don't know anyone who has waited until their very late twenties, early thirties to get into the relationship, who has cheated on their significant other. I realize that it's anecdotal, but to me it's also telling.
I know several people who waited to marry and had a harder time adjusting.
Boo hoo. My partner and I had a hard time adjusting too, we even separated for a while. But after we managed to adjust, we discovered we have a profoundly beautiful relationship that we both cherish intensely.
To say that it is better to wait until you know yourself is to say you think you will one day be a complete static person, when hopefully, you will instead never stop learning, growing, and changing.
Not at all. Rather it is waiting until you understand that you don't know it all and that to become static is to die. I waited until the right girl came along and I am very glad I did, because I really do know myself pretty well today. To whit;
I know and accept my biggest weaknesses/limitations.
I know where my greatest strengths lie.
I know that I must never stop and always strive to find those who can prove my most basic and fundamental assumptions wrong.
Trust me on this. Keep playing the field and you'll in time end up with a nasty, even if you are using condoms all the time.
No, condoms are not a prevent-all, mainly because people quite often make mistakes using them. But they and other preventative measures can pretty much ensure ones safety. I played the field plenty and managed to avoid ever getting "a nasty." And when I say I played it plenty, I mean I've had the sex with upwards of three hundred partners over the years, give or take a few.
I also managed to get tested every couple months and while I wasn't super picky, I refused to have sex with women who showed the least distaste for using condoms, even if they were willing. Because I generally assumed that if she didn't want to use one with me, she probably had the sex without them with some regularity.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 11:15 AM
And Amy, my God is the same God of the Jews, the God of Abraham, the I AM of Moses . . . there is no other God . . . there are many gods, but there is only one God. Prayers for all who don't know Him, and God's peace this Christmas to all!
James at December 14, 2008 11:32 AM
So let me see if I got this straight James it was the empty tomb which is the basis of your faith.
An event testified to by people with a known bias and written down over a decade after the fact by another group of people with a known bias. All of which took place over 2000 yrs ago?
Its a pity your not part of that sect of monks who light themselves on fire
And as a side note
illiterate: uneducated in the fundamentals of a given art or branch of learning; lacking knowledge of a specific field
But I can see how an illiterate guy like you would mistake it for spelling only.
Heres another word for you
Dyslexia, do you know what that means?
lujlp at December 14, 2008 11:33 AM
James -
Amy, the empty tomb, as personally witnessed by many, is all I need to prove God's existence; however, I see His existence every day from each fertilized egg and each newborn child to the myriad of galaxies that surround us.
No James, these are not forms of evidence to the existence of God/s.
Not even in the births of my children. In the first, I saw evidence that when one stops using birth control, babies can and often do result. In the second, I saw evidence that cyclic birth control is a crock of horseshit.
When I see the galaxies around us and contemplate the notion that our universe is probably part of a multiverse, I am indeed filled with awe and wonder. I am nearly brought to tears, contemplating the scales of time and space - not to mention the uncounted trillions of planets - it is so intense.
But given such scale, such massive natural splendor, I am ill prepared to make any assumptions about gods. Would I claim that god, God, or gods don't exist - no more than I would claim they do. What I know is that while I have some suspicions, I have no more evidence to support those suspicions, than you have to support your beliefs.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 11:35 AM
What person in their 40s, in their right mind, actually gives a crap about the dating habits of college kids?
One that needs to produce written content every few days to eat.
Charlie (Colorado) at December 14, 2008 11:48 AM
Duwayne, faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1). One either has faith, or one does not. To each the choice is their own, but if you haven't encountered Jesus Christ, I pray that someday you will. His invitation is open and available to each and every one of us, regardless of our past or our present. But He won't make that decision for us. God bless.
James at December 14, 2008 11:48 AM
Amy -
Because, I guess, others there don't have the willpower to have them in the house. I do.
I don't, at least not for chocolate. I can usually manage not to get into the chocolate we buy for the kids, but anything momma and I get for ourselves is quickly eaten.
I think that to a certain degree, I fell into that with the sex, but like my lack of control with chocolate, I really don't mind.
I am going to school to study psychology, with the intention of seeking a PHD in neuropsychology. Part of the journey that led me to my interest in neuropsych, besides the profound effect that neurological issues have had on my family, is an interest in studying addiction.
People tend to make the assumption that addiction = bad, an assumption that I believe at best, is an oversimplification. While my addiction to smoking tobacco is an all around negative, my addiction to reading and learning is not - though it can be.
It is all in how much our addictions control us and control our interactions with others, that make them good or bad. I can honestly say that I have an addiction to sex, but in my management of that addiction, I am (and usually was) able to keep it from being a bad thing.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 11:50 AM
James -
Please do me a favor and stop quoting scripture or lecturing me about faith. I was studying theology when I was eleven. I know the bible inside and out. I was brainwashed from a very early age, the results of which fuck me up to this day. I am not interested in hearing it from you - I was better at that than you are, when I was still in elementary school.
You'll notice in my comment that I mention having my own suspicions, beliefs if you will. While I am not averse to talking about them, I am averse to inserting them into conversations they have no part in. I am also averse to pushing them at people who don't have an interest in hearing about them.
But then, I respect those around me for the most part.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 11:58 AM
Isn't it interesting that some people can talk about casual sex all day long, but mention Jesus Christ and all of a sudden some people get offended. Nothing I wrote was a lecture; just the truth.
James at December 14, 2008 12:18 PM
Not offended James, just irritated that you would invade this conversation with irrelevant bullshit.
Or would it be reasonable for me to come to your church or bible study and refuse to talk about the word, insisting instead to talk about casual sex?
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 12:25 PM
More to the point; I don't have any interest in listening to people talk about/try to convert me to their faith. Especially when they do it as badly as you. I don't go to church any longer, nor do I go to bible studies any longer, because I'm not interested. I have had enough of that for several lifetimes and I've moved on.
Now if you have something substantive to contribute to this conversation about casual sex, by all means. Otherwise, expect that people are going to feel much like I am sure you would feel, if someone came to your bible study and talked about casual sex.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 12:29 PM
I guess I missed the "Casual Sex Discussions Only" rules and regulations at the head of the page . . . . there will always be ears that will not hear, and eyes that will not see. While I am irritated that you would refer to my comments as "irrelevant bullshit", those judgments are left to His wisdom and providence. God's peace
James at December 14, 2008 12:32 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613550">comment from James, but mention Jesus Christ and all of a sudden some people get offended
James, this is a discussion of casual sex and you've suddenly drawn Jesus in. It's off-topic and inappropriate.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 12:33 PM
Why the personal attacks/hostility, DuWayne? I'll leave you to your own discussions.
James at December 14, 2008 12:35 PM
Let me answer your question with one of my own.
If I came to a bible study in your home, why would you get hostile with me, for bringing up casual sex and refusing to talk about anything else?
Beyond that, I am hostile towards you (if you want to call it that), because I choose to avoid venues where it is likely I am going to get preached at. Like I said repeatedly, I have been there, done that and still bear the scars.
And to add insult to injury, you are really not very good at the proselytizing. I wasn't joking or engaging in hyperbole when I claimed to have done it better when I was in grade school - that's just a fact.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 12:42 PM
You're not a very good judge of people . . . I wouldn't get hostile in the circumstance that you question me about. I'm sorry that you were scarred by events/religion in your past. You, and others in your same circumstances (just as I was), are among those who need His grace more than ever.
James at December 14, 2008 12:46 PM
"Some people can sleep with their friends and have it just be another part of the friendship."
Good on you, but for most people that doesn't actually work.
"Because some can't get their tiny little impacted-bowel minds around that sort of thing doesn't change that."
You being different doesn't make other people possessed of impacted-bowel minds.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
Tom Perkins at December 14, 2008 12:54 PM
"The truth is, I spent my 20s hooking up...."
You are a whore.
L at December 14, 2008 1:20 PM
James -
Being the brotherly sort, I went ahead and created a gmail account and blogger blog for you. Click on my name and login with the email name jesustown99@gmail.com password 12344321
If you go to gmail.com you can log into the gmail account.
When you comment on other people's blogs, you can add your blog to the URL line and it will hyperlink your name to your brand you blog.
I may even wander over to your new blog, to see what sort of bullshit you have to spew. i may even engage you in conversation, because I am not unable to argue theology and occasionally rather enjoy it.
I would recommend you go there soon and change the password, because I have a feeling others who might read this will fuck with your brand new blog if you don't.
I will email you there shortly, because I want to make crystal clear why and how you have pissed me off. But this is not the appropriate place to have this conversation.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 1:21 PM
You are a whore.
ME TOO!!! ME TOO!!!
What do we win?
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 1:23 PM
Truth: a fact that has been verified
Do you see yet why I consider you illiterate James?
lujlp at December 14, 2008 1:28 PM
re: having a lot of casual sex = problems forming deep personal relationships. Yeah, thats it. Every long term married man knows that sex is only meaningful in the context of a "relationship" wherein your spouse decides she's not interested in sex much anymore - but strangely insists that hubby met or exceed last years financial production. Yep - sure am glad I did the right thing and avoided that whole 'enjoy sex-without-paying a-steep-emotional-price' stage of life.
P.S. - Oh, and make sure the gays cannot get married - somebody has to be a model for happy long-term couplehood.
God bless the young people - let them live their lives (with the proviso that they not expect mom and dad to pay all their bills so they can live wild and free)
Californio at December 14, 2008 1:35 PM
re: having a lot of casual sex = problems forming deep personal relationships. Yeah, thats it. Every long term married man knows that sex is only meaningful in the context of a "relationship" wherein your spouse decides she's not interested in sex much anymore - but strangely insists that hubby met or exceed last years financial production. Yep - sure am glad I did the right thing and avoided that whole 'enjoy sex-without-paying a-steep-emotional-price' stage of life.
P.S. - Oh, and make sure the gays cannot get married - somebody has to be a model for happy long-term couplehood.
God bless the young people - let them live their lives (with the proviso that they not expect mom and dad to pay all their bills so they can live wild and free)
Californio at December 14, 2008 1:35 PM
Oh, and "L" (afraid to post under something identifiable)
A whore does it for money. Why is it these morons dont understand their own language
lujlp at December 14, 2008 1:37 PM
Dammit Luj, I wasted five minutes of my life setting James up with a brand new blog of his own - with email address, to drop a really snarky hint. Click on my name for an open thread over there. (You have the power James, really. You could even delete the open thread or attach a post to the header. It's your brand new blog James - feel the power)
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 1:39 PM
Amy, this is just dumb.
Let's review: women (and a few, ultra-desirable men) have lots of sex. In College, gender ratios force women to be less choosy, but out of College it's generally 70% of women having sex with 30% of men. Particularly in urban environments.
Here's what happens, socially, to far too many women:
They lose their ability to bond to any man, particularly in their thirties after far too many partners have eroded the effectiveness of hormones released through sex that cause bonding and intimacy. They themselves are less attractive, physically, than they were ten years ago. They are less able to bear children, and less able to bear children with fewer birth defects, than in their twenties. This is biological fact. Most of their hook-up partners have been the "Player" type, physically and socially dominant, aggressive, high Testosterone types with large risk appetites. In other words, the 70%-30% rule again.
They visibly compromise "down" in their thirties for the available men in the dating pool (Players are now dating women ten years younger) and the sex disparity (they've had lots of sex, their male prospective partners lesser amounts) pretty much guarantees little investment in a relationship by either side. Both are less physically attractive compared to ten years ago, the hormones released during sex critically have eroded the woman's ability to bond through over-use through many partners, and the woman has much emotional baggage, the man also.
And we wonder why the Nuclear Family is dying.
Amy your recipe is one for single motherhood. Which given the 41% illegitimacy rate for Whites, 70% for Blacks, and 50% + for Hispanics, in 2006 according to the US Census Bureau, is exactly where we are headed.
Let me point out, a nation of single mothers quickly degenerates into raw male competition for women based on pure physical intimidation. The world of an Angry Rap Video, in other words.
Probably most women would be happiest with lots of sex with men in their twenties (and late teens). Then having a kid or two as single mothers. Certainly women pursue on average this strategy. It seems to make most women happy, though there are very unhappy and ecstatic women on either end of the distribution, in the "tails" of the normal distribution. But the social cost is pretty obvious:
The world of Rap Video, where male investment in women is nil, and children even less. The hook-up culture is GUARANTEED to produce men who are interested in ONLY hook-up, "spreading their seed" as widely as possible, and taking no interest or responsibility in either women or children.
Socially, women have to make choices and live with the consequence society-wide. Either a hook-up culture and the ZERO male investment that produces, or restrict the number of partners, demand investment in women emotionally and otherwise before sex, to produce men who aim for marriage and fatherhood.
Reality Check: Women can't have it all (neither can men). If they want hook-ups they won't get (for the most part, other than lucky lottery winners) husbands for themselves and fathers for their children, in the home, taking care of the kids. They'll get "baby daddies."
If Women WANT husbands and involved fathers for their kids, they better demand on average responsibility and LIMIT their partners.
NOTHING comes for free.
I would ask that women stop complaining about men. They got EXACTLY the kind of men they demanded (on aggregate) with a hook-up culture. Yes it's unfair to those that didn't want it. Guess what, "enough" women can tip that behavior by men through tyranny of the majority. Women who want a relationship or a husband are just stuck with the kind of men their "sisters" created through aggregate choices.
whiskey at December 14, 2008 1:57 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613586">comment from L"The truth is, I spent my 20s hooking up...." You are a whore.
Um, a whore is somebody who sells sex. I always found it in my best interest to give it away for free. I also don't believe in marriage nor do I have any desire to live with anyone, which means my relationship is only about the relationship, not in the slightest about money. Because women often make less than men do, a woman who moves into a man's fancy house is likely to be tempted to stay in the relationship instead of losing her housing by breaking up -- even when it's no longer good.
My boyfriend knows why I'm with him -- because my life is better with him, and more fun, and more exciting than it would be if I weren't with him. I'd rather spend an hour with him than anybody, and my day doesn't start right if we don't talk and laugh on the phone. I've always got his back, and vice versa.
And in case you think not being married means I'm some good time Charlie, I took care of somebody I wasn't sleeping with -- my friend Cathy Seipp (along with about 15 other people who were Team Cathy, seeing that she was never alone from the time she told me she was afraid to be alone until she died, about seven months later). It doesn't take marriage, it takes caring deeply that somebody is as comfortable as you can make them. My boyfriend recently went into the hospital one night (he's fine!) and had to stay over. It was unexpected and late (I made him go after he told me what he'd been feeling), and they had no cots so I slept on a sheet on the cold cement floor at Cedars-Sinai next to his bed. He insisted over and over I go home -- I had a double column deadline and my book was due in days, but I refused. I'm kind of a princess in my tastes and comfort zone, so if he had the slightest doubt that I love him completely, I think he doesn't now.
Oh, and did I mention that I had lots and lots and lots of casual sex in my 20s? And for all you tsk-tskers, this is negatively impacting me now in what way?
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 2:06 PM
This sure is interesting. I think people of any age should feel free to explore their sexuality as casually as they want, as long as they're using protection. I also think someone's degree of promiscuity depends a bit on their personality. Some people are just more shy and selective by nature, so maybe they won't be as interested in casually hooking up, and that's okay, too. Yeah, men are biologically inclined to be promiscuous, yet want their mates to at least seem chaste and unattainable by others, so women need to be a bit discreet when they're actually looking for a long term relationship; sometimes they learn this the hard way, but see the discussion earlier on skinned knees teaching lessons. Before you're in the bonding stage, I say, have sex as much as you want and with as many people as you're comfortable with.
That said, I do think some younger people in America overdo the sleeping around a bit. I think the real reason is that we're still such sexual prudes in America. It's similar to the booze mentality; we're taught to believe there's something inherently wrong and dangerous about drinking, so when we start to grow a little more independent (but are by no means grown up) we tend to go way overboard in our first drinking experiences and even revel in excess. It can be the same with sex; some young people who picked up the message from church, parents, etc. that sex is somehow decadent if partaken of only for pleasure, and that they should repress their natural desires, tend to go hog wild when they can actually have it and not use protection. They aren't taught to view sex rationally, as a human need, something that can be enjoyed safely with proper precautions. It's like this all or nothing philosophy; either you're chaste as a saint or you have to be some wild hookup queen or king--this can have dire consequences.
I've lived a few years in Germany and one year in France and the young people in both countries just seem so over it... they're not hung up about sex, but they don't hook up like crazy either. They are just taught to view sex differently, as natural, able to be enjoyed responsibly, and unconnected with religious teachings. It seems to go in line with their attitude towards alcohol, which in both France the sophisticated land of wine AND Germany land of flowing beer, is abused a hell of a lot less than it is in America. I actually found that in general they have most of their sex in long-term relationships lasting years starting from a young age, even their teens. They seem to naturally pair up early and for long periods, neither sleeping around nor desperately dating. Yet they don't tend to marry their earliest boyfriends and girlfriends; they seem to recognize they're still growing up and not ready for a life commitment. Maybe they enjoy less sexual variety compared to a madly sleeping around American 20-something, but it appears to work well for them.
Debra at December 14, 2008 2:10 PM
umm Whiskey, was that your ass or someone elses? You know, the one you pulled those figures out of.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 2:14 PM
Amy - Got any pictures?
Hucklebuck at December 14, 2008 2:20 PM
"You're much more yourself in a group than you are in the stagey world of dating"
It's the opposite with me, I am least myself in a group and most at ease with one person (whether dating or with a friend).
DavidJ at December 14, 2008 2:28 PM
The fact that our culture is more like this now is a good thing.
Yes, because we've finally gotten rid of pesky things like intimacy and family stability and are on our way to sexing ourselves to an infertile, ossified self-implosion as the immigrants outbreed us like crazy...much like France.
Josh S at December 14, 2008 2:44 PM
For many years I swallowed the very conservative line that sex was best reserved for married couples. I also believed that a woman gives away a piece of her heart to every man she sleeps with, and that casual sex was damaging to the female pysche. Since I was on the path to law school and not settled in my life, I avoided dating and getting involved with anyone, let alone having sex. I didn't want a broken heart or to be "damaged goods."
So at the age of 27 I was still a virgin and not very happy about it. I was getting nowhere with dating. And then on New Year's Eve I ended up fooling around with a stranger at a bar, stopping just short of intercourse. The next morning, rather than feeling guilty or dirty or bad about myself, I realized I'd had fun, enjoyed the encounter, and that hooking up wasn't nearly as bad as it is often made out to be. Over the course of the last year I have continued to look for a serious relationship, but during the occasional dry spell, I enjoyed more casual hooking up.
I finally sought out a friends with benefit arrangement and lost my virginity at the age of 28. And again, what was most surprising about the experience is that I didn't become at all attached to him. I liked him, the sex was enjoyable, and we had fun together. He was respectful of me and kind, attentive, and made me feel good about the whole experience. When the arrangement ran its course, I was able to move on with relative ease emotionally.
I do want to have serious relationships and experience physical intimacy within that context. I am seeking out that kind of relationship. But I am no longer fearful of casual sex and what it might "do" to me. I sometimes wish I'd been willing to do this in college, so I wouldn't be playing catch-up at this point in my life.
Jessica at December 14, 2008 2:51 PM
This guy thinks the hook-up culture will ultimately lead to the downfall of Western civilization. As much as I would love to agree with those who think "hooking up" is a harmless activity, I loath to think about what those most successful at "hooking up" will do to our gene pool.
Cody at December 14, 2008 3:07 PM
"It was my experiance that it was better to grow together young before you are set in your ways"
I wouldn't say one way is necessarily better than the other, but I do agree that it's a silly modern myth/meme that you 'have to' 'know who you are' and all that before you can enter a proper relationship ... nonsense, people can of course grow with one another and have done that for centuries, and in fact that process of 'growing with one another', if you take a positive approach to it, allows you to form a much deeper 'friendship' with your longterm partner, as you go through a lot together. (What might be a valid question is why a 20-year old today is such a childish blank slate compared to a 20-year old of a generation or three ago ... people are not maturing, or are maturing much slower.)
"They lose their ability to bond to any man, particularly in their thirties after far too many partners have eroded the effectiveness of hormones released through sex that cause bonding and intimacy."
I agree that many lose that ability, but I don't think it's primarily from "too many partners" - I think it's mainly just a natural hormonal change as one gets older (the "in-love" chemistry dies down in favor of more pragmatic tendencies, probably because of the shift from the just-reached-fertility age to an age at which millions of years of evolution had it that you'd probably have well-developed children by - not just be starting to look for a relationship). I think that couples in love at a young age who DO stay together form a much deeper, longer-lasting kind of bond, because of that strong chemistry and the slow 'growing together' ... the types of relationships you have when you start them when you're much older are more 'pragmatic' and routine and lack that heavy 'bond' with as deep 'in love' feelings (even be they chemical, they're there for bonding purposes).
Of course we all do have a natural instinct to 'play the field' and rack up a high bedpost notch count when younger. I don't know what people did in the old days to satisfy this ... maybe they just accepted they wouldn't cheat (this is easier when everyone else around you isn't "hooking up" as that makes you jealous) ... or maybe it just involved things like cheating and strip clubs and odd jaunts on business trips and so on ... these things were in some senses easier to pull off back then, in the days before cheap global telecoms and cellphones and the Internet left everyone so heavily connected and knowing where everyone else is all the time.
DavidJ at December 14, 2008 3:09 PM
"maybe they just accepted they wouldn't cheat (this is easier when everyone else around you isn't "hooking up" as that makes you jealous)"
Um, correction, that should read "maybe they just accepted they wouldn't fool around".
It may also be that in the 'old days' even if someone cheated a couple was more likely to stay together and 'work it out' - partly because that was the culture then, i.e. you tried to make a marriage last a lifetime and everyone did that, it was the norm - and partly because e.g. women were more financially dependent on men.
DavidJ at December 14, 2008 3:15 PM
"the "in-love" chemistry dies down in favor of more pragmatic tendencies"
In short, it might just be that the very reason evolution programmed your strongest 'in love chemistry' to occur during teens and early 20s is that this IS when it's the best time to bond with someone in a deep, lasting, meaningful partnership. (Sure you can still have 'good relationships' after that, but they have different qualities about them, and you're never that strongly paired.)
DavidJ at December 14, 2008 3:21 PM
DavidJ -
(Sure you can still have 'good relationships' after that, but they have different qualities about them, and you're never that strongly paired.)
Excuse me? My partner and I started our relationship in our late twenties. We have a very intense bond that has managed through some rather extreme circumstances, beyond what her doctor told me to expect. And no matter where it goes from here, I know the value of what is probably going to start slipping away from me in the next year or so. And you know what? It doesn't change what I feel for her and it won't.
OTOH, very few relationships that start in their late teens, early twenties even make it out the fucking gate. Sure, the ones that do are quite remarkable in their intensity and passion over the years, but then, so is my own. Some folks are able to find that bond, many others aren't.
Trying to claim it's because the relationship started when one was young is no more valid than if I were to claim that people with neurological issues manage to create stronger bonds than neurotypicals. Sure, it happened for my partner and I, but in the aggregate it's completely meaningless.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 3:49 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613612">comment from DavidJIn short, it might just be that the very reason evolution programmed your strongest 'in love chemistry' to occur during teens and early 20s is that this IS when it's the best time to bond with someone in a deep, lasting, meaningful partnership
We live in evolutionarily novel times. Twinkies and celebrity news play on our evolved adaptations. And people develop much more slowly now, and don't know who they are until later in their 20s a good measure of the time. You get together with somebody in your early 20s and you're likely to get divorced. The stats on this are a bit old, but Helen Fisher had them between 20-24, for the highest divorce rate across countries. Stephanie Coontz did counsel me that college-educated people in their later 20s (I believe it was late 20s/early 30s, can't check now, on deadline, behind, working with asst) are the least likely to get divorced.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 4:07 PM
> And people develop much more slowly now
Naw... There is nothing new under the sun.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 14, 2008 4:25 PM
This is more fallout from the 60's. It's communal living without moving to the boonies and living in a one-room shack. It IS sad, and points to a real breakdown in self-confidence, self-reliance, and self-respect.
JMW at December 14, 2008 4:36 PM
Amy, you say: "but what evidence do you have that god actually exists?"
It should be obvious that believers believe, and non-believers don't, and neither side is really falsifiable.
However, when you discuss your beliefs about hooking up:"It's not sad, it's not terrible. It's really not a big deal."
What is your evidence that it's not a big deal?
My dad was a drunk, often driving drunk, yet never killed nor wounded anybody in an accident. Most drunks, most of the time, don't. Yet mass evidence convinces me that drunks are more dangerous than non-drunks in driving, and even enough more dangerous that preventative laws are acceptable.
Given your anecdotes, as well as life experiences, in support of a hooking up culture -- what evidence would convince you it's a mistake?
How about a college grad divorce rate of 40%? 50%? 60%? 80%? 99%?
How about the % of kids growing up without their mothers married to their fathers? 10% -- 90%?
How about % of never married, childless college grads?
How about number of sexual orgasms with another person (or avg rate per month)? (Maybe this is the metric that makes you think it's OK?)
I'm sure for a lot of folk, they think the hook-up culture is OK -- yet they don't have more than 2 kids (2.1 is replacement level).
I recall reading that some 10-14% of kids are 'survivors', who can overcome almost any family negative influences. I can imagine such can also overcome any hook-up culture.
There are likely to be average, above average, and below average groups of people with 'raising children relationship skills'.
I think it's possible that for those with below average 'raising kid relationship skills', the hookup culture is far worse than the pre-60s dating culture, with the hookups not making life measurably better for the average nor above average (except maybe avg orgasms for men).
Tom Grey at December 14, 2008 4:37 PM
In other news: sky still blue; water still wet. When I was in college ('82 - '88), I guess I 'hooked up' quite a bit - although we called it 'playing house' back in the day, and were a little more discreet about it. Usually, I'd wind up getting together with female lab-science partners - while experiments were running, we had the choice of (1) standing around, and in effect watching paint dry, or (2) sneaking off for a couple of hours and getting busy.
However, the best relationships I've had all started off with hours and hours of conversation, with sex coming on about six weeks into the thing. Relationships that began with hookups usually didn't last very long or end very well. YMMV.
Trouble at December 14, 2008 5:13 PM
Were did James disappear to?
lujlp at December 14, 2008 6:03 PM
Oh, and did I mention that I had lots and lots and lots of casual sex in my 20s? And for all you tsk-tskers, this is negatively impacting me now in what way?
I don't care so much what it did or didn't do to you. I care mostly what it did to me.
And, what's that, you say?
Because you and your sisters in hookups were able to casually get your rocks off whenever you felt the need, you never got around to marrying yourself off and squirting out a bushel of children.
Who will be there to empty my bed pan when I get old? Who'll be there to pay into my pension? How will Western Civilization survive if we stop having babies?
I understand you're famously against marriage.
But I can't help wondering if you would have married and had children if casual sex was just not on back when you were in your 20's?
Most people's sex drive is that powerful.
Casual sex is allowing many people to ignore the breeding imperative of their sex drives as they postpone or even abandon their duty to the rest of us to have children.
What did we ever do to you that you would hate us so much?
Don't you owe us this?
I understand you believe that I owe a duty to you to not drive an SUV.
What's the difference?
fustian at December 14, 2008 6:06 PM
I just noticd this little gem
Women want more relationships than sex. Guys want more sex than relationships. Advantage: Guys. Until women return to being gatekeepers and demand love and respect in exchange for sex, guys will continue to call the shots.
Posted by: Susan Walsh at December 14, 2008
So according to this woman, women are incapable of earning love or respect without being deceptive and manipulative.
Tell me Susan, what do you call a woman who demands payment for sex?
And why is it ok for women to demand their needs be met, but when guys pull that type of manipulative bullshit they are considered assholes?
lujlp at December 14, 2008 6:09 PM
lujlp -
Not sure, he never did take possession of his brand new blog.....
fustian -
Sorry, but no one owes you their body and a significant portion of their life. And more importantly, the last fucking thing we need is the children of people who don't want kids and would raise wee monsters. We have enough of these wee monsters running about and clogging our prisons.
Because you and your sisters in hookups were able to casually get your rocks off whenever you felt the need, you never got around to marrying yourself off and squirting out a bushel of children.
Lets see, my partner, hook-up extraordinaire in her younger years made two. Most of the women I played with when I was younger, whom I have contact with now, have also reproduced. And a great many of the parents I know now, were right fucking whores when they were younger. The major difference - they waited a few extra years to "squirt" them out as you so vulgarly put it.
And you know something else? Nearly all of those kids are being raised in two parent homes, by parents who can afford them. Because they waited until they settled down and could afford to.
I would suspect that the vast majority of little girls squirting them out in conjunction with your timing, are the ones raising their babies without babies daddy around. And they're also the ones who have several babies by several fathers. Of course if they do start out right, married and all, they are still quite likely to divorce at a much higher rate than - well than those who waited.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 6:30 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613634">comment from fustianBut I can't help wondering if you would have married and had children if casual sex was just not on back when you were in your 20's?
Married and children because I was horny? Now there's a great reason to start a family.
My not having children doesn't put particulate into your lungs.
If you need care as an elderly person, you'd better earn enough of a living to pay for it. That's my plan. Personal responsibility, what a concept.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 6:57 PM
It's 10 pm, I've had my OB ok'd 2 glasses for the week, and I can't read all the posts tonite. I am-DUH-responding as a mom of 3+. Here are my thoughts:
I pretty much was asexual in high school. Not necessarily by choice. And I managed to have a rep for being a whore. Never did figure that out. I did whore around in college after the first marriage ended. But it was never with friends-that was for strangers! That's how we all felt. I graduated in '03.
I can grasp and appreciate the value of hanging in groups. What I don't get is the "hooking up" with "friends". I read the article, I get that they are somehow not having more sex. But to me, a few dates then sex with someone you sorta know is so much better than sex, then maybe getting to know them. Where is the build-up? The anticipation? The suspence? I can enjoy a tipsy night over a bottle of wine with a friend, I can't grasp the leap to a night of fucking with a friend, then back to friends in the am. Weird, and lacking. To me. And I hope for more for my kids.
momof3 at December 14, 2008 7:40 PM
Amy: my question was about responsibility to society. Because of your position on SUV's I assume that you feel we all have a responsibility to each other.
You act like you have a right to casual sex and that society has no interest.
That's not true.
Society has an excessively strong interest in whether young people have children.
And, I'm sorry but the whole point of being horny is to drive us into having children. It's simple survival. Sex is not some light entertainment to engage in when you're bored with TV (although apparently it IS like chocolate).
As society became more complex, we created marriage to rein it in a little and to make sure kids were raised to be a little more civilized.
As I ponder this thread a little more, I begin to see the hook-up culture as extremely self-indulgent, selfish, and anti-social.
So, if you won't crank out a few babies for the rest of us, I'm gonna go out and buy an SUV.
And you simply have no standing to complain.
fustian at December 14, 2008 7:46 PM
fustian -
There is no dearth of people making babies and no particular individual has a responsibility to do so. Why the fuck would you want people who have no interest in raising children to make them? Are you up for raising them? The children of people who don't want kids, generally become fucked up adults.
And again, where are you getting the notion that people who fuck a lot when they're young, aren't reproducing? Whats wrong with them waiting until they're stable and can afford to raise them? What exactly is the problem with them having casual sex before they're ready to actually reproduce?
You want girls to have babies before they're ready and mature enough, but in the same fucking comment decry a need for marriage and civility. Gods you're fucking obtuse. What part of baby's daddy aint here, don't you understand? Whether they get married or not, odds are pretty damned good that baby is going to be raised in a single parent household, if momma makes baby before she's in her mid to late twenties.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 8:18 PM
I've also had 1st dat sex turn into long relationships. I've also had me-asking-out dates become longterm relationships, which Amy says is bad and unlikely. Confidence, believing you are worth it, and oh yeah, a guy that you click with, are key. I'm not a prude. I just think friendship sort of excludes sex. And sex should have some history. Really, if you are great friends with someone, get along great, have fun, and have great sex, WHY aren't you dating?
There are guys I've slept with casually I'd still help out today too. It's not necessarily a great thing, or reciprocal. Chics are just like that, frequently.
momof3 at December 14, 2008 8:34 PM
Wow, what a thread!
I guess James is gone. But if you are around buddy, keep looking for Jesus. I looked for along time to, and lo and behold, I found Him. He was behind the couch with the cat toys!
Nothing has changed except the terminology. In my college years, 82-87, I was hooking up all the time but didn't know it. We called them Fraternity and Sorority parties. And though every ice cream social we had didn't end with a blow job, enough did to qualify these parties 'hookup enhancers'.
Except for the "Jesus is here aside", I really appreciate how even with all the entries the discussion stayed focused on the topic at hand.
Whoever said nothing is new under the sun, you nailed it. Just too many people who have a paycheck that depends on analyzing the shit out of human nature, and putting a new spin or name on it. We're human beings, we are going to fuck one way or another. Acknowledge, move on. And fuck again.
Sterling at December 14, 2008 8:44 PM
The hook up culture is not the cause of delayed reproduction; it is a result of societal trends that have encouraged young adults to postpone marriage and childbearing.
Jessica at December 14, 2008 8:55 PM
Fuck God. There exists no evidence whatsoever that God has ever made contact with His creation.
Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, and was not the divine messenger of the creator.
God has never cared one lick for us, and never will.
brian at December 14, 2008 8:56 PM
DuWayne:
Europe and Japan are both in a demographic death spiral. Countries like Italy and Greece have birthrates so low that no society has recovered that matched them. Small towns in Italy are so desperate, they are offering huge bonuses to any couple that will bring a child to their village.
We are barely at replacement rate here in the US. But that's largely a fiction, since it is requiring that we invite large chunks of Mexico in to maintain it.
And I don't know where you got the idea that I decried a need for marriage and civility. I am strongly in favor of both.
When it's not been about religion, this discussion has largely been about me, me, me. What's good for me? "I view sex as just like exercise. I need a little every couple of days just to keep my coat shiny." "Sex is part of my beauty regimen. A little oral sex and a good moisturizer and I'm good to go!"
I observe that society frowns on dirty people in public, and because cleanliness is a part of good health, I can see it. So we look askance at dirty people, and we help keep each other in line. This is one of the ways we keep the herd together and safe.
I'm suggesting that it might be time once again for polite society to look askance at casual sex. Not because it's bad, or because it's evil or anything. But because it allows too many people like Amy to opt out of the system. While I'm sure she would protest, I'm reasonably convinced she'd probably have made a good mother. Certainly she was there for Cathy. Would she do any less for her own child?
Of course, I don't really care if Amy specifically has children (although can we really take the risk of running low on snarky New Yorkers?).
Instead, what I care about is that as a society, we seem to be fostering an attitude about sex that, over the long run, may be suicidal.
But, hey. If we're going down anyway, I'm going down in style. From the front seat of my great, big SUV. (And talking on my cellphone).
fustian at December 14, 2008 9:02 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613649">comment from fustianBut, hey. If we're going down anyway, I'm going down in style. From the front seat of my great, big SUV. (And talking on my cellphone).
You actually brag about not caring about the health and safety of others? You call that "going down in style," and then criticize me for not being a babypod?
As soon as I could afford a new car, I got one that would pollute other people's lungs as little as possible -- a Honda Insight hybrid SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle). If somebody needs a big vehicle because they're transporting steel beams around, I don't begrudge them one. But vehicles pollute, and it's ugly to pollute other people's lungs and the planet any more than necessary for you to get around with some expedience (I'm not going to take the bus -- I don't have the time -- and we don't have expedient public transportation in L.A. When there is public transport, like in Paris or New York, I'm on it -- or on my bike or rollerskates in the past in NYC).
It isn't "casual sex" that allows me to "opt out of" being a babymaking machine, but birth control.
I have no interest in having children. A person who feels as I do about children isn't an ideal mother. Obviously.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2008 9:15 PM
fustian -
Apologies, I meant to say that you are the one crying out for marriage and civility. As such, why are you so keen on people making babies at such a young age? Doing so virtually ensures that the children produced are going to be raised by a single parent.
And I really think you're barking up the wrong tree for reproduction. It has nothing to do with casual sex. Lots of people who have the casual sex, still manage to make babies.
OTOH, there are a lot of women who choose not to reproduce for a number of reasons, the biggest one I am guessing, is that they recognize that they are too selfish to make a good job of it. Were it that more people recognized this in themselves - we would have far less of the baby's daddy aint here syndrome going on.
Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, we have too many damned people here anyways. Population declines aren't really a concern to me. The dominant business model is going to by needs fail, but so what? Even if we aren't there or all that close, we live on a finite space. Why wait until it comes to a head? Why not accept that by attrition, the population is going to plateau - probably in the relatively near future.
Instead of whining about it, do something about it. Help us prepare for the coming reality. We may experience some pains for it all, but our children and their children will be better off for it. Automation is much further along than most people realize, because very little of it gets used. Why? Because we have to many fucking people to employ. The fact is, there are scads of people who can't find work - instead of helping pay your pension or change your bedpan, they're nothing but a burden.
Meanwhile, have the big fun in your SUV, I'll be laughing my ass off at you, when gas shoots up again and it goes to rust because you can't afford to keep it on the road.
DuWayne at December 14, 2008 9:23 PM
lijlp:
Duh! From what I've been able to determine from what I've observed, dating is simply the process of misrepresenting yourself to a woman until she's made an emotional investment she's not willing to lose. Apparently, women are loath to give up on emotional 'sunk cost;.
Amy:
The point you're missing is that there won't be anyone to pay for these services. Japan is approaching this point at Warp 8. They are investing gobs of time and money in robotics research so they can create robots to care for the elderly since there are so few kids being made.
Europe has a different solution that's going to backfire horribly - they are importing people to do the work of making babies to finance the welfare state, but the people they've contracted their future maintenance to hate their guts, and are going to turn them out to die first opportunity they get.
brian at December 14, 2008 9:24 PM
Not that I have standing to complain anyhow. I don't form intimate bonds with anyone, and I hate children.
brian at December 14, 2008 9:26 PM
Personally, the very thought of fucking around disgusts me. I cannot fathom having many different penises inside of me. That being said, I absolutely do not judge others who like the variety. That's their perogative. And it has nothing to do with me.
Now on to the question at hand, does this culture of "hooking up" hurt people? Yes,it will hurt those who feel peer pressured into it. Those who do not have strong courage of their convictions, who do not believe in sleeping around but do it anyway because "everyone else is doing it." Those are the ones who will be affected later on and will have a harder time forming meaningful relationships. Because they feel cheapened.
Will it hurt and affect those who don't believe that it's a big deal? Fuck no. Why? Because they don't care.
maureen at December 14, 2008 9:59 PM
"Casual sex is allowing many people to ignore the breeding imperative of their sex drives as they postpone or even abandon their duty to the rest of us to have children." -fustian
For me, it's economics. I find the talk of national population drops bizarre, given 143+ million orphans worldwide (see unicef[dot]org). My great-grandparents and grandparents immigrated to this country, and my future/potential kid can, too. I'd love to adopt one of those orphans from abroad or from home, but I don't think I can directly shoulder the financial burden of raising even one child.
When you talk about how much Western Civilization values parenting, I counter that by saying "show me the money." My community (municipality, state, nation and past employers) demonstrate how little they value parenting by requiring parents to shoulder almost all of the costs of parenting *which is appropriate* when one views parenting as a personal endeavor with purely personal, not communal, rewards.
As it is, I will probably wind up juggling my career with changing my parents' diapers. I'm now in the throes of dealing with my in-laws' final needs and affairs. I don't see how I could manage to change my parents' and my kid's diapers at the same time of life while also holding the job I would need to support my kid.
To bring this back to the topic at hand - for many of my friends who say that they want to be married but are still hooking up in their 30's, the continued hooking up is a symptom, not the problem. And plenty of the folks who married their high school or college sweetheart are not exclusively monogamous within their marriage. I think the article painted a picture of a dichotomy (marry early or hook up with strangers in your 20's) that does not necessarily exist.
I'm in my early 30's and have just spent 3 years stewing in that bell jar of 20-somethings called law school - much hooking up going on there. I think there are just more and more people in my circles (20-45, educated, ambitious) who are negotiating to get what they want a la carte from each relationship, rather than trying to milk one cow dry from an early age to an early death. We won't be the first people to experience that there are opportunity costs for the choices we make, and that sometimes the consequences are disproportionate to the choices.
As for one's 20's - I think the raging-hormone induced emotional flailing (speaking only for myself), coupled with the ugly mess of living life on my own terms for the first time, was a merciless thing to inflict relentlessly on one partner, however willing. It's more humane to inflict those body blows, randomly and in smaller doses on unsuspecting, similarly clueless 20-somethings. Like pin ball.
Michelle at December 14, 2008 10:21 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613666">comment from maureenNow on to the question at hand, does this culture of "hooking up" hurt people? Yes,it will hurt those who feel peer pressured into it. Those who do not have strong courage of their convictions, who do not believe in sleeping around but do it anyway because "everyone else is doing it." Those are the ones who will be affected later on and will have a harder time forming meaningful relationships. Because they feel cheapened.
How can so many of you presume to think for so many other people? And probably just off the cuff -- probably based largely your own prejudices. At least I get thousands of letters from people telling me about their experiences and how they affect them -- in addition to reading studies and talking to people constantly about their relationship and sexual experiences because this field -- love, sex, dating, relationships, is what I do all week. I wouldn't presume to tell anyone about accounting, or plumbing, or carpentry. Hell, I can't even light the pilot light in my gas heater.
I felt the opposite -- pressured (culturally) to want a relationship. I eventually realized that I wasn't ready for one, and realized it was okay to just have casual sex until I eventually became ready for one. Plenty of people are peer-pressured into jobs they're miserable in or into becoming a parent. Yet, we see above only the lamentation for people who hook up. At least sex just lasts an evening. It's up to the person having casual sex to say, "Hey, this isn't making me happy." Unfortunately, having a baby out of peer pressure and or becoming an accountant because your parents pressure you into it and then realizing you should've listened to your feelings and values...well, it's a little more complicated than feeling a little morning-after remorse, huh?
What hooey that you're somehow ruined for relationships because you've had casual sex that didn't make you happy. I had no friends for much of the first half of my life, and I was a doormat for a good part of my early 20s. That sort of thing, over two-plus decades, seems like it would be a hell of a lot more ingrained, and I'm anything but a doormat now. Why? Because it wasn't making me happy, so I worked really hard and grew a spine.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2008 12:19 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613667">comment from DuWayneMeanwhile, have the big fun in your SUV, I'll be laughing my ass off at you, when gas shoots up again and it goes to rust because you can't afford to keep it on the road.
It's also our need for gas that makes us the buttboys of terror financiers who would otherwise be goatherds.
Here's a little brag from me: Not only do I pollute as little as possible while still getting around in a car, I spent, I think it was...$228 on gas. Last year. All last year.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2008 12:22 AM
If I could make either our oil problems go away or our drug problems go away, I'd fix the drugs first.
(Of course, they're not wholly unrelated....)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 15, 2008 12:32 AM
Some women fall for any guy they sleep with. Those women learn, just like kids learn about falling down and getting a cut knee, what hurts them, and can then make a decision to behave otherwise.***
And so you make the case for restraint without meaning to. Casual sex has made you jaded and unprepared to actually get close to someone you are willing to have sex with. You learned not to expect it and I will bet my house that when you do get ready and start wanting things be different you wont be able to.
Closing off your heart for casual sex build a wall and its one that woman are finding it harder to tear down. I know a few of them and one of them is my sister. She is now in her late 30's talking about having artificial insemination so she doesn't have to go through the motions with some damn guy.
I would also like to point out the we, myself and 4 siblings, were raised by a bisexual mother without a father in the picture. I have one sister who is married to an alcoholic, one married to a coke addict, one not married but with a son, Me married to a man who is distant, and my brother who has no contact with us. We have no idea where he is. None of us will leave our respective spouses because a father in the home, to 3 of us, is better than nothing. Though none of us have a clue what to do with the men we have married. Nor do we know how to be together ourselves. We see each other maybe once a year.
We let go of sexual morals at our own peril. It does nothing good for Children or the extended families around those children.And if you think my story is unrelated to the article your wrong. The straights lead the way with what is legal and accepted because they are the majority.
JosephineMO6 at December 15, 2008 3:46 AM
DaWayne:
It's not me. It's biology.
I agree that there are a number of reasons, but this is a discussion about casual sex.
Be careful what you wish for. If the demographics hold, we're in for a rough ride. Imagine a world in which the population ages, but have no young people to continue to do the work. No one to man the hospitals, no one to grow the food. Amy thinks she can budget for this, but she's thinking about what it costs today. If the demographics hold (frankly I hope they don't), she'll need to be really wealthy to pull off even minimal health care.
You're engaging in the Law of Emotional Numbers. I drive about 50 miles a day. If I switch from my Accord to a Pilot, I would need to spend about an extra half gallon of gas every day to make that trip. I can completely cover that extra incremental cost by switching froom iced tea at lunch to water. In fact, the extra gas required by an SUV would cost substantially less money than if I were to start up a Starbucks habit.
fustian at December 15, 2008 5:42 AM
I have no experience with hookups. I will not pretend I do. I have lived long enough to know that immediate gratification coupled with a sense of entitlement has gotten much worse over the past thirty years. Whether hooking up is part of the cause or just a symptom of an obsession with self gratification and sense of entitlement, I do not know. But I believe very strongly that our society is worse off for it. I do not have any answers, but I cannot help but feel worried about the future when the only guideline that seems to apply to decision making of so many today is "whatever makes me feel good about myself". Hooking up seems to exemplify that attitude which is why it scares the hell out of me.
LoneStarJeffe at December 15, 2008 5:42 AM
Michelle:
I agree. As our society continues to be successful, it becomes significantly more complex. Agrarian societies actually put children to work. Technological societies simply cannot since our work generally requires significant education and this means time and money. There is a huge disparity in the cost of children for us.
Which is why I speculate that all civilizations contain the seeds of their own destruction.
It's a two-fer. On the one hand, the cost of children goes up substantially and on the other hand, more "sophisticated" views of sex allow too many people like Amy to ignore their biological imperative and opt out of the responsibility for creating the next generation.
I will observe that while you feel it is too expensive to have children, in Mexico, in Cairo, and in India there are people with nothing compared to you, yet they continue to have children.
I don't mean to pick on you, I certainly fretted about cost of kids before taking the plunge. But I'll bet if you were willing to change your lifestyle you could afford children. People at all income levels manage to find a way.
I will also say that I really don't care for some of the societies that are currently more successful than we are at repopulation. My work has given me the chance to see much of the world, and for the most part, I greatly prefer the ways we do things.
But biology simply doesn't care. It doesn't care if we're comfortable with our choices, if we've "grown", or if we're fashionable. You either reproduce or you die out.
Amy is proud of herself for not having to buy as much gas from Muslims. The funny thing is she and people like her are engaging in a false economy, because her refusal to create a next generation is handing the keys to her house to the same people she won't buy gas from.
The most popular children's name in Holland right now is Mohammed.
fustian at December 15, 2008 6:16 AM
fustian,
Children are not expensive. Stupidity is expensive. A TV in every bedroom and all the electronics a kid can point at are both stupid and expensive. I have 6 children ranging from 14 to 3 and they don't cost half what you would think. So many think that if their kids don't have every little thing then they aren't worth having. I cannot imagine life without them.
LSJeffe,
It used to be that people grew up. We used to start out life chanting memememe but that was with the tune up for the song that was to come after. Now it has become the song itself and the tune itself is being lost. Those of us who are singing are being drowned out by a bunch of off key out of tune screamers. We have lost the purpose of childhood, look around at how we treat children(if we don't abort them first). We have lost much of what is used to mean to be an adult, go ahead find 10 adults fast, and really I don't know if we can get it all back.
JosephineMO6 at December 15, 2008 6:52 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613703">comment from JosephineMO6Children are not expensive
Children are very expensive, let's not kid ourselves. You can be frugal, but you'd better have serious money to pay for six kids. Do you take six children to the dentist, to the doctor, annually or more than annually? Or is that one way you save on "stupidity."
What does it mean to you to be an adult? I pay my taxes, make my deadlines, just wrote a book my editor read (signing his e-mail afterward "with great admiration") and I've always got my boyfriend's back. I'm also fun, and have lots of fun, and take care of my body and look good. And I have a social program I started at a high school (to speak to "at-risk" kids once a month to demystify making it) and I'm there for a homeless artist whenever he needs me (though he, thankfully, has just found housing). So...am I an adult, or does that, in your estimation, take squeezing out a litter of children?
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2008 7:04 AM
Amy-
I said "some people", not all people feel cheapened. You may receive thousands of letters about this subject, but I personally know some who feel sick about sleeping around. I know many who don't give a shit, either. I also think you could be biased as well because you are one of those who doesn't give a shit. And that's fine.
To say that they didn't feel peer pressured is bullshit. I was a virgin until I was in my mid-20s because I'm a stubborn bitch and didn't want to sleep with just anybody the first time. During that time, there was a definite peer or societal pressure to lose it. I know exactly what it feels like to have the pressure to have sex on me at all times because everyone else was. I've had people try to make me feel small because I wasn't fucking every dude that came along.
I also know, in my personal interactions with people, that many of my friends were either sexually molested and/or were raped at young ages. So they slept around because they felt cheapened and worthless. So the whole casual sex thing is just a symptom of what's really going on. Now that is something that I haven't seen posted yet on this particular thread yet.
maureen at December 15, 2008 7:05 AM
Wow, I must have really hit a sensitive nerve, to earn two lengthy replies from Akon in reply to my five-minute hammered-out rant. Hmm.
Anyway, my point wasn't FRAAAANCE BAAAAD as you seem to have "hilariously!" interpreted it. It's that your impression of group dating as a new dynamic is as wrong as wrongness can possibly be. But you didn't address that, instead spending your time justifying how wonderful your sex life is to a complete stranger on the internet in response to a poorly-formed bon mot.
Who says casual sex doesn't have consequences?
Jre at December 15, 2008 7:14 AM
The truth is, I spent my 20s hooking up, and feeling sort of bad about it.
con⋅science
/ˈkɒnʃəns/ [kon-shuhns]
–noun
1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
2. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3. an inhibiting sense of what is prudent: I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.
Stephen at December 15, 2008 7:18 AM
Why has this comment thread become an attack on people who are childless by choice? Not everyone is meant to have babies.
maureen at December 15, 2008 7:19 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613709">comment from fustianYou either reproduce or you die out. Amy is proud of herself for not having to buy as much gas from Muslims. The funny thing is she and people like her are engaging in a false economy, because her refusal to create a next generation is handing the keys to her house to the same people she won't buy gas from. The most popular children's name in Holland right now is Mohammed.
My neighbor is a mother, and spends 95 percent of her week mothering. I have things to contribute as a writer and thinker and I choose to make them. I think I contribute more by blogging and speaking about the dangers from Islam than I would by squeezing out kids I am ill-equipped to care for. At least I recognize that I'm not a fit mother. If only more mothers would before they squeeze out kids.
Oh, and if this is real concern for you, not just a silly way to justify your cold lack of concern for others' safety and for the soldiers dying so you can gas up your SUV (when, perhaps, you could do with a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle), are you out there cajoling women to have lots of children and helping those who can't afford it pay for it? Put your time, effort, and money where your big, fat, selfish mouth is.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2008 7:28 AM
The world is changing, and like it or not, we're changing with it. I like that my daughters go out with groups of friends, I did it too when I was their ages (13 & 16). Some of us had boyfriends and girlfriends, but we all hung out together. "Together" being the key word. And there was and is nothing wrong with that. We all were young and trying different things. I think the problems started with the rampant drug use and the I-ME-MINE mentality. One example, we've got most "classic" rock radio stations still playing the same music we all got high to when we were kids, and today, our kids know all the words to them! That's not right! The problem is, the party never ended for some people; they still don't want to grow up and take any personal responsibility. It's still an endless party for them. They never went the fuck home. And now, the rest of society is getting tired of waiting for them to leave, so that they can pick the place up and get back to normal. But it's too late for that. We're trying to clean up around them, but they keep scattering their messes elsewhere. Those of us who finally decided to suck up and deal with our own lives are also dealing with the constant fallout from these assholes. It's pretty damn frustrating, especially when some of them are in Congress and passing laws that favor the eternal partiers. o.O
Flynne at December 15, 2008 7:35 AM
fustian -
It's not me. It's biology
Bullshit. Sure they can reproduce at a young age. So what? Are you going to argue that we should be breeding them at fourteen to seventeen? Because that is probably the optimum time period.
But the truth is that there is nothing dangerous about waiting until the late twenties to early thirties. It isn't all that more dangerous at the mid-thirties and we're getting to the point where it's becoming safer going into the forties.
Compare that to the fact that children produced when mom or both parents are in their late teens - early twenties are exponentially more likely to be raised in single parent homes and/or homes with much more limited resources, why would you begin to argue this is preferable?
I agree that there are a number of reasons, but this is a discussion about casual sex.
Good, then show me the evidence for causality. Hell, give me an educated theory that would imply causality. Because I'm not seeing one here.
Be careful what you wish for. If the demographics hold, we're in for a rough ride.
I never claimed otherwise. But given the absurdity of our dominant business model - one that is entirely dependent on sustained population growth, it is obvious that we will reach a breaking point if something doesn't change. Change won't be easy, but it is inevitable. I am all for getting a start on dealing with it now, so that my progeny won't be sitting on the brink of complete failure, without any preparation.
Basically, I am willing to take some of the brunt now, so my children and theirs won't have to take the whole hit.
Imagine a world in which the population ages, but have no young people to continue to do the work. No one to man the hospitals, no one to grow the food.
You are a goddamned fool if you actually think were even close to this. We have unemployment rates that are growing, surely and steadily. As we are having this conversation, there are immense numbers of people on the dole, because they can't find work, or enough work. We have far more room to breath, than your doom and gloom scenario suggests.
We also have more ability for automation than we have come close to using thus far. It is viable and not even all that expensive to automate food production to the point where a very small number of people are required to farm millions of acres. For little more than a hundred fifty grand, a full size combine can be retrofitted to run unmanned - including the equipment to monitor and run it remotely. For most manufacturing, it is a matter of installing a few more sensors and getting the programming - to cut manpower by up to eighty percent.
Amy thinks she can budget for this, but she's thinking about what it costs today.
I think you are seriously underestimating Amy's intelligence. Very few of us are naive enough to assume that what it costs today is more than a tiny fraction of what it will cost tomorrow.
I will observe that while you feel it is too expensive to have children, in Mexico, in Cairo, and in India there are people with nothing compared to you, yet they continue to have children.
Children who often go hungry, lack even a semblance of an education and live in conditions I would hesitate to force a dog to live in. Great fucking comparison.
People at all income levels manage to find a way.
I have recently gone from lower middle income, to poverty level. Yup, I find a way, but it has certainly not been the best for my kids. If I knew then, that I would end up here - I would have waited much longer to have kids. But then, my goal is to raise kids who aren't going to subsist at the bottom. I want my kids to go to college and live up to their potential, something I am only now, in my early thirties moving into position to do.
It's not that kids are too expensive, it's that raising kids who are more likely to have a high degree of success in life is expensive.
DuWayne at December 15, 2008 8:08 AM
"...more "sophisticated" views of sex allow too many people like Amy to ignore their biological imperative and opt out of the responsibility for creating the next generation.
...I will observe that while you feel it is too expensive to have children, in Mexico, in Cairo, and in India there are people with nothing compared to you, yet they continue to have children.
[...] You either reproduce or you die out." fustian
Next generation of what? And what is the "you" that will die out? My values and culture can, to the best of my ability, be passed on by parenting a child I adopt, and also possibly by mentoring. I'm fine to let "my" genes die out.
I suspect that as citizens of different countries the choices we have are different, at best an apples and oranges type of comparison. There's a broad spectrum between struggling to avoid watching your kid die of malaria or AIDS (India); suffer from lead or mercury poisoning (Cairo); or labor under the effects of bone-crushing, community-wide poverty (Mexico and India); versus striving to nurture your kid with love, discipline, education, food, shelter and optimal health care (my privileged situation).
Becoming a parent may be someone's best choice, but that doesn't make it a personal preference. Sometimes, all your choices are unsatisfying, and you just do the best with what you've got. I have no way of knowing whether someone I've never met wants the kids they have. Perhaps the people in Mexico, Cairo and India would have "more" of what they want if they didn't have children.
The experiences I want to have and the contribution I want to make by parenting does not require reproducing my genes. When it comes to parenting I look forward to getting to know, care for and contribute to some little (and growing) human being. That requires being present, which requires financial resources and job flexibility I do not have. The last thing I would choose to do is accept responsibility for and the privilege of raising a human being and then not be present. My community does not offer enough resources to fill in the gaps between what I can provide and what I would want my kid to have by way of education and health care. I do not assert that it should - but *I'm* certainly not "responsible" for primarily/ personally assuming the financial and other opportunity costs associated with nurturing a human being.
I chose to fulfill my education goals at any financial cost, as a gamble worth taking for myself on many levels and before taking on juggling parenting, employment and caring for my aging parents if need be. This appeared to be my best choice given the information I had available to me over a period of over a decade. I'm well suited to my chosen field, but even with scholarships covering anywhere from 20-50% of tuition, I've still graduated with about $200K of education debt (my only debt) into a plummeting job market. My biggest asset is an 11 year old Honda. I have no health insurance, so savings, and no regrets. I'm an adult, I know that I may not get everything I want or that I believe I need, and I prioritize and take risks accordingly.
As for all those kids named Mohammed - it's the ideology that's the problem, not the name. Let me adopt a kid named Mohammed, and what you'll get is a kid named Mohammed who was raised by two highly educated, artistic, cultured, politically active women, both pro-choice and registered Democrats, one an NRA member and one a secular Jew. If mass breeding is your best plan for changing ideology, you need a better plan.
In a feeble attempt to bring this back to the original topic, hooking up - I'm all for the lack of pretense about one can and cannot count on getting from any particular relationship. Marriage is not an indicator, creator or guarantee of emotional maturity or intimacy. If you are not committed to building something that is best supported by a marriage (sharing care of family members, sharing assets, distributing liabilities) why bother?
Michelle at December 15, 2008 8:08 AM
O brave new world
That has such sluts in it.
The Savage at December 15, 2008 8:17 AM
I will observe that while you feel it is too expensive to have children, in Mexico, in Cairo, and in India there are people with nothing compared to you, yet they continue to have children.
Children who often go hungry, lack even a semblance of an education and live in conditions I would hesitate to force a dog to live in. Great fucking comparison.
You forgot to mention a lagre number of those children turn to crime DuWayne
lujlp at December 15, 2008 8:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613746">comment from The SavageO brave new world That has such sluts in it.
What's a "slut"? Do you disparage men who have sex when they aren't up for relationships or just women? What, exactly, is wrong with having sex when you don't want a relationship? Why should you deny yourself pleasure if it comes at low cost to you? I take a medication. It can have side-effects, but doesn't seem to for me. So I take it and my life is better for it. (And no, I'm not on anti-depressants -- I'm "disgustingly happy," I've been told.)
P.S. Regarding your use of "slut," I'm asking you to actually think and give me your opinion, not just parrot what you've heard from others or what they fed you in church.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2008 9:50 AM
General question here (again) for the people who are arguing, with various degress of sincerity, that there's a "duty" to have children: Why would you want people to have more kids, even specific people, if overpopulation is such a problem?
(I don't actually think overpopulation is a great worry, but that's another blog comment.)
One more time: Staffing is not the problem. There are plenty of people out there. They're just not the nice, fluffy people who you'd imagine Amy's children would be.
But why should she be compelled to have kids well just because distant people she's never met will do it badly? Is that what the bargain that civilization offers? If civilization demands that kind of sacrifice from the people it claims to enoble, is it worth pursuing?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 15, 2008 10:49 AM
Crid and DuWayne, thank you for saying it succinctly.
Michelle at December 15, 2008 10:55 AM
Oh, for fuck's sake, Amy. Slut was an exaggerated joke for effect, and it worked.
Don't you ever read? Look at the name I used. The Savage. Brave New World. Ring a bell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World
Ahem:
"Recreational heterosexual sex is an integral part of society. In The World State, sex is a social activity rather than a means of reproduction and is encouraged from early childhood; the few women who can reproduce are conditioned to take birth control. The maxim 'everyone belongs to everyone else' is repeated often, and the idea of a 'family' is repellent. As a result, sexual competition and emotional, romantic relationships are obsolete. Marriage is considered an antisocial dirty joke and a joke about natural birth or pregnancy is smut of the most vulgar kind."
A description of paradise for you, no doubt.
Looks like Mr./Ms. jre has your number. Who in the world feels compelled to spend so much time bragging about their wonderful, open sex life on the internet? To justify their "disgustingly happy," existence to total strangers? God, you're pathetic.
And yes, there are man sluts. We call them "people who buy Axe body spray."
The Savage at December 15, 2008 11:13 AM
Of course two seconds after hitting submit, I remembered exactly who you remind me of, Amy.
Jodie Marsh.
http://therealjodiemarsh.com/
Marsh is a British "model" who writes a sex advice column for a variety of lad mags and also feels the need to regularly tell the world how wonderful her sex life is. More to the point, just like you, god forbid one should find fault in HER fabulously exciting lifestyle, lest you be deemed some vile prude.
On the other hand, you've kept your tits away from the camera, so far as I know.
Thanks for that.
The Savage at December 15, 2008 11:19 AM
So much disagreement, so little time.
I'm a huge fan of Western Civilization. There's nothing else quite like it. In fact, I'm hugely in favor of it continuing.
But, the barbarians are at the gate and we are refusing to re-arm. We're hollowing out from within.
And I'm not talking in some Aryan Nations code words about only blue-eyed white people. I include those of all races and creeds that join with us in our little experiment in democracy and civilization.
But, we're not doing that.
We're inviting in way too many of the Aztlan crowd, here to take back what they believe rightfully belongs to Mexico, and too many Muslims that are here not to be Americans, but to colonize for the greater glory of Islam.
And we desperately need to find ways to encourage more of the people already here to have children and to raise them with our values.
I despise the miserable lives poverty, corruption, and war force so many on this planet to live. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, rule of law, the scientific method, the emancipation of women, and open markets. These are powerful ideas and they have let us create an incredible society never before seen on Earth.
But survival of our society is largely a numbers game. Nature simply doesn't care. We either generate the numbers or we give way to those societies that do.
I think that it is interesting that many of you deny the social obligation you have to the rest of us to help create the next generation.
fustian at December 15, 2008 11:45 AM
****Children are very expensive, let's not kid ourselves. You can be frugal, but you'd better have serious money to pay for six kids. Do you take six children to the dentist, to the doctor, annually or more than annually? Or is that one way you save on "stupidity."***
Of coarse I take my kids to the dentist. And to the doctor when they are sick. I also have a small garden and make everything from scratch. My kids get real food and not processed crap out of boxes. I make flour from my own wheat berries for their Friday night pizza. They do not however get Nintendo DS's and other electronics unless they earn the money for them. MY oldest daughter has an I-pod Nano, A Nintendo DS, her own cell phone and a Guinea pig. All bought with her own money for babysitting and allowance. None of my other kids have that stuff because they are unwilling to do the work to earn them. Though I will admit her phone is on our cell phone plan as a part of her allowance, I mean its less than 10$ a month. But yes. I take care of my kids. And all on 45,000 a year.
I have a 110K home with 3 regular bedrooms and a converted garage that is 2 extra rooms we use for the boys rooms.
My kids can cook some of their own food, sew and take care of themselves. We buy in bulk so food is not a problem. Well, the bulk shopping and we have an uncle who goes dear hunting.
It doesn't take much money to raise kids just alot of work. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourself it is so expensive. And if a couple a regular Joe's like us can do it on 45 grand a year- surely you could on whatever it is that gets you to Paris. Whether you want to is your business.
****What does it mean to you to be an adult? I pay my taxes, make my deadlines, just wrote a book my editor read (signing his e-mail afterward "with great admiration") and I've always got my boyfriend's back.****
Look my husband used to be a call rep for a company that used a massive book, that was impossibly big, for all it's info. He went to them and announced the coming of a new era, telling his bosses of the wonders of the company intranet, and politely asked them to jump out of 1950 and into what was then now. They hired him to build their system and to this day he is the one person in the company maintaining it. He has learned every programming language there is for his job and was doing Dot Net programming before his nerdiest of the nerdy friends knew about it.
We pay our taxes, including FICA stuff we will never get back. And we don't get anymore money back than those around us with 2 kids but claim everything from gas to mortgage interest. We have less than those people material wise but we are literally the only family going outside playing, riding bikes and walking around. We literally run the streets. I think we have something good.
Though you have me on the e-mail part. Very few people say anything nice to me when I take all 6 kids out. Woman have gotten 2 inches from my nose and asked me if I knew what birth control was. I mean its everywhere from 5 grade up how could I have missed it. The few who are trying to be nice say "boy you have your hands full".
****I'm also fun, and have lots of fun, and take care of my body and look good.****
How do you see anything with that mirror right in your face like that. What happens if you suddenly find yourself in a bought of clinical depression. Or God forbid something happen to your good looks. And what does that have to do with being a grownup. Are fat people who are extremely generous and work for homeless shelters and such not grown up? Are people with genetic disabilities called out too?
****And I have a social program I started at a high school (to speak to "at-risk" kids once a month to demystify making it)****
Were you ever an at risk kid? I was. 4th child of a methhead trailer park dyke. And I say 4th because I don't want to get into how many she aborted. I was about as at risk as they came and was in and out of foster care. MY grandmother sued my mother for custody when I was young and then after we got here(the state I live in) She started beating us and I got tossed back in foster care till I got married at 17.
I sincerely hope that you help someone. But Having read over your blog some more today it has become more clear that you don't understand what you are trying to treat. All 4 of us girls(me& my sisters) are Christians of one stripe or another. I have serious doubt you would ever understand why, even if we told you flat out. You I will guess, are trying to treat social flaws that are really moral failings.
****and I'm there for a homeless artist whenever he needs me ****
You know the story about the guy throwing the starfish back into the sea. I am glad this one starfish has you. Good for both of you.
Would you do the same for a welfare mother of 5 who was in a bad spot or even just plain bad. What I mean is would you have helped my mother. Would you have been there for me as a child. How do you view me. As vermin. A social parasite? Another thing about my siblings. I am the only stay at home mom. All the others are in healthcare service, one sister going back to college to get a better nursing degree. One is an ex ray tech among other things, the last is does all the blood work that your doctor sends in(sorry I am dyslexic and can't recall names of things when I want to).
****So...am I an adult***
Of coarse you are an adult. You are over the age of 18 aren't you. Are you more than that, Grown up? No idea that isn't for me to say.
****or does that, in your estimation, take squeezing out a litter of children?****
No I am opposed to fertility drugs and treatments that cause that sort of thing to happen. It is bad for both mothers and babies, though I can't blame woman who have it happen naturally. Polycystic(SP) ovarian syndrome is something my SIL has. and she has had more than 6 follicles at a time. She actually is one of those woman who take Birth Control for medical reasons.
And if you meant me. I had mine about every 2-3 years one at a time. Spaced by nursing and NFP. And no Grown ups don't talk to each other that way. I am just going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant in general and not me specifically.
Whatever you think, my hubby and I, him coming from an alcoholic background(his dad)and me coming from where I was have done pretty good. We have hard times but we are there for each other. And yes we are both grownups.
JosephineMO6 at December 15, 2008 11:49 AM
"I think that it is interesting that many of you deny the social obligation you have to the rest of us to help create the next generation."
I'll sign my name at the top of that list. I do not believe I have a social obligation to create more people. I have a social obligation not to harm others, and to leave the campsite a little cleaner than I found it, but that's it. Note Crid's point above. If 'society' demands that I sacrifice my life to bring a screaming poop factory into the world, then 'society' is not, in my opinion, worth perpetuating in the first place. Yuck, your whole statement reeks of collectivism of the worst kind. It sounds like you are the one who doesn't know what freedom and civilization are about.
Pirate Jo at December 15, 2008 11:50 AM
The Savage,
So was there an actual point to that ridiculous rant of yours?
Amy believes (I think) that we should be free to choose ...
Charles at December 15, 2008 11:53 AM
It's not that there aren't people in the world to do the necessary, it's location. I've not seen many people on this blog who are big fans of all the mexicans coming in, yet that's going to happen more and more. America won't become some lesser-populated, highly educated oasis. It will be taken over by the millions of poor from elsewhere. These poor will be poorly educated, ad have weird customs you don't like and won't want taking over your country. So yeah, people gotta reproduce.
I got in some argument in an earlier thread with others who are very certain they can tell me what it costs to raise kids. The answer is: not very much, really. Yes, I bought a house. I spent what I could afford on it. Had I not had kids, I still would have spent what I could afford, I just would have spent it on a loft or condo instead. Very few people live in less than they can afford. Why would you want to live in a lesser area than you could? So housing costs for kids are negligible. Groceries are typically packaged for 4 servings. Singles toss a lot and eat out a lot. So my grocery costs are maybe 30% more than I paid when I was buying just for me, single. I buy ground beef more than steak now, but the cost is the same. My DH's work charges the same for a family as a couple, on health insurance. So no increase there except for a few more copays a year. My kids have used toys that work fine lot of the time, we get hand me downs or buy used clothing-for myself as well. They will have cell phones or a car when they can pay it. Working for what you want teaches character, a thing sadly lacking in many young adults today, and most kids. My minivan cost less than the camaro I used to drive. My kids have a scholarship to private school. They are scary-bright, so I'm not particularly worried about college, and college costs can be borrowed. My parents were well to do, and I paid for my own college. I don't owe them that, although I will certainly help as much as I can without sacrificing my own financial future.
SO really the cost of children is not in the actual costs, it's in the choices you make in your life. Not everyone should have kids. Smart people should. And a little acknowledgment from others that we are doing the necessary work of keeping society running while they live a me-me-me life is not so very much to ask.
Back to the point at hand, having done lots of it, casual sex is rather icky, as someone else said. I'd just as soon not have had all those penis's in me. And while adults can choose what they want, the fact that all society is going this way is worrisome to me.
momof3 at December 15, 2008 11:59 AM
The future belongs to those who show up for it.
You'd better learn Arabic. Or plan to be dead by about 2050.
brian at December 15, 2008 12:54 PM
I realize people don't have to be rich to afford kids, but then I don't feel the need to make excuses or justify why I'm not having kids in the first place. It could cost five dollars to raise a kid, and that's still five dollars more than I want to spend raising one.
I also don't have a problem with immigrants, if their arrival here is based on the demand for their labor. The U.S. goobermint should let in more Indian immigrants like the great people I work with, whose skills are in short supply here. Not all Mexican immigrants are unskilled, but hey if those jobs need people to do them, I don't have a problem with that either.
The way I see it, I'm going to be dead in another 40-50 years, and this country (and the rest of the planet) will belong to other people then. I don't care what color those people are or whether they share my DNA. I don't even care whether they share my values, or whether their customs seem "icky" to me. Why should I? I'll be dead, for chrissake. It will be their world, and they can make of it what they wish.
Pirate Jo at December 15, 2008 12:58 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613812">comment from The SavageI actually almost never mention myself in my column and certainly not my sex life.
I go to anthropology/ev psych conferences, and even presented, by invitation, at the Human Behavior And Evolutionary Society Conference at Rutgers, to anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists from around the world. I mention my life here only because it seems relevant, since this bounced off my personal experience (the feeling of being pressured to have a relationship when I wasn't ready). People said that casual sex is damaging. I presented both my experience and years of study and experience as a columnist who's also a serious researcher to counter these comments.
I get that you'd like to minimize me by equating me with somebody else. Read my work, I'm really not comparable to other columnists. Furthermore, I'm one of the few out there who's a staunch defender of fair treatment for men, and a rational, science-based approach to relationships, when applicable.
Regarding the tits comment, you're a really ugly and very tiny man, and you should feel free to show your actual face and reveal your name so we can make judgments about your looks. Bring it on! Can't wait!
P.S. Is there something wrong with my breasts in your estimation, or is that just the most convenient low blow you could grope for?
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2008 1:04 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613814">comment from The SavageBrave New World. Ring a bell?
Your comment didn't reflect somebody who reads.
At the moment, I'm on deadline for a column (my assistant and I are working right now) and the last bit of my book must be turned in by Friday. I should listen to Cathy's words about ignoring tiny little nitwits. If you have something to day, say it. If you're just here to demean me in the absence of having something to say, please go masturbate for real.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2008 1:07 PM
Amy:
As you detail the fact that you attend conferences and have given at least one paper, I keep hearing instead: "Do you know who I am?" In the context of this discussion, no one really cares how many scientific papers you've read, or what your publisher thinks about your book. I'm sure it will be excellent, but is quite beside the point here.
But, now that you HAVE brought it up, what's it going to be about?
Pirate Jo:
You've successfully attacked the weakest part of my argument. I am hugely against collectivism, but have been using that approach because I thought it might resonate here (at least once I read that Amy detests SUV's (grin)).
I think the rest of my argument still stands. Unlike you, I have children that will need to live in the world that comes. I'd like to think we left it in at least as good a shape as when we got it. And I suspect that if current trends continue, that bad things will start happening long before you and I are fully ready to leave.
I worry that we've taken a fairly stable system that was working quite well, and we've changed it to one that is simply unsustainable.
Big mistake.
And, like it or not, the hook-up culture is part of the brave new world. And this didn't start in the 00's. It started back in the 60's. It just got the new name recently.
fustian at December 15, 2008 1:47 PM
Fustian, it's not a bad sentiment to want to make the world a better place for people, but of course everyone has a different idea about what makes the world a better place. At some point you just have to let go and leave it to the people who are next in line.
But say for instance that my next-door neighbor has three kids and throws all her energy into raising them. They turn into fine people. I, on the other hand, don't have any kids but instead start my own business and hire her three kids when they grow up instead of simply having three kids of my own who would be competing with her three kids for three less jobs than existed before. There are ways to contribute and make the world a better place besides simply producing more people.
I see people wanting to come here from other countries because they are willing to work hard and make opportunities for themselves. They have a lot more going for them and more on the ball than our homegrown generation of entitlement-minded welfare recipients and government workers. Sure, (as we all say), MY children wouldn't end up being sponges on society! (Lots of parents of sponges thought the same thing.) But by not reproducing, I'm leaving behind a nice empty spot for someone who is already here on this planet and looking for a better life.
Of course I don't know how many of the world's best and brightest are going to make the USA their first choice, if becoming a U.S. citizen means they assume a share of our national debt. Yeah, THAT's a sweet deal we're passing on to the next generation.
Pirate Jo at December 15, 2008 3:01 PM
Hmm.
"Duwayne, faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1)."
Arrogant much? Hey, I'll spell it out: this passage in Hebrews is the basis for more flat-out lying about "faith", "knowledge" and "evidence" than any tale told about great floods or disappearing bodies.
The plain fact is that faith cannot exist in the absence of doubt. It is totally obliterated by real knowledge of any kind. Sit in front of your computer, you have not one iota of faith that the screen is lit, because you can see it, you have seen it before, and you know what to expect. The Irony of Faith is that faith is presented as knowledge in its complete absence. This is not "evidence" of one damned or blessed thing. It's a cheap word game to drag people around by their emotions.
Oh, by the way: if God™ were real, Christians would do what the Bible tells them to do.
-----
Back on topic - I wonder why it is that someone here thinks that sex is "no big deal" because of the changes in social networking. It's still a big deal.
But about "God's Plan"? Ridiculous. Here's what Americans do (Robert Heinlein):
"The code says, 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.' The result? Reluctant chastity, bitterness, blows and sometimes murder, broken homes and twisted children — and furtive little passes degrading to woman and man. Is this Commandment ever obeyed? If a man swore on his own Bible that he refrained from coveting his neighbor's wife because the code forbade it, I would suspect either self-deception or subnormal sexuality. Any man virile enough to sire a child has coveted many women, whether he acts or not."
And lives a life of lying denial, as "being a good Christian" demands of him. Is this better than "hookups"? I suggest not.
Radwaste at December 15, 2008 4:03 PM
Prirate Jo:
But this has not been a discussion about how we can all best contribute to kumbaya.
Instead it has been a discussion about whether or not the hookup culture is no big deal or not.
I freely admit that there is a part of me that thinks, why am I not in college now? This is the same part of me that thinks it might be a good idea to have french fries followed by pastry followed by chocolate and finished with ice cream. And wouldn't five Brandy Alexander's go well with that meal?
I know it's wrong, but there is an appeal.
But my argument is that the hookup culture and all of the societal attitudes that make it happen are not in our best interests.
The claim is that this is a personal decision and the rest of us should just butt out. And the further claim is that you can still be a good person even if you refuse to take part. But I could make that exact same claim about my purchase of an SUV. It's a personal decision. Go butt out. I'm still a good person. And, I do all kinds of productive things for society, so my SUV doesn't really make a difference. Because, you know, I'm a good person. And I planted a tree once, and I speak to children at risk.
But, if enough people buy and use SUV's, maybe it's no longer really just a personal decision.
Same thing with opting out of our need to create a next generation. If Amy and a few of her friends in New York discover the joys of being eternally single, living the Sex and the City life, well, no big deal. But if, as a society, we allow hook-ups in lieu of child-bearing pair-bonds to leak out into the general population, then we've got a huge problem.
fustian at December 15, 2008 4:28 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613859">comment from fustianI not in college now? This is the same part of me that thinks it might be a good idea to have french fries followed by pastry followed by chocolate and finished with ice cream.
I have French fries whenever I want them -- I'll eat five and throw the rest away. I used to eat ice cream all week. I'd go through a single pint of Haagen-Dazs in about six or seven days. And I had casual sex according to the same principles. I didn't let it get in the way of my work or life -- I used it to enhance my life. If you're not mature enough to live by this standard, well, keep your zipper padlocked and give some adult the key.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2008 4:49 PM
This is going to be long and I finally got a chance to post! First part is for James (wherever the bible thumbing guy is). You are annoying useless twit. You are one of those over religious idiots who contributes nothing except "Jesus Believes in and Loves You" Guess what - I believe in Jesus and I find you annoying. True - this is a board who believes in free speech but it believes in keeping in context. If Amy starts a blog entry about Religion - go on and comment, give your beliefs. But this is about casual sex and the hook up culture. Your posts show you to be NO rabbinical scholar or religious counselor contributing towards the dialogue. So take the advice if you have nothing serious to contribute - SHUT UP.
On the flip side to those zealous atheists you are just a bad as James. Somebody comments on their beliefs (not as blatant as James) and you proceed to get a bee in your ass. Chill Out. Let it slide. Your comments also detract from the conversation.
Like fustian I am believer about demographics and the effect having less children is having upon society. I like Mark Steyn, too. Still having children is only one way to set the population equilibrium. That is the amazing thing about civilization it it at time finds solutions to problems. More children needed to support the older population with taxes and workers - go the other way less older people aka LOGANS RUN. Anybody over the age of 65 is killed unless (my little rule) they have $1,000,000 savings. There are other ways society will try and solve the problem such as WAR. Too much of one group causing your group problems - KILL EM. This will be the likely scenario in the future is CULTURAL wars. The stronger group wins (which will likely be the Muslim CULTURE). Still overall the demographic and lower birth ratios is interesting but not really on topic.
As to casual sex and hook ups of course I am jealous. Amy you bring up many valid points and observations that the hook up culture is not that big a threat. First SEX - good guilt free sex, building relationships upon other criteria rather then just getting sex, not developing detrimental relationships or effects by having your college years, sexual experimentation, playing the field till you have what you want.
Still Amy you have to be careful to not ignore a basic law - The law of unintended consequences. The question is what are the unintended consequences? Some people have commented hookup culture has led to more unwanted births and children, a rise in STDs, self destructive behavior such as alcoholism, possible self-esteem issues for women, etc.
Also nothing happens in a vacuum. For some groups a hook up culture can work - FRATS and SORORITY groups are a good examples. BUT sex can really f-up a group especially a group of friends. You commented that you have been a part of the hookup culture a bit. What happens if you decide to sleep with a friend what will happen - Greg will get jealous of course - which could end your relationship. Of course your not that irresponsible or stupid but what if the a guy your good friends with wants you to have sex and pushes you to do it. You rebuff but still your relationship with said friend becomes strained or ends. That friend goes and your social groups lessens. Actually it could shrink by more then one person that friend that pushed for sex will likely take a few people out of the group. Nothing happens in a Vacuum. Each action has a consequence which can be good, bad or just benign.
Also, are you still friends with ALL the people you slept with? You say you are still ok with some people but what about ALL. Of course not SEX has that effect.
I hope all I commented on is coherent. Still love this blog.
John Pauslon at December 15, 2008 6:02 PM
Amy,
Of course, my point had absolutely nothing to do with the joys of self-discipline.
And I am extraordinarily happy that you have used casual sex to enhance your life. And it's great you didn't let all that casual sex get in the way of your life. Or your job. That can be so messy. Because it's so important to have all that casual sex, although it must be carefully regulated in a mature, adult fashion. You can't just have casual sex with anyone! Or any time you want it. Casual sex must be under strict, adult supervision. And if you cannot be strictly casual in a disciplined life-enhancing way, why, you've got to give the key to your zipper to some adult.
Yes, I am finally understanding your main message.
As long as things are hunky dory in Amy-world, nothing else really matters.
Good.
Carry on.
Keep fiddling.
fustian at December 15, 2008 6:40 PM
Hey fustian - the cool thing is, you get to behave just like you want, too. If it's not hunky-dory in your world, it's your say how you deal with it.
Are you really getting mad? Looks like it, although some of your earlier posts look like satire. Please let me know if you're inclined to explain.
Radwaste at December 15, 2008 7:52 PM
Wow. I just read all this and it's pretty shocking how angry some of you are about casual sex. It's the downfall of civilization and ruins women's "marketabilty" and intimacy forever?
Frankly, that's ridiculous! I'm glad some of you married young, after having few
partners, and are still happy, but that seems to be the exception not the rule. More often, it's like Equitus said earler:
"Now I'm in my late 40s, happily married (for the most part) to my fourth LTR. But I am living with a mountain of regret for the fun I missed out on when I had the chance. I hear about "kids these days" and am being eaten alive with envy."
Amy is right. People who marry younger, with less sexual experience, are MUCH more likely to divorce than college-educated people who wait until they're older, more mature, and have had some diverse sexual experiences.
I married as a virgin at 19, and I only did all my "hooking up" after my long, difficult marriage ended. I wish I'd had more experience beforehand - both in and out of bed - so I could've chosen someone more compatible with me.
So, it's not a bad thing. I dated casually for about 3 years, and had a great time. Learned all the different shapes and sizes of men out there, found out what worked best for me and what kind of relationship I wanted.
When I was ready for that to end, I met my wonderful boyfriend, just like Amy met Greg. And although we waited a few dates before we actually hopped into bed, I know it didn't make any difference. I could've gone to bed with him in the first 10 minutes, and we'd still be together today. When it's right you know it...especially when you're working with some experience.
Of course, anything can be taken to extremes -casual sex or chocolate - which is Amy's point - but, used in moderation, "hooking up" can be beneficial. I bet this generation of kids will have fewer divorces and more fulfilling relationships overall.
lovlysoul at December 15, 2008 7:56 PM
LS - of course there will be fewer divorces, as there will be far fewer marriages.
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? There is no reason for a man to marry in today's society. There's no stigma associated with promiscuity, nearly none with child abandonment, none with extended bachelorhood.
So, the only ones that will be getting married are the ones who were least likely to divorce in the first place.
But there's gonna be an awful lot of unhappy women out there bitching that there aren't any men out there who want to "settle down".
And they can thank modern American feminism and the "hook-up culture" for that.
brian at December 15, 2008 8:28 PM
Brian, that presumes men can't reach a point of readiness for marriage too. Most of them do get tired of casual sex - and the ones who don't should never be married anyway.
Besides, women shouldn't have to manipulate men into marriage by being "the cow witholding the milk". Trust me, any guy who would marry for that reason would make a bad husband. Eventually, he'll discover there's another farm down the road. :)
I don't think we should just promote marriage for the sake of marriage. That creates a lot of unhappy unions, which is really worse for everyone, especially kids.
You're probably right that there will be fewer marriages, but the quality will be better and longer-lasting, which is what we should hope to achieve.
lovelysoul at December 15, 2008 8:53 PM
"But there's gonna be an awful lot of unhappy women out there bitching that there aren't any men out there who want to "settle down".
And they can thank modern American feminism and the "hook-up culture" for that." ~Brian
No, Brian. They can blame cheating men, or their own faulty choice in men (or women) for that. Otherwise, you can throw out the concept "personal responsibility" altogether. For example, my grandmother married my grandfather only to find him drinking his paycheck and galavanting around while she stayed home with their first newborn. That was before WWII, and I assert that if she was the exception, Patsy Cline's songs ("Walkin' After Midnight"; "She's Got You") would not have become nearly as popular in the 1960's.
That said, in favor of the anti-hookup camp, I have to acknowledge the lyrics to Willie Nelson's "Crazy," as sung by Mr. Nelson and Patsy Cline, respectively.
Michelle at December 15, 2008 8:58 PM
Radwaste:
Not especially.
A little frustrated maybe.
It's clear that most people here are just talking past each other. It's kind of strange really.
Some people view this as a morality issue, so they want to talk about their religion.
Others see this as tasteless behavior (ooh, icky!).
Still others see it as part of a progressive rebellion against the status quo.
And, of course, if you've read any of my posts you know what I've been wanting to talk about. And I've pretty much said it five different ways, so what's the point of continuing really.
I don't really know Amy at all. But, she's pretty much a public figure, and this is the internet, so, of course, I'm going to analyzer her in depth because this is what we do on the internet. And I think the fact that I have zero qualifications for this sort of thing makes me uniquely qualified to do this.
She really hasn't engaged on my subject of interest at all, although she has responded to peripheral things I've said. It's been a really weird "conversation". One possibility, of course, is that she believes that my whole argument is simply whack-job bunk, and refuses to encourage the nutcase.
Except that she keeps responding.
A friend of mine says that when one jack-ass brays, only another one answers. So, assuming that Amy is NOT a jack-ass, I have to conclude that she finds the demographic/social responsibility argument plausible.
So, now I put myself in her Manolo's (she IS Carrie Bradshaw, isn't she?), and I suspect she has a lot invested in this lifestyle of hers. She's kind of ahead of the pack on this one. Outside the lines. She's a little like a Mac user of 4 or 5 years ago. It can make you a little bit of a fanatic.
So, wikipedia claims that she detests SUV's. Allegedly she leaves cards in the windshields that insult the owner. This suggests that Amy has some social conscience. Which means that she really does not want to hear the argument that I have been making. Because it means that the major choice she made to not pair off and have children may be as deleterious to society as the SUV owner she detests.
If I were her, I wouldn't want to go there. Especially since she can't really go back in time and do anything about it.
So, the other question is why do I care?
And, this is probably just another personal failing. Once I begin these discussions and encounter disagreement, a part of me believes that there must be some information that one of us has that the other doesn't. So, you keep talking until one side learns what they didn't know.
But intellectually, I know that's hogwash. People are incredibly stubborn about their beliefs. And you can almost never talk someone out of anything.
At this point, reality usually kicks in for me, and I sometimes take a few sarcastic potshots at those that say particularly offensive or silly things, before I lose interest and wander back into real life, where I spread joy and insight every where I go.
fustian at December 15, 2008 9:12 PM
> So much disagreement, so little
> time.
Dammit, make time.
> I'm a huge fan of Western
> Civilization.
Where has it written its appraisal of you?
> We're hollowing out from
> within.
No, we're just not making babies if we don't feel like it. I think think that speaks as well of one's regard for the mortal coil as can be spoken. And it's nice to be part of a generation where there truly is a choice to be made. (Especially if you're a woman, I'd wager... And I'd wager that you're not a woman, Foosty.)
> We're inviting in way too many
> of the Aztlan crowd
They work like dogs for scraps. They tempt us with tremendous value for the dollar... It's a problem.
> and too many Muslims that are
> here not to be Americans, but to
> colonize
This too is a problem, but not yet an enormous one. Muslims enjoy freedom of religion --and Beyonce's new album-- just like anyone else. A dishwasher in America can choose from a range of challenges and fulfillments unavailable to the most well-connected & devout practitioner in Riyadh or Tehran.
> And we desperately need
> [...] to raise them
> with our values.
Well, that's what you're trying to argue. I say our values are so good that they need not always be taught from birth. People can catch on.
> These are powerful ideas and
> they have let us create an
> incredible society
Review that list: I'd say freedom of reproduction is implicit in at least four entries.
> I think that it is interesting
> that many of you deny the social
> obligation you have to the rest
> of us
And we think it's remarkable that you were able to weave an "obligation" like that out of nothing but your own precious fears. We don't necessarily admire you, though.
> But if, as a society, we allow
> hook-ups in lieu of child-
> bearing pair-bonds to leak out
> into the general population,
Jeez, you're a smug little spud. As happens so often here, I'm reminded of what Cosh calls the 'silly hipster presumption that Elvis invented fucking.'
Close observers will note in the masculine heart (as I have certainly seen in my own), especially as it ages, an impulse to align some unlikely rails as a pair of tracks. One rail carries his dearest general observations about how society works, and his loftiest hopes for how it might go better. The other rail carries his firm opinion about exactly who the fertile and alluring women in his view ought to be sleeping with.
No freight on that train, mister.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 15, 2008 9:40 PM
PS- Anyone else who wants to get all piss-moist about immigration will enjoy this movie, recently linked at Reason Hit & Run.
Somewhat off-topic: I think Mexicans, and South Americans generally, wouldn't be so eager to come up here and despoil Foosty's precious civilization if our simultaneous taste for and hatred of illegal drugs weren't corrupting their homelands. Libertarians will often say therefore that we should make illicit drugs legal. Maybe... But by hook or by crook, we should personally stop taking illegal drugs. Because they're fucking up our hemisphere in an insoluble way.
Go to the doctor, ask for something fun... He'll probably give it to you.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 15, 2008 9:53 PM
Completely OT - This is my first comment on my brand-spanking-new laptop. First new computer I have ever owned. And I had a terrific first day at the new job. Two of my guys hate me (one because he wanted my job), one will almost surely grow to hate me and the two guys that like to run safe, efficient jobs adore me. On the downside, I will be in the office more often than not - can't win them all.....
Maureen -
Were it not one in the morning with me having to get up fairly early, I would happily jump on the discussion of people (men also fall prey, they are just not so keen on admitting it) who feel like they have to play the hook-up game and also those who have been sexually abused and use hook-ups as an expression of self-hatred. I will try to put it out here tomorrow. And I promise to "wow" you. Or possibly fill you with the urge to de-man me - but I am shooting for the wow factor.
fustian -
People are incredibly stubborn about their beliefs. And you can almost never talk someone out of anything.
As is evidenced by your ramblings about the end of civilization, that markedly ignores what anyone responds with. Get over and either make the cash to cover it, or accept that you'll be wiping your own ass when you get old. No one has a responsibility to "squirt" out a baby or two, to make sure you get your bedpan changed by a beige skinned person.
As an aside, do you honestly think that any child Amy hypothetically would produce, would fit into that sort of role anyways? Seriously? Because I can assure you, while the kid might require a great deal of therapy, it is unlikely that any child of hers would likely subsist on the lower rungs of the social structure.
Did I mention I constructed a screen saver (the six year old loved this) out of pictures of libraries from around the world? Fucking awesome - click on my name and see the sexiest pictures you have seen in a very long time - guaranteed.
DuWayne at December 15, 2008 10:30 PM
"Did I mention I constructed a screen saver (the six year old loved this) out of pictures of libraries from around the world?"
Where's all the homeless people? Seriously nice work there DuWayne.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 15, 2008 11:46 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1613956">comment from fustianAnd it's great you didn't let all that casual sex get in the way of your life. Or your job. That can be so messy.
What you're describing is when sex becomes an addiction. Your comment was just silly. Especially this part: "Yes, I am finally understanding your main message. As long as things are hunky dory in Amy-world, nothing else really matters. Good. Carry on. Keep fiddling."
I'm neither a sex addict nor a food addict. If you have problems with either or other substances or behaviors, check out Peele.net. Stanton Peele's approach is that addiction isn't a disease but a choice -- for short-term over longterm orientation to life. Examples within: Truth About Addiction and Recovery.
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2008 1:39 AM
Gog -
Oh no, the best I can claim is having contributed a couple pictures to that list. I just used it to rip the pictures I made the screen saver with. On my brand new computer....
DuWayne at December 16, 2008 4:56 AM
DuWayne:
You collected pictures?
How incredibly brilliant!
I must be wrong then.
Apologies!
fustian at December 16, 2008 5:25 AM
You really are kind of retarded, aren't you?
I'm not sure yet that you are wrong, I'm still waiting for your brilliant theory of causality or evidence that all of us folks who hooked up a lot are responsible for the decline of civilization.
I just mentioned the pictures as a complete aside - they're fucking cool pictures though.
DuWayne at December 16, 2008 5:43 AM
This is a great discussion and for the most part everyone seems to be discussing with and not just past each other.
I still see casual sex as a distraction from becoming an full functioning adult who is ready to reveal who they really are to someone in order to have a meaningful relationship. And it teaches you nothing in how to establish and live a meaningful relationship when you are ready to settle down. It seems like a distraction and a false path to follow if we all agree that the goal is to eventually settle down in a meaningful relationship. It teaches the wrong skills. It encourages you to view relationships in terms of only what someone can do for you. It avoids intimacy. It increases the risk of STDs (yes, the risk can be mitigated but it can never eliminated). I am amazed at the number of twenty somethings who are "not ready" for anything. This country was settled by twenty somethings who risked their lives, not just getting hurt emotionally by someone they trusted, to build new lives in a new world. But we now have people who call themselves adults but live in fear of commitment??? They are not ready to risk getting hurt??? I just don't get it. Please enlighten me.
LoneStarJeffe at December 16, 2008 5:44 AM
Do you know why men die before their wives? Because the want to.
I'd be willing to wager that your grandfather never wanted to marry your grandmother, but society expected him to marry, or he would find himself excluded from mainstream society.
What I'm saying is that given the choice between marrying one woman and only porking her (if she feels like putting out), or having a new and exciting piece of ass every couple months, very few men are going to opt for the forced celibacy that often comes with marriage.
I'm actually glad that marriage is no longer considered a requirement for admission to "adult" society. Marriage and children are the last thing I want.
And yes, I believe that we are committing demographic suicide. I'm not willing to be one of the schumcks that sticks his offspring with the doomed future of this world.
brian at December 16, 2008 5:51 AM
What the fuck is a "meaningful relationship"? I keep seeing that phrase, but it carries no (excuse the pun) meaning.
It's not fear of commitment or fear of getting hurt. It's fear of losing everything you've spent your life working for because you misread the intentions of another human being.
Why should I marry a woman who can, at the drop of a hat, decide that she's unfulfilled and take half my stuff? I mean, if I'm going to risk losing my house, shouldn't it be for something more worthwhile than sex?
brian at December 16, 2008 5:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1614008">comment from LoneStarJeffeI would say American adolescence now ends at 30. People in the olden days didn't go to college. They apprenticed in their teens. Also, there was no such thing as birth control. If only there had been, Emilie du Chatelet, who died in childbirth after translating Newton, might've had a life more like mine. It's a good thing that not all women have to be childcows these days. And why lament that kids aren't adults at 16? We live longer now. Also, brains haven't finished developing until the mid-20s sometimes -- the reasoning center that is. That's why teens often make rash decisions.
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2008 5:55 AM
Amy:
Never said you were.
fustian at December 16, 2008 6:24 AM
"and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! "
So you can see the future but you didn't go short in the current market crash to make scads of money to feed the poor? What would Jesus say to you abandoning the least of his sheep in their time of need?
Very, very questionable, as to whether you're truly a follower. I think you should be investigated.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 16, 2008 6:52 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/14/boo_hoo_hookup.html#comment-1614021">comment from fustianAgain: "What you're describing is when sex becomes an addiction." I can have casual sex without ending up toothless, jobless, and living out of a dumpster, imagine that.
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2008 6:55 AM
"Close observers will note in the masculine heart (as I have certainly seen in my own), especially as it ages, an impulse to align some unlikely rails as a pair of tracks. One rail carries his dearest general observations about how society works, and his loftiest hopes for how it might go better. The other rail carries his firm opinion about exactly who the fertile and alluring women in his view ought to be sleeping with.
No freight on that train, mister."
Crid, that's too funny. Loved your whole post.
lovelysoul at December 16, 2008 6:57 AM
I find it funny that so many men are arguing that casual sex makes one unfit for intimacy when, throughout history, it has more often been men engaging in it. Does that not make men unfit? Are you just upset that we women now have the same freedom?
It's not how you're describing it, Lonesstarjeff. A person can have casual relationships and ones with great intimacy simultaneously. Sometimes, the more intimate ones don't work out though, and you still want to have sex, so you enjoy something meaningless while waiting for the meaningful to come along.
Men have done that for years and it's been socially acceptable. Our literature and media is full of examples of the "randy" male, the "playboy bachelor", who finally meets "the one" and falls head over heels.
It happens to women too. Playing around doesn't makes us unfit. In my opinion, it makes us MORE fit - more appreciative when we do settle down because we've done a bit of comparison shopping. We know when we've got ourselves a good deal. I think fewer women would leave marriages for greener pastures if they'd done that beforehand.
lovelysoul at December 16, 2008 7:16 AM
I've been following this thread with great interest, and I'm still not sure what casual sex has to do with having babies or not having babies. (Yes, I know where babies come from.)
I got engaged at 20 and married at 23 to the first guy who inserted stick A into slot B. There was no casual sex. I was married for five years, and there were no babies, because, while I'm retarded in love, I know how to work birth control. If anything, I wish I'd had more partners. That way, I wouldn't have settled for such a poor match.
MonicaP at December 16, 2008 7:29 AM
"What I'm saying is that given the choice between marrying one woman and only porking her (if she feels like putting out), or having a new and exciting piece of ass every couple months, very few men are going to opt for the forced celibacy that often comes with marriage." ~Brian
I agree with you, and I've read research (legal, not scientific) that supports your assertion. The most convincing theory I've come across is that the institution of marriage was created to assign accountability for the offspring created from sex. Not to encourage procreation, but to assign clean-up duty - place the blame/ obligation where it most likely belongs. For such a nuclear arrangement to work, one would have to have sex only with one's spouse.
The idea that "hooking up" is a cultural downgrade requires one to buy into a myth (and a value judgment) in the first place. I think my grandparents' tensions/ conflicting interests were and remain common among married people.
The fact that some people have formed life-long mutually emotionally fulfilling relationships with their spouses does not prove that to be the norm. The institution has probably been primarily an economic partnership. Paternity testing has made marriage obsolete as a tool for assigning (blame and) responsibility for the care and feeding of progeny.
Michelle at December 16, 2008 7:32 AM
"I still see casual sex as a distraction from becoming an full functioning adult who is ready to reveal who they really are to someone in order to have a meaningful relationship.
What the fuck is a "meaningful relationship"? I keep seeing that phrase, but it carries no (excuse the pun) meaning."
LSJ: I define a meaningful relationship as one where you value the other person's needs as high you value your own as opposed to a mere transactional type relationship where each of you give something to get something. A meaningful relationship is one where you are willing to give up your individual priorities in order to achieve joint priorities.
"I mean, if I'm going to risk losing my house, shouldn't it be for something more worthwhile than sex?"
LSJ: Yes. Sex is a terrible reason to get married. The whole point of making a commitment is you are willing to be there for the other person for better or worse, good times or bad. And if the relationship is good, I personally believe it doesn't matter how much "stuff" you have. Possesions by themselves are not the only way I define living a successful life. Avoiding risk is certaily not how I define a successful life. Your own call if it is worth it for you to take that risk. Your own decision how you choose to define what is a successful like. I am not trying to make you agree to mine. I am just trying to better understand yours.
LoneStarJeffe at December 16, 2008 9:03 AM
That's certainly the cynical point of view, but the only "forced celibacy" in marriage occurs when couples don't get along and aren't compatible, which is precisely why we are suggesting it's better to have some experience before making that very important selection.
There are indeed men who want to be coupled, who prefer that to meaningless "pieces of ass." It is my experience that men who even use such terms should generally not be married.
That's not a criticism, just an observation. Everyone is different. Some people are cut out for marriage, like some are cut out for sports or music or art.
If your tendency is to reduce women to mere body parts and view relationships in terms of procreation and/or demographics, you most likely don't have the romantic capacities needed to appreciate the joys of a long-term coupling.
Which is fine. Don't do it. But saying it is no longer possible is like saying just because I can't play golf like Tiger Woods means golf is outdated and irrelevant.
lovelysoul at December 16, 2008 9:10 AM
> Paternity testing has made marriage
> obsolete as a tool for assigning
> (blame and) responsibility for the
> care and feeding of progeny.
Frogwash.
Crid at December 16, 2008 9:21 AM
LSJ - I'm trying to understand your position. I have never been able to understand why people intentionally tie themselves to another person who makes them miserable, and then create other people they can't stand with that person that makes them miserable. Maybe I'm atypical, but I don't ever want to be in a position where I am dependent upon someone, and I don't want anyone dependent on me.
lovelysoul:
I only see women in two ways: "just another person", or "sex object". Romance is something that is completely beyond my comprehension.
brian at December 16, 2008 9:41 AM
Crid - please elaborate.
Michelle at December 16, 2008 10:06 AM
Michelle for elaboration on crids frogwash comment go to
glennsacks.com
scroll to the bottom and click on the paternity fraud tag
lujlp at December 16, 2008 10:25 AM
The best thread in awhile, I must say. Couple of asshats out there, but therein lies the beauty of blogging.
Caught a line on Casino Royale last night. James Bond, Ian Flemmings id, either fuck it or kill it: "Do you think of women as a disposable pleasure or as a meaningful pursuit?"
Both. From my perspective as just one guy, the whole casual sex Vs. meaningful relationship argument is kind of moot. I, as a guy, love and worship women, to specifically find the one that I want to love and worship solely. It's a journey and to me it just doesn't really matter how you get there. And a bunch of cockbites out there trying to define it or worry about it bothers me not.
But that's me.
Sterling at December 16, 2008 12:28 PM
Good call, lovelysoul, it seems that the guys are making the most tsk tsking noises about women being ruined for relationships, when men are the one most likely to engage in 'meaningless sex'. Since all these men are now ruined, I guess we women shouldn't take them seriously and just use them for meaningless sex.
Chrissy at December 16, 2008 12:45 PM
Thanks, lujlp.
From the first article summarized under that heading:
"The agency fought Sharpe's attempts to have DNA testing and said it determined he was the father "after reasonable investigation."
Horrific. That said, my understanding is that the Court ultimately has the right to determine paternity, using DNA or otherwise. The agency's attempt to block that was reprehensible, but the ultimate responsibility for that determination is in the hands of the court.
Although he claimed, "I tried my best to clear myself of this case, and it fell on deaf ears. It's like I'm guilty until proven innocent,"
*the man accused of paternity didn't show up for court*:
"On May 29, 2001, since neither man attended the conference, Dauphin County Judge Scott A. Evans, as required by law, issued a ruling finding that Walter Andre Sharpe was the father."
The person summarizing the article opines, "The government now has the right to demand that a totally innocent man participate in a court procedure, and if he doesn't recognize its importance, make him an indentured servant for 18 years?"
Well, yes. That's what sovereignties do. You don't get to avoid being put on trial just by not showing up for court.
That said, from information found in the full article, it appears that the court killed the support order when the kids mother and grandmother failed to produce her for DNA testing to confirm that the accused was her biological father:
"Finally, in 2007, he got enough money to hire Tanner, who filed for DNA testing. The court granted the order, but the child's mother and grandmother repeatedly failed to show up for the tests. The grandmother, Jean Battle, claimed she was raising the child.
At a May 31, 2007, paternity trial that Jones and Battle did not attend, Evans, the judge, vacated the paternity order and canceled all arrears."
I read that as an indication that DNA/ paternity testing has replaced, or is well along in the process of replacing, marriage/ ownership/ sexual access to a woman (or women) as the favored indicator of paternity/where to point the finger, absent voluntary assumption of the responsibility.
Michelle at December 16, 2008 1:00 PM
lujlp, here's the full article that I read, as linked to in the web site:
http://www.pennlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1226722211104830.xml&coll=1
The original website to which you referred me had 40 articles under the heading "Paternity Fraud," which I'm not going to dive into because even I have limits to procrastinating...
If I'm missing the point, please let me know if there's a particular case/ article that illustrates it.
Michelle at December 16, 2008 1:08 PM
That was one article, and in that case the arrers was canceled wich is odd, but if you read thru the article you'll come across those where men did not have the CS order vacated.
I'll pull to geter a few of the more horriying ones once I get off work if your not willing to read more than one article on your own
lujlp at December 16, 2008 1:41 PM
"As I ponder this thread a little more, I begin to see the hook-up culture as extremely self-indulgent, selfish, and anti-social.
So, if you won't crank out a few babies for the rest of us, I'm gonna go out and buy an SUV.
And you simply have no standing to complain."
Ummm, excuse me but the world is way overpopulated as it is. You are a lost lost person. I too enjoyed casual sex when younger. I do not fall "in love" just because of sex. To me they are separate things - totally.
Wow. You are scary yanno?
Melody at December 16, 2008 3:20 PM
Can we please stop with this lie? The Earth is nowhere near carrying capacity. If you understood the racist origins of the "population control" movement, you'd be appalled that the phrase ever came out of your fingers.
And while I'm asking, can we please bury this stupid Anthropogenic Global Warming bullshit? There are enough real problems in the world without nincompoops making up new ones to try and control people with.
brian at December 16, 2008 3:43 PM
"It's a two-fer. On the one hand, the cost of children goes up substantially and on the other hand, more "sophisticated" views of sex allow too many people like Amy to ignore their biological imperative and opt out of the responsibility for creating the next generation."
Wow - really? As a woman you are saying I HAVE to reproduce???? OMG. Get a grip. Who the hell are you anyway? That is a choice, not madatory. My god you people are damn scary.
Melody at December 16, 2008 4:15 PM
"but I personally know some who feel sick about sleeping around."
Pluuuueeeeeze. If these ppl feel sick.. they should STOP. I mean come on. We can only control ourselves, not others. Get a grip.
Melody at December 16, 2008 5:04 PM
Ultimately, we have to be adults about what we can and can't handle and not expect a generalized ethical code to do the hard work for us. If you're the type of person who sees forever in the eyes of everyone who shares your bed (or your shower or your kitchen table), then you shouldn't be hooking up. You should be holding out for the "right" one. If you can separate sex from love and have an easy time letting go, then hookups might very well be a fine method of self-exploration. And if one isn't working for you, try the other.
MonicaP at December 16, 2008 5:11 PM
> - please elaborate.
Sorry, was at work and couldn't write and wanted to be sure you came back. I haven't read the Loojy link.
I think a big problem is that many people want civilization's Big Machine to pat them on the head and make them feel loved.
In olden days, the Church did a lot of that. Sometimes it got twisted into weird commercial arrangements.
Nowadays I think people want that from the United States government, the most powerful authority they can imagine. (For some reason, no one's yet pestered the United Nations with this kind of thing. Soon enough, I suppose.) Consider blogger Amy Alkon, who simultaneously demands gay marriage and despises marriage itself... She just wants gays to feel the America's loving cuddle. Otherwise, they'll be left out.
Smarter people than me noticed that this need for government to fulfill the senior masculine roles in society accelerated alongside the postwar explosion of divorce. Somebody has to be Dad, so it might as well be Cheney and Blagojevich... The money's the most important thing anyway, right? Otherwise, these kids would have actual, intimate Dads in their homes.
During my childhood, "peer pressure" came to mean something inherently corrupt and distasteful. I believe the popular thinking was very simplistic: Because the entire nation of Germany had turned into a modern monster, we should never trust a larger society to apply standards (or be judgmental).
But I think government is the last place to turn for intimate support. The worst rooms in the American city aren't jails or opium dens: They're the paneled chambers of the family court. More human wealth of every decription is squandered there, or exposed as tragically worthless there, than in any other setting. If you pretend the people who operate those institutions can be trusted, or should be trusted, you're in for heartache.
Even if not: Good courts are hard to come by, including in the United States. You can't count on having a decent one in every city without much more attention than free people are ever willing to give to government... They have their own intimate needs to attend to.
It's a mistake to assume that civicly-funded laboratories can police the boundaries of out families. It's something we should do for each other out of greater, but less formal, responsibility.
If irresponsible fatherhood generated the condemnation and shunning it deserved from the society at large, there'd be a lot less of it. But here we are, counting on the courts. Are you happy with the result?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 16, 2008 5:26 PM
"If irresponsible fatherhood generated the condemnation and shunning it deserved from the society at large, there'd be a lot less of it. But here we are, counting on the courts. Are you happy with the result?"
Crid, I am glad that the tide has turned against dads who stayed "head of the household" yet beat the shit out of their kids - with hardly a neighbor intervening because it was more important that families be "intact" than happy.
The idea that most dads in homes are "intimate" with their children defies logic and most of history. There would never have developed a need for the "Big Daddy" of government if that were true. Just because a husband stays in a marriage doesn't make him an adequate father or role model.
A whole lot of daddies went chasing "pieces of ass" because they were never cut out to be husbands/fathers anyway. Shunning them would only make them more miserable - and the wives more miserable too.
It's best if we can avoid all that. Allow women to get educated about the types of men who truly make the BEST fathers and husbands. Then, we'll be able to weed through the bad apples and produce more stable families.
There may not be as many of them, but they will be better.
This idea that "hooking up" has caused such a decline in civilization is silly. Terrible fathers - men who should never have been fathers and/or husbands - have left a far more lasting impact on society in the way of violence and emotional instability.
lovelysoul at December 16, 2008 7:45 PM
> The idea that most dads in homes are
> "intimate" with their children
> defies logic and most of history
It's hard, but unnecessary, to imagine what personal experiences would cause you to say something so bitter and inane.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 16, 2008 8:02 PM
Here, here!
fustian at December 16, 2008 8:54 PM
No, I'm saying that if enough of us don't reproduce, we will go the way of the dodo.
And, of course it's a choice. You can choose to kill yourself right now if you want to. Bad choice in my opinion, but you can do it if you want to.
Similarly, as a society, we can choose to slowly die off if we want to. Again: bad choice in my opinion.
And, just so you know. You scare me too.
fustian at December 16, 2008 9:02 PM
Well back on to demographics. Fustian your comment on that if we do not reproduce we will go extint is laughable. My question is do you mean the "basic western culture" will go extinct like the dodo.
John Paulson at December 16, 2008 10:15 PM
Quite an argument you're making there. I genuflect in awe before such erudition.
I stand corrected.
fustian at December 16, 2008 11:04 PM
Fustian you're an idiot, the human race could survive comfortably with around 50 million people.
Populaion projection put us at about ten billion by 2050 - 2075.
Imagine a world where you had access to 200 times the resorces and space.
By 1AD there were barely 150 million people.
http://desip.igc.org/mapanim.html
in fact the only time humanity faced extinction due to low numbers was when Toba erupted 75000 yrs ago reducing humanity to less than fifty thousand
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Toba#The_eruption
lujlp at December 17, 2008 2:48 AM
lujlp -
There are presently in excess of 1.5 billion muslims in the world. The political Islamist stripe is the fastest growing sub-group of muslims in the world.
At their present pace, they are set to demographically overtake the native populations of several European nations by 2050.
They have given every indication that when they do so, enslaving the native population according to the dictates of their religion is on their list of "things to do today".
They have also made it clear that one of their "victory conditions" is when the Islamic flag flies over the White House.
If we end up with the same population pressures as Western Europe, don't you think we'll have a good chance of that happening?
Or is it OK, since you might already be dead by then? I've already said that I've hit that point. I no longer give a fuck what happens much beyond 2040 (which is past my expected sign-off date).
But for anyone to tell me they care about The Future™, and then tell me they cannot be bothered to reproduce? Well I know that they are lying.
brian at December 17, 2008 4:31 AM
lujlp:
Never said the human race was in any danger of depopulation.
Just us.
Before you go around calling someone an idiot, you at least owe them the courtesy of getting their argument right. Because it really doesn't reflect that well on your own powers of discernment.
fustian at December 17, 2008 4:56 AM
Faust you wrote
No, I'm saying that if enough of us don't reproduce, we will go the way of the dodo.
The dodo is extinct - it didnt have subsets of cultures that died off only to be replced by another culture of dodo's
I there fore stand by my characterization of you as an idiot, only not I feel compelled to and a modifying "fucking" to said characterization.
If you want to decsribel our cultre disapearing try using example that acctually puts your point across, like Rome perhaps?
lujlp at December 17, 2008 5:57 AM
I really need to breathe before typing.
And as I side not does anyone else find it odd that I can spell 15+ letter words, but manage to fuck op the smaller ones?
lujlp at December 17, 2008 6:22 AM
DAMN, DAMN, DAMN
edited
Faust you wrote
No, I'm saying that if enough of us don't reproduce, we will go the way of the dodo.
The dodo is extinct - it didnt have subsets of cultures that died off only to be replaced by another culture of dodo's
I therefore stand by my characterization of you as an idiot, only now I feel compelled to and a modifying "fucking" to said characterization.
If you want to decsribe our cultre disappearing try using example that acctually puts your point across, like Rome perhaps?
&
I really need to breathe before typing.
And as I side note does anyone else find it odd that I can spell 15+ letter words, but manage to fuck up the smaller ones?
lujlp at December 17, 2008 6:25 AM
lujlp:
Nice try.
But no.
It's all in the "we".
Let me make a further bird analogy for the slow. While the dodo did die out the pigeon is doing just fine.
In this analogy dodo = western civ, pigeon = others, birds = people.
But, here's the thing lujlp, even if you choose the "we" to be all people, it still holds true. if "we" don't reproduce, then we will all become extinct.
Of course, that isn't happening. Many societies are dramatically expanding their populations and are looking around greedily for extra room.
Just not ours.
And it's all because Amy selfishly won't get out there and procreate. (lujlp: that last bit was sarcasm. But with a point hidden away in there. See if you can find it.)
fustian at December 17, 2008 6:57 AM
"It's a mistake to assume that civicly-funded laboratories can police the boundaries of out families. It's something we should do for each other out of greater, but less formal, responsibility.
If irresponsible fatherhood generated the condemnation and shunning it deserved from the society at large, there'd be a lot less of it. But here we are, counting on the courts. Are you happy with the result?" ~Crid
Crid, I agree with you. And I'm not happy with the result.
My original comment mentioned/ stemmed from stipulation that social control of sexual partners, ie monogamous women and marriage was originally created as a method for assigning responsibility for the care of children, the creation of children being a byproduct of copulation rather than the point of copulation. And that later having children became a tool for economic survival (farming) and wealth transfer, which reinforced the need for men to know whose kids were theirs.
The social controls are not necessary for determining paternity when the responsibility can be determined via DNA testing. In other words, you don't need to lock up your wife or chaperone her presence around men in order to ensure that the children you are providing for are genetically your own, when you can just have their DNA tested.
I think those issues are separate from what I understand to be a more modern (and ideal) approach toward father-child relationships. I agree that the courts cannot turn biological fathers into nurturing parents. All the courts can do is assign financial responsibility, and even then, their collection and distribution tactics are, in my lay-opinion, abysmal. All I have to back that up is anecdotes.
Lujlp, I thought you were referring me to a particular article that illustrated a specific point. Forty articles can illustrate at least that many distinct points. Reading all of them would not clarify for me what point you sought to illustrate, or which anecdotes support that point.
Michelle at December 17, 2008 7:52 AM
Aye, there's the rub!
In the present legal climate, a child born to a married woman is immediately assumed to be the child of her husband, DNA test results notwithstanding.
Unless he can get that DNA test done in utero and divorce her before the baby is born, that is.
brian at December 17, 2008 8:06 AM
Brian, my understanding is that the law in most states presumes the husband's paternity, but that it can be refuted upon/ shortly after birth via DNA evidence. The key word is "shortly." A guy who supports a kid (after birth) as his own and later withdraws support may find himself in a deeper legal quagmire and have a harder time extricating himself from support payments, regardless of being ruled out as the genetic father. Navigating the details requires retaining a lawyer.
Michelle at December 17, 2008 11:23 AM
And yet michelle, by your own admision you are unwilling to do the reading to further your "understanding"
lujlp at December 17, 2008 12:10 PM
Fustian... I'm married and I went off the patch last month, so would you please nix the SUV so my future kiddies can breathe and not die from the effects of global warming?
NicoleK at December 17, 2008 3:04 PM
First, his SUV has a smaller overall environmental footprint than a Prius or any other hybrid over its operational lifetime. If you live in Canada, the Prius is far worse for your local environment than a Hummer H2.
Second, there are no effects of global warming. At least, not ones we can control. There is NO SUCH THING as Anthropogenic Climate Change. None. Period.
You should be far more worried about creeping Islamism and nanny-statism and the impact they will have on your children than the quality of the air they breathe from the tailpipe of an SUV.
brian at December 17, 2008 5:05 PM
OK, fine, let's assume for the sake of argument there is no global warming and that the Islamofacists will take over everything soon... then Fustian, please don't drive your gas-guzzling, emirate-empowering car so my future kids won't have to pray to Mecca five times a day, or get blown up by those who do.
Anyhow, Brian, you missed my point, which was that getting huffy and saying you're (generic you, not you Brian) going to be desctructive because you want to piss off Amy is stupid. SHE may not want kids, but I do. So I hearby offer myself as her replacement uterus, 'kay Fustian?
NicoleK at December 17, 2008 6:17 PM
Well, we could eliminate the whole "buying oil from the middle east" bit if the Democrats would tell the greens to go piss up a rope and start exploiting the petroleum we have here.
Of course the Chinese would buy as much as they could get their hands on anyhow, so it's really no matter.
I'm just saying that if you're going to try to have a sense of perspective (not that I'm recommending it) at least try to worry about REAL things, and not imaginary bogeymen.
brian at December 17, 2008 6:50 PM
"And yet michelle, by your own admision you are unwilling to do the reading to further your "understanding"" ~lujlp
lujlp, I've spent a good deal of time researching issues of and relating to paternity, parental rights and parental obligations. I understand the modern issues fairly well, although perhaps an inch deep and a mile long compared to the history available to be studied. Again, anyone who needs details should retain a lawyer.
What I wasn't (and am still) unclear on is where Crid was coming from, which only Crid can truly speak to, and also which if any of the forty articles at the link to which you referred me, you thought illustrated Crid's perspective.
Michelle at December 17, 2008 7:20 PM
should read, "was (and am still) unclear on..."
Michelle at December 17, 2008 7:22 PM
"And yet michelle, by your own admision you are unwilling to do the reading to further your "understanding"" ~lujlp
I would think that someone with the poor reading skills of lujlp would be loathe to point fingers at others.
fustian at December 17, 2008 9:10 PM
NikoleK:
Great news!
My reaction depends, of course, on how many children you're planning on having. If you just go for the standard two, we're not really getting anywhere. It's got to be three or more!
fustian at December 17, 2008 9:22 PM
NicoleK
While cleaner air is always a worthwhile goal, I am unconvinced on the global warming front. If you look at the geologic record, you can see the effects of massive and consistent climate change long before the first people showed up. Until someone can tell me what the temperature is supposed to be, I have no idea how we can tell if we're changing it.
I also read that an increasing number of prominent climate scientists, including many that have quit the IPCC in disgust, are beginning to question many of the tenets of the global warming alarmists. There has been new research into the relationship between solar output and global temperatures that is changing many informed minds.
The argument against empowering Islamofascists is the more compelling one, although it is not at all clear that conservation will help in the slightest. Because so much of the world's oil supply is in the hands of an actual cartel, the Saudi's just smile at our efforts at conservation as they cut production. This allows them to continue to make the same amount of cash from their oil and it prolongs the length of time that they can use the oil weapon against us.
If we could replace oil with some other energy source, that would be best, although if it were that easy we would have already done it.
I am also against the "drain America first" strategy supported by brian since it only postpones the reckoning and gives the Islamofascists even greater leverage when the bill comes due.
Instead, I say: let's up consumption and drain Middle Eastern oil right now!
Who's with me on this?
SUV's for everyone!
Besides, we'll need them to cart around all of the new children.
fustian at December 17, 2008 9:57 PM
Michelle- This topic is getting long in the tooth, but here's one last swing at it..
First, two things you said that I agree with a lot
> I find the talk of national
> population drops bizarre, given
> 143+ million orphans worldwide
&
> And what is the "you" that will
> die out? My values and culture
> can, to the best of my ability,
> be passed on by parenting a
> child I adopt, and also possibly
> by mentoring. I'm fine to let
> "my" genes die out.
That last part is magic... I don't there's ever been a comment on this blog with better-proportioned humility towards the natural world. (I'm going to steal that theme from you, and not tell others where it came from. Sorry.) My kidneys are mine, and and I'll fuck you up if you try to take them before I'm finished with them, but I won't pretend to have come up with their design on my own.
We disagree here:
> My original comment mentioned/
> stemmed from stipulation that
> social control of sexual
> partners, ie monogamous women
> and marriage was originally
> created as a method for
> assigning responsibility for the
> care of children
I'm sure that was part of it... But also, men are tremendous assholes. As noted above, they like to come up with goofy schemes that tell women who they can and cannot fuck. (See Fustian, anon.)
> And that later having children
> became a tool for economic
> survival (farming) and wealth
> transfer, which reinforced the
> need for men to know whose kids
> were theirs.
I dunno how much later it was. No one admires adoption as much as I do, but many people don't bring the selfless purity of heart to the process that we want to imagine, even when they adopt warmly and effectively. (I have a very long anecdote about this that's not worth typing for disinterested strangers. Email if you want it.) But you'll probably agree that many if not most parents are righteously, lovingly insistent that the children they care for are their own, in any of several senses. It is a human bond, and those tend to be specific, whether genetic or not.
> The social controls are not
> necessary for determining
> paternity when the
> responsibility can be determined
> via DNA testing.
But it can't. This "determination" or "responsibility" is not a switch that gets thrown when some guy in a lab coat posts his findings on a bulletin board. Your scenario implies a court, and at least some powers of coercive fulfilment of this responsibility by uninterested taxpayers. The judge is going to take those findings of genetic likeness and then garnish wages and do all sort of other things... And the judge will do them in our names, yours and mine, as if we had intimate interest. This implies a huge (yet "abysmal") deployment of state power. They're not "just having their DNA tested".
> you don't need to lock up
> your wife or chaperone her
> presence around men
I prefer an example of my little sister (who doesn't exist). In an earlier generation I might have been expected to deliver violence to anyone who misused her trust or exploited her for comfort. So would the others in her high school class (or whatever her prehistoric peer group might have been.) The great thing about this is that it would have left you out of it, even though you also lived in the valley, in a hut far on the other side of the river.
I like the idea that intimates should take responsibility for intimates in some good proportion to their closeness.... Family, friendships, etc. I don't want hillbillies avenging personal slights with shotguns. But I wish people took a much stronger interest in telling each other whether this-or-that person was a good match. I always wanted to be the guy in Four Weddings and Funeral who interrupted the wedding of a mismatched couple.
For marriage to really deliver the goods, it needs to be a community investment. Not a government investment, a community investment. This has powerful implications for many of Amy's favorite topics.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 17, 2008 10:43 PM
fustian, thanks for the chivalry (that's how I'm taking it).
I'm bowing out now. I've appreciated the thought-provoking conversation.
Michelle at December 18, 2008 8:54 PM
Leave a comment