This story makes perfect sense in a world where I'm just a selfish mestruating egg-killer with no understanding of my own body. Perfect sense.

Protect me from myself!

As a college student who is currently dating and fucking, It is nice to see another article that ignores me completely.

In any case, why should she care about bringing back dating? What good would it do for those harlots who have already lost their precious hymens? We shouldn't care about people who are already ruined.

Kids today! Why, in the good old days(tm) no one EVER had sex before marriage! My aunt, for example, didn't rush to have a quickie marriage to my uncle on account of a pregnancy scare 40-something years ago--she just really, really wanted to get married. Like, right away. She just couldn't wait to wear that fancy dress!
And my great-grandmother certainly didn't insist that my grandmother walk up and down their street 8 months after she eloped just to prove to the neighbors that she hadn't eloped because she was knocked up, 70-some years ago. Nope, back then premarital sex just plain old didn't exist.

These people need to turn off the "Leave it to Beaver" reruns and get a grip on reality. Sheesh.

You know, I'm a freshman at a university with quite the reputation for partying (not to mention a ridiculous amount of Syphilis) but I must say, people still date. They do. They just date on the slow nights when there aren't seven keg parties to drop in on. I would also argue that traditional dating may increase sexual activity in some women. I know I'm much more inclined to get jiggy with it if I've been fed.

But on the whole, fuck men. And fuck Republican assholes. I like how there is no discussion of the effects of frequent sexual activity in men. But we wouldn't want to put a damper on their sexual habits, because men NEED sex! They're biologically built to crave it!

But women, poor dears, women just need to sit quietly and patiently and wait for the right man to make her feel safe and appreciated for the rest of her life. Ha, my ass.

Bring back dating, single sex dorms and get rid of sex ed and that will stop the spread of STDs right???
I detest the way these people portray college women as brainless sluts.

No sex when there was dating, huh?

Gee, how do you explain my aunt who "had to get married" 58 years ago? (So my cousin could be born in wedlock 7 months later.)

Or three of my friends in highschool in the 1960s all of whom dated to pregnancy, two of who also "had to get married" at the ages of 14 and 16, no less, and one who spent the better bart of a year in Arizona "visiting her aunt."

Dating was (and probably still is) sex by increments: maybe dinner and a movie stalled the sex somewhat, but hey, that was the goal, not all of which ended in a white wedding.

And anybody pushing the line that the two weren't intertwined is lying.

Wait, is dating gone? Among my, admittedly somewhat conservative, friends, we still pretty much date dudes the way people always have. (and by that, I mean since America in the 1950s.)

Sure, hook-ups can happen, but that doesn't mean we don't also want relationships. For crying out loud, sex is just a really fun biological function. It's not a big deal.

I would like to see any remotely credible statistical social science study demonstrating that people had less pre-marital sex before 1960 than they do now.

Hm....I wonder why none of these theorists' ever cite such a study...

Parker says there is a "mental health crisis on American campuses." Disease, thy name is fucking.

That is one of my quotes of the day.

Well, I suspect they did have less pre-marital sex before 1960--though obviously premarital sex was still a pretty happening thing to do. But you know what? I don't think that's positive. I am in favor of as many people having premarital sex as want to. Reliable contraception, which hit big in the 1960s was a blessing. The reason for any uptick in premarital sex in the past few decades isn't that all of a sudden our morals went to hell in a handbasket--it's that all of a sudden women weren't being held captive by our reproductive systems, and that's a good thing. We no longer had to live in paralyzing fear of getting pregnant! We could have sex!

Well, I say good. Why shouldn't girls and women be free to explore and express themselves sexually, just like boys and men have always been able to do? And she thinks there's a mental health crisis? Gee, I wonder if she's ever heard of the massive prescriptions of valium and amphetamines given to women who had to marry young due to these stupid conventions of morality she seems to be mourning. I can't stand the selective vision when it comes to gender and mental illness: young women have eating disorders, suffer from depression, self-injure--but no, let's not look at the effects of a misogynist, objectifying culture. Let's not address issues of abuse and sexual violence, all too common. We'll just blame it on all that sex!

And I've got some female family and older friends who lived through the sexual revolution and who think it was utterly fabulous if Parker wants to have a chat.

At my college, it seemed like there were two extremes when it came to "dating" - either hooking up or serious relationships. There wasn't much in the way of casual dating, but for me, getting to know my significant other as a friend kind of took the place of that. I didn't need to be "wined and dined" because I got to know the guy better by just hanging out with him and maybe some other friends. I can see how casual dating would be useful in a setting where the friendly hanging out approach isn't really an option, though.

As for the emotional consequences of hook-ups being worse for women -- how much of that has to do with the slut/stud dichotomy in our society? I feel like that's a big part of it.

In general, this article just made me really frustrated...

An HPV expert tells college women, "You'd be wise to simply assume your partner has HPV infection."
Which is yet another reason why everyone should get the HPV vaccine.

Because sex ed is based on the assumption that young people are sexually active with multiple partners, kids have been led to believe by mainstream health professionals that casual sex is OK. That's a delusion, says Grossman, because scientific data clearly indicate otherwise. Casual sex is, in fact, a serious health risk.
Ha! Lately it seems like sex ed is based on telling people not to have sex and leaving it at that. Yeah, sex (casual or otherwise) can be risky, which is why abstinence-only education is so frustrating to me - it doesn't provide people with the tools and knowledge they need to have safer sex.

ah yes, the nostalgia for an era that never existed. i like flowers as much as the next person, but i think i'll take the present-day with its variety of readily available contraceptives and acknowledgment of female sexuality than the "pack her off to 'aunt marge's' until she pops out that unplanned baby'" days of my mother's generation.

it's like the people who write this fear-mongering reactionary bullshit haven't even TALKED to anyone in college outside of a campus crusade for christ meeting. when i was in college it felt like EVERYONE was dating. four of my closest friends all got into serious relationships by junior year with the guys they eventually married.

clearly casual sex has a negative effect on some people of both sexes, but give young people some credit. these articles just induce a gigantic eye-roll from me.

I did not understand the first paragraph that mentions the Oxytocin; if it promotes maternal bonding, is the woman going to want to mother the guy she's sleeping with?

Nevermind the fact that the article made my brain explode, the stuff she spews makes no sense.

Well, also, if oxytocin is released during sexual activity, does that mean it's also released during masturbation? So, like, if you masturbate too much you'll traumatize yourself? Or just become too attached to yourself? Or what, exactly. Is that why I'm currently partnerless? Have I just masturbated so much that I can no longer bond romantically?

Woe is me.

The thing is, if you think about what they're saying, it's "sexual ignorance and fear is the best recipe for romantic attachment," and that speaks volumes about their ideas of romantic attachment, doesn't it?

I don't get it. If oxytocin is release during sex by both men AND women, how come it's only women's problem?
And why would that make men and women emotionally and physically different?

Anyone?

I'm confused, when did dating die? I'm 24 and went to Michigan State University a very large school were a lot of hooking up went on, but so did a lot of old fashioned dating. I had my share of dates and of hookups and both served their purpose. I want proof that dating is dead and that hook up culture is as popular as some people seem to think. Also, why does anyone care what's going on in someone elses sex life? Uggh.

I just loooove Dr Miriam Grossman. She a campus psychiatrist. The women "suffering from sexual hookups" she knows are people seeking therapy. It doesn't seem to occur to her that there might be plenty of women not in therapy happily f*cking away.

(This is not a dig on therapy. I just want to point out that the women she's familiar with are not a representative sample of college women.)

Well I'm a guy that had some negative emotional consequences of casual sex. I also had some very, very good ones. So I learned something about myself I wouldn't know if I hadn't randomly hooked up. I think it made me more mature and more able to withstand persistent male social pressure to be willing to fuck anyone 'hot'.

EG - I'm married and I still masturbate at least once a day. I must be destroying my ability to love anyone other than myself. Sorry if that is TMI

Well I'm a guy that had some negative emotional consequences of casual sex. I also had some very, very good ones. So I learned something about myself I wouldn't know if I hadn't randomly hooked up. I think it made me more mature and more able to withstand persistent male social pressure to be willing to fuck anyone 'hot'.

EG - I'm married and I still masturbate at least once a day. I must be destroying my ability to love anyone other than myself. Sorry if that is TMI

Before I knew anything about feminism, I always thought I must be a pretty odd duck, because I didn't act or feel like acting like women are supposed to at all.

I got used to saying, "Well, I guess I'm an aberration, then."

Because, you know, I've had meaningless sex for pleasure before and yet, shock and surprise, I'm more than capable of forming an emotional bond with others. In fact, I'd say the psychological kind of love is better, because even when we're not having sex to chemically reinforce our love, we're still madly in love with each other for the people we are.

But I guess that's the kind of love that sickens traditionalist conservatives.

I agree with all the commenters above me.

Also, the whole oxy thing is about women damaging their ability to develop maternal instincts right?

It's like "OMG, these women won't be able to fulfill their one true function! Being mothers!" Panic!

A woman orgasming = decreased maternal instinct? This is like a wet-dream for a conservative. They get to attack female sexual pleasure while reasserting that women's primary concern in life is how good a mother she is/is going to be.

Have I just masturbated so much that I can no longer bond romantically?
If that were true, it would have happened to me by now. :)
Articles of this nature are silly. I had serious boyfriends, bone buddies, and random hook-ups in college. It really depended on how I was feeling. Sometimes, you like someone enough to want to spend lots of non-sexy time with them, and other times, maybe you just like their jibblets.
Like other people have mentioned, both my maternal and paternal grandparents had pregnancy-related quickie marriages, so nuts to that.

I think i'm probably going to incur some irritation, but i really feel like i have to say this. I'm not a scientist, and I don't get to thrilled when people start whipping out the scientific terms to "prove" men and women are biologically different. So I don't really agree with her whole Oxytocin arguement. BUT, while we could sit here for years debating whether men and women are CHEMICALLY different, it should be pretty obvious to all of us by now that the two sexes are physically different, and that those differences extend to our sexual mechanisms. I am trying to avoid generalizing, and i certainly acknowledge the many women out there for whom orgasm is incredibly simple and guarenteed. But, for the most part, most of the female sex enjoys a lot more foreplay than a drunken male is really capable of. Secondly, men's sexual organs are pretty easily accessible, and wonderfully basic. Women's sexual organs are much more complex, and i think i can say with confidence that sex or sexual activity is more satisfying when someone has taken the time to get to know your body over a little bit of time, not for 45 minutes after 8 rounds of beer pong. I think that sexually, woman are short-changing themselves. I would be really interested in more feedback from college girls who regularly hook up to see if they are 1) really satisfied and 2) as satisfied as they are when they have sex with men who know them, emjoy them, and take the time and effort to figure it all out.
This second point that i'm about to make is alittle dangerous, but based off of my experience, the experience of my friends, and accounts of college hook-ups in books and on the internet, it seems like hooking-up, however wonderfully it started out, however liberating it was meant to be, has turned patriarchal. I love the freedoms that the Sexual Revolution affords me, including access to birth control, the acceptance of my right to initiate, and the celebration of sex as a lovely and necessary thing. All those things I agree with, and enjoy. But, I have to tell you(and feel free to respond with a story that contradicts this)that it doesn't look very equal anymore. I see fewer and fewer girls taking responsibility for their sexual desires and identities, claiming that they were drunk or high instead of saying, "Yes. I wanted that person." I don't see very many casual sexual encounters that don't include alcohol, which frequently complicates the question of consent. Finally, the question of what occurs after a casual hook-up seems to have become the decision of the male. The attraction manifests itself, sex happens, and then every one goes back to their room. In the morning, when the question of what that was or where its going arises, i see very, very few girls opening up that conversation. Despite our own ambivalence about the male and the sexual experience (which i don't deny exists; certainly not every girl is enthused what happened, or suddenly wants to date this boy forever), the consensus seems to be that he calls the shots. I have seen this happen so many times, and it's really intensely depressing to watch young women wait expectantly around dorm rooms, hoping for some indication of decision, or some expression of desire for the future.
So, I guess my point is that its important to recognize when a system becomes patriarchal, male-oriented, even if it started as something wonderfully liberating. I'm not advocating "Girls gone mild"(ick), but i do think that there needs to be some serious discussion about the female perogative.

I'm the only person in my social group who isn't in a serious relationship. The idea that nobody in college dates anymore is sure news to me. My reason for not dating is that I'm just a total commitophobe. The worst mistake that any guy will ever make with me while we're hanging out is by trying to pay for me. You can rest assured that I will forever feel awkward and never want to be alone with him again, because I will always be so afraid that he might "make a move". When I get into a relationship, I have to take my sweet time, and the guy has to be someone that I'm already friends with and already feel comfortable around.

That said, I do hook up. The pressure is gone, I can get the fun without worrying about the awkward conversation we might have later where I tell the guy that I'm just a screwed up person who cannot open up without a crowbar. Hooking up is the symptom of my lack of dating, not the cause.

Seriously. How many times do we have to listen to the "women's sexuality=chaos & madness" theory? Some of these conservative journalists must simply be bored out of their freaking minds, they keep recycling the same song over and over again....

There wasn't much in the way of casual dating, but for me, getting to know my significant other as a friend kind of took the place of that. I didn't need to be "wined and dined" because I got to know the guy better by just hanging out with him and maybe some other friends. I can see how casual dating would be useful in a setting where the friendly hanging out approach isn't really an option, though.

I think you hit on something very important there, something that the people who scream about the loss of dating may be overlooking (whether intentionally or not). Dating, with all its formalities and rituals, stems from a time when men and women were often not permitted (or at least had a hard time finding) casual, friendly interaction with the opposite sex. So they needed this kind of ritualized way to get to know each other better. Now that women and men just hanging out together is much less unusual, formal dating is not as necessary because men and women can become better acquainted in other ways.

Hey there! You mentioned my university! I'm a Duke freshman! So, my insider view:

First of all, I just kinda want to say that I WISH I could get in on this hook-up culture-- it's been two years since I was last kissed! My last relationship was a disaster-- I'd like some fun before I get that serious again! But noooo, I'm the only (out) lesbian freshman.

Second, I think I might have figured out how they're getting data that says there is a hook-up culture: their surveys are crazy biased. They ask "How much do you participate in the hook-up culture?" rather than "How would you describe the romantic/sexual culture at your school?"
I took a survey right before the lovely Laura Stepp came to talk, and every single question was that loaded. And yet I bet she used it as evidence, or someone will, that the hook-up culture is destroying young women.
My favourite question: "What percentage of women do you think would prefer a dating culture to a hookup culture?" --and there was NO option to say "dating and casual sex should both be options."
(Also, it didn't give me any chance to say I was gay. So the whole time I had to keep telling it I hadn't had sex with any men at all.)

Third, I just want to whine that now everybody's all bringing up Stepp's arguments in class discussions and it's even more unbearable than usual.
Especially because nobody ever, ever says the word "sex." I've been amazed at how prudish everyone is! (Though only about female sexuality.) Even when we're discussing articles or stories that are all about sex. If I were back in my high school, and (somehow) someone started whining about the hook-up culture, I'd just say, "What's wrong with women having sex if they want to?" But here at Duke, that would be a really controversial thing to say, and it would make all subsequent classes too uncomfortable. (Which is why this is a really long comment...I've been silent too long!)

Man, you know what that means? The high schoolers at my Christian private school in Kansas were more mature about sex than the supposed adults at Duke University.

The way many people here feel about David Brooks is how I feel about Kathleen Parker. Actually, for years I loved to hate her and read her just to get worked up, but at some point the skin crawling, crazy-making stupidity of it got to me, and I just stopped. I couldn't take it anymore.

Hell yes I'd like to bring back dating.

... but I wasn't aware that it had left.

I think the difference is her/their idea of "dating" is dinner and a movie and not going to bars, hanging out, studying together, or walking the dog. All things which college kids usually do because they are CHEAPER than dinner and a movie. Well, except the bar part...

And yes, if both men and women release oxytocin, why does it matter so much that women are having all this uninhibited sex? Shouldn't we be concerned with our nation's men? Apparently not...

"first you give the guy a blow-job, then you decide if you like him."

I most certainly never hook up with a guy that I might feel that I have a potential connection with and would want to date later. The kind of awkwardness that tends to happen after a hook up will certainly kill any sort of real attraction on my end.

Quick note clarifying my second point: I'm not denying that a "hook-up culture" exists (to the extent that "hook-up culture" means women having casual sex). I'm just saying that it's not replacing dating, merely supplementing it, and it's not destroying women's lives.

secondhandsally:

A woman orgasming = decreased maternal instinct? This is like a wet-dream for a conservative.

aren't wet dreams supposed to be immoral, though? tsk, tsk...

My roommate has been with her boyfriend for about two years now. They never really dated. The two of them were friends, then hung out together more and more. Even now, they usually spend time together "hanging out" at his house (he lives with his parents) or our dorm (which kinda disgusts me as I seem to be chronically single), or just getting coffee. Despite their lack of dinner and a movie routine, though, they are practicing abstinance.

I love how all these articles act as though this "hook up culture" is imposed on young women - as though we aren't capable of making our own decisions about our own bodies...

av3, the issue is that I don't see that much of what you're distressed has to do with hooking up rather than dating.

most of the female sex enjoys a lot more foreplay than a drunken male is really capable of. Secondly, men's sexual organs are pretty easily accessible, and wonderfully basic. Women's sexual organs are much more complex, and i think i can say with confidence that sex or sexual activity is more satisfying when someone has taken the time to get to know your body over a little bit of time

I'm not convinced of the biological truth of this; I suspect that because we as a society define sex as that act that ensures that men get off (vaginal fucking), and consider that act the norm of sex, we then think that sex is "easier" for men. It's only that way because of the way we define sex. Now, when it comes to sleeping with drunken assholes, that may not make a lot of sense, and I will be the first to sign on to advice that consists of "don't sleep with drunken assholes (or sober assholes, for that matter)," the problem is symptomatic of a patriarchal culture hostile to female sexuality, not casual sex in particular. If you look back at the common sexual problems prior to the 1960s, they indicate that women were not really having better sex in those committed relationships than they're having now.

Also, I don't think that women's genitals are more complex or less accessible. I mean...I guess this is a common male complaint I've never understood. We're talking about an area of maybe three square inches. How hard can it possibly be to find the clitoris? It's not like it's going to run away and suddenly turn up on my elbow or something. Honestly, open your eyes and look around, or use your fingertips. There isn't a labyrinth down there or something.

I also don't think we should buy into patriarchal stereotypes about male sexuality. Am I really supposed to believe that 10 minutes of drunken fumbling is just as good for a guy as a prolonged sexual encounter with someone who's taken the trouble to learn his body? Because I don't. I just think that men are socialized to think of sex as a conquest primarily and not to admit to reservations about it.

I see fewer and fewer girls taking responsibility for their sexual desires and identities, claiming that they were drunk or high instead of saying, "Yes. I wanted that person." I don't see very many casual sexual encounters that don't include alcohol

I'm not sure what you mean by "fewer and fewer" here. I suspect that compared to earlier sexual moralities in which it wasn't acknowledged that women had sexual desire at all, we're seeing more women say "I wanted that person." I also think that if we had less slut-shaming, we'd see more women who are willing to own their sexual choices, and fewer women who can only allow themselves sexual activity once they've had their inhibitions artificially lowered.

The other thing is drinking is an adult activity--it's a common one, because it's fun. It's something that adults do together in a variety of circumstances, including dating. So I'm not surprised that it's part of casual sex. I bet it's part of a lot of non-casual sex as well.

Finally, the question of what occurs after a casual hook-up seems to have become the decision of the male....it's really intensely depressing to watch young women wait expectantly around dorm rooms, hoping for some indication of decision, or some expression of desire for the future.

I'm not surprised, but this is hardly new to hook-up culture. Women and girls have been sitting by the telephone waiting for decades--waiting to see if the guy would call them for a first date, a second date, a third date, after they slept together, the whole nine yards.

What I'm seeing you saying is that the sexism that has infested male-female sexual relations for decades and decades also infests hook-up culture, and I'm not shocked to hear it. But, as you note, the solution is not to turn back the clock: it's to try and push forward into a feminist future.

Yeah, I graduated from college not too long ago, and I saw more dating than random hook-ups going on. I mean, yeah there was that. But, goodness, there was a lot of dating.

EG, I laughed so hard, soda came out my nose. It still burns.

Heh. Ow. Thanks.

And now I want to issue a blanket apology to all the grammar I cruelly mangled in the second paragraph of my most recent comment. Again, ouch.

Why is it just against women? Why are men never partial to these "mental problems" unless they're gay?

For your information, Ms. Parker, I have a very healthy sex life with my dildo and hope to be very sexually sated with a woman in the future. Some women put sex with emotion. Some men *gasp* do that, too. And some men and women just like sex. Lots of it. I am an ethical slut, and I'm proud of it. Although I don't exactly walk around with the t-shirt. Maybe I should make a symbolic necklace. I'm good at that.

So frequent sex in women causes mental disease? Well, maybe they just want to counter balance all the wonderful things sex can do for us because women just are known for being so self-destructive because we don't know any better... (sarcasm for those who didn't catch it).

Regular sex is regular exercise and has similar benefits, including improved cholesterol levels and increased circulation.

Sex, like exercise, releases endorphins. Endorphins contribute to the runner’s high and diminishes pain levels.

An active sex life may help us live longer, too. Dr. David Weeks, a clinical neuropsychologist at Scotland’s Royal Edinburgh Hospital, conducted a study of 3,500 people ranging in age from 18 to 102. Weeks concluded that sex actually slows the aging process.

Sexual therapists (those actually trained to deal with sexual mental health) remind us that frequent sex is a form of exercise.

Sex therapists say sex acts on the principal of “use it or lose it.� So, for your heart, mind, and soul, the best advice may be to "Just do it."

(Got some of the info from http://www.momscape.com/articles/sexforhealth.htm which cites where they got their info as well)

av3 - i've had casual sex, sometimes while intoxicated, but usually not and been completely satisfied. i think it's a disservice to men to insinuate that even after a few drinks, they are completely ignorant of how to get a girl off. plenty are, but i'd argue those guys probably are regardless of what they've been consuming. also, you're looking at sex from a very phallocentric point of view--sex isn't even always about the orgasm for women. i've had hookups where i didn't have an orgasm, but i still had a pretty good time and there's really no way to tell whether it's going to happen or not until i give it a try. i've also had sex with guys i was in a relationship with, the good old-fashioned dating kind where i didn't even come close to being sexually satisfied.

discouraging women from having casual sex because they are less likely to get off isn't the answer, sorry.

i like the guy who posted that he learned about himself through having sexual relationships--sometimes good, sometimes not, but that's how life is and i really firmly believe (anecdotal, yes i know, but based on a lot of observation), that most people, men or women, at some point in their lives just want sex without attachment, at least ONCE.

Sometimes, women have sex with women. And sometimes, men have sex with men.

Just wanted to toss that out there . . .

When on earth were these pearl-clutchers in college themselves? 1952?

I can tell you when I was in college -- 1980 to 1984. Right around the time when heterosexuals started becoming aware that they could get HIV and die from it. So maybe we weren't quite as "unbuttoned" as previous generations of students in the 1960s and 1970s -- we were the first to adopt the "no glove, no love" philosophy as a means of saving our lives -- but believe me, even then there was plenty of "hooking up" going on and not a whole lot of "traditional dating" that I could see. For one thing, most college guys couldn't afford it, and for another, enough of us were Humorless Feminists (TM) even then that we questioned the whole idea of someone having dibs on our nethers in exchange for a meal.

I suppose up until the mid-1960s or so, there was a campus culture on co-ed campuses wherein there were "nice girls" who were expected to be "courted" (i.e. pressured) with flowers and dinners and diamonds and such for months and years on end, and "campus punchboards" who had "reputations" and would sleep with almost anything in pants, find her number on the men's room wall and call her and get laid, since once she was known for having "done it" she was obliged to keep "doing it" upon demand. That must be what they're talking about reviving. In that case, I think what has these ladies' (yeah, they deserve that term) undergarments all bunched up is that these days even the "bad girls" have standards.

rileystclair: "i really firmly believe (anecdotal, yes i know, but based on a lot of observation), that most people, men or women, at some point in their lives just want sex without attachment, at least ONCE."

In my experience, based on my observation, many, many people I know treat sex as one of the deepest levels of emotional bond they can have with a person they care about. They would no sooner have sex without attachment than marry without attachment. You may presume that most people want that kind of sex but I've found from talking to people around me that the only people who would actually want that sort of thing are the ones who are already doing it (or would be if they could find someone to agree). Maybe there are a few people who avoid it merely because of the slut-shaming but I'm fairly certain that most people avoiding it are doing so because they consider sex to be something they only want to share with people they love and trust.

That is not to say that one should or has to feel that way about it, of course.

"I most certainly never hook up with a guy that I might feel that I have a potential connection with and would want to date later. The kind of awkwardness that tends to happen after a hook up will certainly kill any sort of real attraction on my end."

To me, something is wrong in this picture. I am to old to understand what a "hook-up" is. When I was but a lad... [boring and pointless rambling deleted.]

Anyway, it seems that if after doing X you cannot feel any sort of real attraction to the partner in X, then you feel that doing X is wrong. So you think that your partners are creeps, perhaps you seek creeps. Who may have some creepy idea.

At best, it seems some kind of uni-sex whore and Madonna complex.

I think most people need some activity that is not exactly good for you, be it dangerous, unhealthy, unthrifty. Beats bouts of bipolar disorder. Some people smoke, some hook-up (?!), some ride motorcycles, some spend untold hours on computer games. My main complaint is when people do it in the most conventional way (in a given milieau). If you try to kill boredom, shouldn't you express yourself as an individual?

"Hook up culture" is just a new name on an old practice. I graduated from college 20 years ago. It was a conservative midwestern university, and there was lots and logs of casual sex going on and very little formal dating (because dating was expensive and keg parties were cheap). I had twice as many sexual partners in my last two years at college than I've had in the two decades since.

I don't know of anyone who was emotionally damaged by sexual freedom in college. Frankly, the 13 years with my ex-husband did far worse to my psyche than casual sex ever did.

Why is it just against women? Why are men never partial to these "mental problems" unless they're gay?

Obviously because having sex with men is the root of all evil. We should all stop having sex with men. No more sex with men! Lesbians unite!

Also, on the oxytocin thing: oxytocin promotes all kinds of deep emotional bonding. Fathers who live with their partners during pregnancy ALSO sympathetically produce oxytocin in anticipation of fatherhood. Not to mention, both partners produce the hormone during orgasm. Also, I love the idea that you can "run out," as if your body didn't manufacture the stuff itself.

Well, all the straight girls at my college must be dirty, dirty whores.

To clarify, I go to Smith, and boys are kind of rare outside of parties, and "hooking-up" is where we get our jollies. I don't feel irrevocably damaged by it though, somehow. It's sort of refreshing; there's very little bullshit. Casual sex = sick in the head? Where did that come from? I always think Smithies are some of the most well-adjusted and confident young women around.

Oh, wait. Confident. Self-reliant. Sexually autonomous. I guess if you're Kathleen Parker, we ARE a problem.

Nothing new here, for crying out loud, it's just more open now. My gen's mantra WAS sex and drugs and rock and roll! Where do these people come? half of my 8th grade class was having sex, and that was 25 years ago.

basiorana - this isn't meant to be condescending at all, and clearly we know some different people, and i'm not saying that NO ONE doesn't ever want casual sex, but i've lived a lot of places and met a lot of people and i'd still say that MOST at one point or another, are interested in such a thing, whether they act on it or not.

the wingnuts like to frame this issue as being that there are really two types of women: good girls and sluts. it's the same age-old madonna/whore complext that has pervaded western culture since like, forever. however, what these people don't realize is that there are very rarely such types of women. what most women want at one time varies completely from what they want at a different time, and this holds for men as well. just because someone is interested in a one-night stand on this PARTICULAR night does not mean that six months later, they were not interested in a serious relationship, vice versa and everything in between.

most people have different feelings regarding sex that depend on their age, the person in question, what's going on in their lives, their hormones, their mood, etc.

i'm not arguing that everyone has a lot of hook-up sex, but i think generally speaking, having some sexual experience (usually of a variety of types) is part of being an adult and figuring out who you are and what you want.

EG put this much more eloquently than i did earlier.

By their definition, I didn't date my husband. We hung out, became friends (while both desperately wanting to boink the other) went to one movie with a friend, boinked the next day. We rarely had full out "dates" but would often go to the other's for dinner, watch a movie, and boink. Oh no! We hooked up! And now we're married, own a home, and are planning on kids.

I wonder if that breaks their paradigm...

What's so weird about all of this is the constant obsessing over trends that are NOT going go away any time soon. People like her and Stepp and all of the others who whine on ad infinitum about those of us who are young are, I'm guessing, jealous of our ability to manage our own sexuality. That just seems to fly in thier faces for some reason.

They can whine on ad nauseum, but nothing's going to change. The overwhelming majority of people she's bitching about don't even know she exists. Funny that.

What's so weird about all of this is the constant obsessing over trends that are NOT going go away any time soon. People like her and Stepp and all of the others who whine on ad infinitum about those of us who are young are, I'm guessing, jealous of our ability to manage our own sexuality. That just seems to fly in thier faces for some reason.

They can whine on ad nauseum, but nothing's going to change. The overwhelming majority of people she's bitching about don't even know she exists. Funny that.

Ah, the hook up culture. I remember vividly participating in it when I was a freshman/sophomore in high school, and I look back with fond memories on my numerous sexual adventures (no intercourse, everything BUT intercourse though). Sneaking out at 3 am...being naughty with my buddy at the Shakespearean ballet that we attended with our Honors English class...tennis courts... ah, good times.

I was depressed in high school, yes, but not because of the sexual stuff. It was because my classmates were always making fun of me for answering questions right in class and for being obsessed with French culture at the beginning of the Iraq war!

I've been dating the same person since I was 15, and I am now 19. No inability to bond there, obviously. Granted, I'm only one person, but I'm willing to bet that if women do get depressed after hooking up it's because our culture loves to slut-shame. And slut-shaming only seems to be aimed at women, oddly enough.

Orgasms causing a lack of maternal instinct? I was sexually active when three little kittens were born in my backyard last year. I used to tell my mom that I wished that they had come out of my own uterus instead of their mother's. Freaky yes, but my maternal instinct is so strong it's not even funny, especially with furry babies.

Sometimes, sex is just sex. Masturbation with a partner, if you will. I really don't get what the big deal is. I was eager to have my first sexual experience and don't regret a thing. The only time I got physically hurt due to sex was when the guy was a bit too well-hung; the time I got emotionally hurt was when the guy was confused about how he felt and misled me into thinking that it was love. Still, by the time I had sex with him, I knew he didn't love me. The sex wasn't what hurt me, it was his deception. Maybe that's what these anti-sex leaguers are missing: the fact that a lot of girls are misled by guys who act as if they love them. If you grow up as a girl in culture where virginity is a commodity that ought to be bartered away for love, and you're deceived into thinking it's love and you have sex with the guy, and then he dumps you, of course you'd mistakenly blame your emotional pain on the sex instead of the deception.

In any case, I find "dating" or "courting" to be pointless. I'd rather have a passionate debate over coffee for a first "date" and then wild sex a week or so afterwards than spend 6 months being coy over dinners and in front of movie screens before even kissing. Some people might need lots of time to decide if the person they're seeing is right for them, but I know pretty much from the beginning whether I'll stay or go.

Sex is separate from love, although it is quite nice when the two intersect. Still, who has time to wait for love when it's so hard to find? I seriously think that what a lot of girls are conditioned to think is a yearning for love is really a wish for sexual fulfillment. Fuck/masturbate and stay happy until you find love, and then, when you find it, you'll probably fuck/masturbate even more and better. Why not practice so that you can wow the guy/girl you'll end up with? I did, and we're both all the better for it sexually and otherwise.

My real problem with this is not that she references the "hook-up culture," but exactly why she is writing this article.

The reality is that most of our society is uncomfortable with the idea of women as independent beings sexually. It's something that any "classical" (I mean to say the ideas that are less modern than, say, feminism) school of thought from chauvanism to chilvalry is against, because in both the woman is dependent on the man sexually.

It seems that the "mental problem" that this crazy woman is talking about is this notion that women are having sex because they like it. God forbid that someone (other than men, of course) have sex for pleasure.

The notion of dating being dead as a result of the "hook-up" culture is ridiculous. The "hook-up" culture isn't that potent.

What sex during dating does actually strengthens a relationship, as far as I'm concerned. Physical intimacy may not be the be all and the end all, but it helps people become closer and more comfortable. Maybe that's just me, and I'm just a guy. Could any ladies confirm (or deny) that for me?

Sexual awareness is something that really started privately in midevil Europe (where it was frowned on by reigious conservatives as sin) and really took hold in the states as we know it now in the '60s as the free love movement (where it was, and still is, frowned on by religious conservatives as sin). I don't think that it's wrong for any young person to be sexually conscious. I'm not, and neither are the people around me.

Heina, that basically got right to the point of the relationship side of it.

I don't get it. If oxytocin is release during sex by both men AND women, how come it's only women's problem?
And why would that make men and women emotionally and physically different?

Anyone?

Not only that, but since when does using "too much" hormone make you run out of it? The body isn't just going to stop making a chemical when it's being produced naturally. Diabetes doesn't happen because the pancreas used up all its insulin. If these people are going to make up a lie, at least do it right. At least say that the pituitary gland will stop working if you have to much nonprocreative sex and it won't secrete any more oxytocin (or however it works). People would buy it.

What Phoebe Fay said ... and throw in a little hypocrisy. "The hook up culture," ooh, terrible, oxytocin, the world is ending. Casual sex? Well, boomers like Miriam Grossman and Kathleen Parker can't condemn THAT with a straight face. Even if they didn't do it back in the day, and I'm guessing they did, their friends would take offense. New name for an old practice = new menace.

I love the automatic moral panic with the "ZOMG, kids don't even know what 'dating' is anymore!" Excuse me, but I think I do, considering I have never even had a casual hook-up in my life, nor have any of my female friends. These nutjobs are seriously out of touch with reality.

Lots of great comments on the issue, thanks to all.

The major problem with the hook-up hysteria is that those who claim to be concerned with women's well-being, treat women in an unapologetically condescending way that cannot be accepted by any thinking person. The implication is that women are not able to make sense of reality and their position in it and need to be instructed, more -- protected by preferably bans or at least bogus theories such as the one about oxytocine.

It's a truism that people do get hurt in their various relationships. Both women AND men. And it applies to both romantic and/or erotic relationships and to friendship. Blowing it out of proportion to "reinstate traditional values" is ridiculous. Not only is it all about PRETENDING that casual sex was invented five minutes ago, but it falsifies everything.

It's authoritarian in its nature and conveys a sense of disbelief in humans' (especially women's) ability to think and decide about their lives. To put it in a nutshell, it's an instrument of control. Only, who's pulling the strings? And why?

Are we bringing back the Madwoman in (or, come to thin of it, TO) the Attic?

It's especially terrifying when women do it to women.
Shame on you Kathleen Parker et al.

Januaries: YES. I was wondering when someone would say something like that.

Madwoman in the Attic stuff starts early in history and continues even today... the sexuality of women is still enough to get locked in the looney-bin for.

I was in a treatment center about 20 years ago for being a habitual runaway/truant. I remember that all of the girls there had to list before each group therapy meeting why they were there, and a lot of them were there for "promiscuity".

As I got to know them, it wasn't that they had any more sex than boys did, it was that it was just that much more wrong because they were girls. This was 1987!

So, yeah, I have an immediate distrust of anything that equates women's sexuality with mental illness, and am hyperaware of the double standard... a double standard that I bet still gets girls locked up.

"... the sexuality of women is still enough to get locked in the looney-bin for."

Correction: ... the sexuality of women is still reason enough to get locked in the looney-bin.

Me fail English? That am unpossible!

If you're younger than 30 or maybe even 35, you may not recognize the word "date" as a verb.

Wow, be a little more condescending, you ignorant shit biscuit. On the remote chance that we need any more proof that Kathleen Parker thinks young women are stupider than mud, there it is.

Furthermore, where the hell are these people even getting their information? At the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, the second-largest university in the country, nearly 80 percent of students reported having zero or one partner in the last year. (It's in that hard-to-read column at the right, under the heading Sexual Health.) So even though there's nothing wrong with casual sex, it doesn't seem to me that anybody is being promiscuous. This entire premise is based on a trend that doesn't even exist.

I'd also like to add that having sex with a guy can tell you a lot about him. I'd rather know if a guy's a selfish lover before I've gotten too involved, not only because I don't want to be stuck with a guy who doesn't get me off, but because his sexual attitudes tell me a lot about how he'll treat me in other ways.

You know what would be awesome? If someone would rewrite these types of articles with the view that men's sexuality is problematic -- not that it is -- but it would just be interesting to turn the tables and see how it would look if we were always putting male sexuality under a microscope and pathologizing it like we do with women. Seriously, women's sexuality is not a fucking disease, but good luck convincing the majority of that.

I personally know plenty of people who date. I also know plenty of people who have a few dates before having sex. Then I know plenty of people who skip the dating. It really does depend on the peoples preference. I wish people like this psycho would stop putting a blanket statement to cover all of us. It's degrading and insulting.

"You know what would be awesome? If someone would rewrite these types of articles with the view that men's sexuality is problematic -- not that it is -- but it would just be interesting to turn the tables and see how it would look if we were always putting male sexuality under a microscope and pathologizing it like we do with women. Seriously, women's sexuality is not a fucking disease, but good luck convincing the majority of that."

I totally agree with ponies and rainbows above statement. Because this double standard refers to women and not men is why these people can get away with it. If they started accusing men left and right of being the downfall of society if they enjoy their sexuality then they would just get laughed at.

Hey, you know what else makes the brain release oxytocin? Chocolate. I wonder why we aren't seeing a spate of shock-and-awe articles about how women who love to hit the Kit-Kat are turning themselves into loveless, burnt-out sluts and shitty mommies.

Wow, Peepers. I bet it's only a matter of time before some right-wing pseudo-scientist asshole realizes that he get two--two--two blame'n'shames for the price of one if he just put those things together: slut-shaming and fat-blaming, in one easy package!

Really good discussion.
The thing that struck me about the column is still that she could write about HPV and cervical cancer and not once mention that there's a vaccine.

rileystclair: For most people I know, it's about the same thing as girls who have rape fantasies-- yeah, they think about having casual sex, but when it actually came down to it, there's no way they'd ever ACT on it because they know they would be hurt, that they wouldn't ACTUALLY want to do it.

I am not saying there aren't lots of people who DO want it, but only that you should not assume that that is some kind of universal thing, because there are still a lot of girls-- and guys-- out there who treat sex as something that could NEVER be casual. Unfortunately, the idea that "everyone wants to have casual sex, at least once" is very problematic for us, as we can get labeled as frigid, snobby, or overly pious by the less tolerant types who believe it.

Heina: For you, sex is separate from love. I have been fighting this idea my whole life, because people always say "It's just sex" and "get your first time over with" and "you don't have to be in love to have sex." Some people think of sex as just another fun thing to do. Others think of it as a deep emotional bond. But by assuming that people who consider it to be a deep emotional bond are somehow deluding themselves, or don't know what they really want, you are perpetuating an idea that is every bit as bad as the idea that sex can only be in a long term monogamous relationship.

The writer of this article is treating women who have sex as foolish and young who don't understand what they truly want. And then, I read the comments, and some commenters are treating women who DON'T have sex as foolish and young who don't understand what they truly want. In other words, you are doing exactly what she is doing, you are just maligning a different group of people.

AV3 -

"In all hook ups only 14% of women achieved orgasm while 38% of men did, and 84% of men had an orgasm during oral sex while only 32% of women did (England and Thomas, Figure 2, 158)."

I'll be happy to scan in the England and Thomas article for you if you want, AV3! It echoes a lot of the things you touched on.

hook up culture definitely didn't kill dating. it's alive and well where I'm at. I've dated, hooked up, had relationships. The fact that one can go out and have casual sex does not seem to be effecting the people who want to have relationships.

Still, I'm with AV3--casual sex is very rarely about female satisfaction. And if you're having sex casually, shouldn't it be about pleasure? Whether you blame it on alcohol or being unfamiliar with the person or patriarchal norms, I think that casual sex (in college at least) generally means bad sex. Granted, bad sex is part of having a sex life, but hooking up is kind of awful almost every time.

The solution isn't to do away with hooking up--but women need to masturbate more! Instead of playing the crapshoot that is hooking up in hopes of getting pleasurable sex--which is what most of us are doing--we're hooking up with the blind optimism that maybe this guy will be mind blowing, without taking the pleasure issue into our own hands, so to speak.

I never learned a thing about myself sexually or otherwise in a random hook up. Maybe I'm just unlucky, but from talking to other women I get the sense that I am not.

It's not that the hook up is the problem--it's the way that men and women act it out. Women playing a part because, "Oh well, it's not great but I'll never see him again." And men getting off because it's easier.

We lack some female assertiveness in hookup territory. If I ever were to go back I'd certainly do it differently.

Their entire argument makes no sense anyway--they're saying that the "hook-up" culture has been going on for a few years, right? Therefore there should be a lot of women in their late twenties and early thirties who can't form lasting relationships. Where are they? Do you know any? I don't--what I do know is that weddings are a huge and growing business. I got married earlier this year (for the first time, at age 40) and most of the other brides I met online while planning my wedding were in that age group and very happy to be getting married, very much in love, and very committed to their partners. (Some of whom were other women, so I guess this study didn't count for them.) Still, a quick search of the media of the past few years would convince anyone that marriage is here to stay, and that couples are making a bigger and bigger deal out of their commitment ceremonies than ever before. How, exactly, does this fall in with the idea of these poor college women with mental health issues, who can't commit, who can't even get a date? The point is, it doesn't. College--and the early twenties for those who aren't in college--has always been a time of experimentation and fun. It's now more out in the open, but none of this sounds all that different than what went on when I was in college nearly twenty years ago.

casual sex is very rarely about female satisfaction.

Well, most hetero sex is very rarely about female satisfaction, casual or not. Just because you're in a relationship doesn't mean your partner automatically cares about getting you off -- in my experience, I've only had one relationship where "committed" sex was better than most of the casual sex I've had. Sure, we can say that in a relationship sex will be better because your partner knows you and cares about you, but we all know the scary statistics about relationship violence. If there are so many guys out there who are willing to beat and assault their partners, I find it hard to believe that being in a committed relationship would automatically make the sex better. The problem is much bigger and more complex than this nonexistent casual sex epidemic.

I don't know if any of you read the comments that followed Parker's article, but they are almost all equally as scary in their ignorance...

"We used to say that if every gay turned blue, you would be surprised who they were. Then came AIDS, and essentially they did. That cleaned up the act of those who were able to learn and killed off the rest. Perhaps this new epidemic will do the same. Nothing like a good kick in the goolies to get your attention, maaaaaaaan."

That's some nasty shit right there...

We're in an awkward social stage right now as a society. On one hand, you aren't supposed to have sex before marriage. BUT, as a modern woman, you aren't supposed to get married until after you go to college and establish a career, date Mr. Right for 4 years, engaged for 2, and by that time you are like 40 years old and a virgin. No wonder priests are raping little boys. You aren't meant to suppress the sexual urge for that long.

Now, I'm not saying that sleeping around in middle school and high school is OK. Most girls aren't emotionally mature enough to handle what goes along with that kind of responsibility... and o