The Demise of Dating

New York Times ^ | December 13, 2008 | Charles M. Blow

[reaganaut1]

The paradigm has shifted. Dating is dated. Hooking up is here to stay.

...

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.

[Question_Assumptions]

It is self-evident.

The classic answer of a person who can't explain themselves or is too ashamed of their answer to give it.

[dbz77]

You know Question_Assumptions, you just made me realize something. There is a great deal of similarity between how these young women (and men too, of course) act and how homosexual men act. Homosexual men are often reckless, a danger to themselves and others, putting themselves at risk just for a thrill. It seems to me that a lot of the young women out there are only somewhat more tame, more worried about their reputations. Pleasure and adventure are their gods, and they don’t think much about the consequences. They also seem more than willing to allow themselves to be used as many homosexual men do.

The relative consequences of sex versus virginity depends on one's age.

Certainly, an unplanned pregnancy is much more traumatic at age fifteen than at age twenty-five.

And of course, pregnancy is almost impossible at fifty-five.

What about STD’s? Certainly STD’s would be very traumatic to a teenager with a life expectancy of decades.

But an octogenarian is not likely to have a long life expectancy in any case.

Now let us examine the other side, which is virginity.

Virginity is not disturbing at thirteen, since almost everyone that age is a virgin.

But what about age thirty? Imagine someone knowing that everyone else that he knows, including his own family, has had sex and he had not. How would he feel? What would be the only rational way for him to feel? And what would his peers think of it? Note again that the value of the opinions of one’s peers increase with age. At thirteen, one’s peers are dumbass kids. At thirty, one’s peers would include people who are married and have kids and can support themselves.

[dbz77]

...and at what age do you think a woman has something wrong with her at if she's still a virgin? 21? 18? 15? 12? 9? 6?

Somewhere between twenty and thirty. Thirty and above are definitely too old.

[dbz77]

The classic answer of a person who can't explain themselves or is too ashamed of their answer to give it.

Click on this link and read the comments.

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[Betis70]

>>Congratulations stud. You must be very proud of yourself.

Well not for the reasons you seem to imply. I’m proud of myself because I avoided such ‘hooking up’.

My main point was that every time the term was used, no matter where I lived, it implied having sex.

[TonyStark]

I found that getting married really cut down on my dating time.

[little jeremiah]

I really was going to sit down and do the pinging thing but you’ve got to them first. I still think I found a few you didn’t - a bit laters now. It snowed and I have to take the cats for a walk in it.

This “hooking up” thing is so freaking disgusting. To have promiscuous and meaningless sex become socially acceptable means that the total breakdown of civilization is shortly at hand. Feral humans will be out of control in every aspect of their lives. Those who can’t control (or even see any reason to) their sexual urges are worse than animals and no moral compass whatsoever.

This is a very bad sign and it heralds worse to come. If imaginable. Families are the building blocks of human civilization. Such aberrant and animalistic sexual behavior is extremely destructive not just for the individuals involved - and any babies that are conceived, surely to be aborted or raised by single mothers - but for society as a whole.

[Question_Assumptions]

So now having sex is a lower standard?

Having casual sex with no intimacy or long term involvement is a lower standard for two reasons. Either the person is enjoying sex without missing a major component (intimacy) or they want intimacy and are settling for sex without it. Either way, sex without intimacy (which requires more than a fleeting introduction to a person) is a lower standard than sex with intimacy.

So having sex is inconsistent with self-respect?

Having sex when you would rather not or don't want to because you feel expected to or feel you have to is. So is being dumped again and again by guys who a woman thought she was having an intimate relationship with once they've gotten what they want and grow weary of her. If the guys are getting what they want and the women aren't, then the women are being used. That seems pretty simple to me.

Have you ever, ever considered that there might be a downside to being a virgin?

Sure. It's kind of hard to have kids if you aren't having sex. But maybe you should consider the downside, particularly for women, of having non-monogamous sex with guys who are also promiscuous including unwanted pregnancies, STDs, cervical cancer, and psychological issues related to intimacy.

Believe it or not, there is data available on this.

That's not data. It's anecdotal evidence. If you find that compelling, I suggest you read the book Unprotected by Dr. Miriam Grossman, Modern Sex: Liberation and Its Discontents by Myron Magnet, or A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue by Wendy Shalit. Lots of good anecdotes in all three demonstrating the problems you are ignoring.

Obviously, I am not advocating that twelve-year-old have sex. But there comes an age where it is better to have sex than to not have sex.

And what age is that, exactly? And why? And how would you react if I said that, instead, the argument should be, "There comes an age when it's better to be married than to not be married," or "There comes an age when t's better to have children then to not have children"?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

You want old fashioned? My wife and I courted. How’s that for old fashioned?

[Question_Assumptions]

Click on this link and read the comments.

So you are holding up the messages on a science fiction message board as an authority on the subject? As someone who has been to plenty of science fiction conventions (and has also been married for over 15 years and has two children), I can tell you that the problem with those people is not that they aren't having sex (and plenty of science fiction, fantasy, anime, and role-playing fans do have sleazy casual sex including at conventions, by the way) but that they have trouble forming sound relationships of any sort because they have socialization issues. Casual sex or losing their virginity isn't going to save them. Their problems are more than a trip to Nevada or Amsterdam and a few hundred dollars could solve for them. Even if they had sex, they'd still be the same lonely social outcast and might have a few more psychological issues to deal with, instead.

[trisham]

Why would anyone want to click on that link? We've already seen some of the vile things you've posted previously.

[Question_Assumptions]

Somewhere between twenty and thirty. Thirty and above are definitely too old.

And perhaps I should point out that that's the age span in which well-socialized people should be getting married and forming a long-term intimate relationship that will carry them through their adulthood? Trust me, a man or woman who is still hooking up in their 50s and 60s looks plenty pathetic, too, but that's where people who are still hooking up in their 30s and 40s are headed. And for women, if they get into their late 30s or 40s and still don't have children, they may never have them.

[Question_Assumptions]

Why would anyone want to click on that link? We've already seen some of the vile things you've posted previously.

It's a science fiction fan message board (or perhaps one just making fun of them). Either way, it's not like a lack of sex is their problem. A lack of sex and long term intimate relationships is a symptom of the problems those people have, not the problem, itself.

[dbz77]

Having casual sex with no intimacy or long term involvement is a lower standard for two reasons. Either the person is enjoying sex without missing a major component (intimacy) or they want intimacy and are settling for sex without it. Either way, sex without intimacy (which requires more than a fleeting introduction to a person) is a lower standard than sex with intimacy.

Yes. Everyone I know, myself included, prefer sex with people they love.

However, being a virgin at thirty and above is an even lower standard. Who wants that? Nobody I grew up with ever wanted that.

If the guys are getting what they want and the women aren't, then the women are being used. That seems pretty simple to me.

One of the things I want is to measure up to other people. One of the things I want is love. I prefer to have both, but I can have the first without the second.

But maybe you should consider the downside, particularly for women, of having non-monogamous sex with guys who are also promiscuous including unwanted pregnancies, STDs, cervical cancer, and psychological issues related to intimacy.

Fair enough. Teenagers do have a habit of only performing one-half of a cost/benefit analysis, especially on sexual issues.

The downsides of sex do decrease with age. After all, at fifty-five unplanned pregnancies are almost impossible.

And what age is that, exactly? And why?

Sometime between twenty and thirty. Certainly by thirty, everyone a person would meet would have had prior partners.

A lot of heartbreak and stress over finding a mate would not exist if everyone found a spouse at fourteen. But that is like wishing there was some magical force to prevent airplanes from crashing. In the real world, airplanes crash. In the real world, people who get married past twenty-five or so marry someone who have had prior sexual partners.

[dbz77]

Trust me, a man or woman who is still hooking up in their 50s and 60s looks plenty pathetic, too, but that's where people who are still hooking up in their 30s and 40s are headed.

Being a virgin at those ages is much more pathetic.

For some people, hooking up is the best of a bad situation. Not everyone finds someone to marry.

[trisham]

One problem that some of them seem to have is a lack of modesty.

[dbz77]

To have promiscuous and meaningless sex become socially acceptable means that the total breakdown of civilization is shortly at hand.

Marriage is better than promiscuous and meaningless sex.

Promiscuous and meaningless sex is better than being a virgin at ninety years old(and I suspect thirty years old as well.)

And just as there are people who face a choice between eating rotten food and starving to death, so there are people who face a choice between bad and much, much worse.

[Question_Assumptions]

However, being a virgin at thirty and above is an even lower standard. Who wants that? Nobody I grew up with ever wanted that.

So maybe the goal shouldn't be no sex or shallow sex but intimate sex with a person you love and will be with for a long time. The problem is that shallow sex is often detrimental to the goal of achieving the higher standard for a variety of reasons, thus by settling for the lower standard (out of fear of dying a virgin) people never reach the higher standard (and thus die lonely and used, instead). Yes, there are people who manage to transition from casual sex to a lasting faithful marriage but it has a corrosive effect on the odds of that happening over all. So we have a few less people who die unhappy virgins but also plenty more people who die never married, who get divorced, who never have children, and so on. Society would be better off with a few more disappointed virgins and less divorce, more intimacy, and more children.

One of the things I want is to measure up to other people. One of the things I want is love. I prefer to have both, but I can have the first without the second.

By grabbing at the first out of desperation, you move the second further away from your grasp. Patience and delayed gratification is part of adulthood. Or at least it once was. And society was better for it.

Fair enough. Teenagers do have a habit of only performing one-half of a cost/benefit analysis, especially on sexual issues.

It's even more than that. When society told girls it was objectively wrong to have sex before marriage and a shotgun marriage was always a possibility, a girl who didn't want to had sex always had a ready objective and impersonal way to say no to sex. Did premarital sex and abortion happen before the 1960s? Of course they did, but not as frequently and when the premarital sex resulted in a pregnancy, the woman held all of the cards and could get the guy to marry her.

But now if a guy wants sex and the girl really doesn't want to, what can she really say? Not with you? Not now? And as any guy knows, that can be worn down by making it a matter of personal rejection and feeling hurt, thus emotionally blackmailing the girl into sex. Plenty of girls are having sex that don't really want to. They are having sex for the wrong reasons and for bad reasons. Guys don't necessarily have the same problems but lets not pretend that young women aren't being used and aren't having any problems because of it.

The downsides of sex do decrease with age. After all, at fifty-five unplanned pregnancies are almost impossible.

The odds of a woman finding a guy willing to hook up with her for anything more than cheap casual sex while intoxicated also decreases with age for women.

Sometime between twenty and thirty. Certainly by thirty, everyone a person would meet would have had prior partners.

And what does it tell you if they don't?

A lot of heartbreak and stress over finding a mate would not exist if everyone found a spouse at fourteen. But that is like wishing there was some magical force to prevent airplanes from crashing. In the real world, airplanes crash. In the real world, people who get married past twenty-five or so marry someone who have had prior sexual partners.

And perhaps if society had different expectations or women made different demands, that wouldn't be the case? Things weren't always that way and don't have to remain that way until the end of time. So, no, it's not like a magical force preventing airplanes from crashing unless you can point to some time in the past when such a magic force existed and worked.

[Question_Assumptions]

Promiscuous and meaningless sex is better than being a virgin at ninety years old(and I suspect thirty years old as well.)

I should also add that there are plenty of priests and nuns who would disagree with you on that.