<p>What a weird turn this thread took last night!</p>
<p>I think it's fair to say that there are a lot of meaningful differences between "hook-up culture" and public serial-partner sex. 07DAD appropriately reminds us not to leap to conclusions even about the latter. But I have some relevant (vicarious) experience, too, and mine leads me to believe that public serial-partner sex is more likely than not a symptom -- not a cause -- of fairly significant problems with intimacy and commitment. The person I know best who was involved in that kind of thing had those problems at 12, before she ever became sexually active, and continues to have them at 45, more than two decades after she stopped "pulling trains". I'm pretty judgmental about the male participants, too. I think for them it's usually a very creepy form of male bonding, and has little if anything to do with the woman.</p>
<p>"Hook-up" is no strings attached, no relationship, could be a stranger, one-night-stand, as much or as many as you want. It generally is not used to refer to intimacy with someone who is a boyfriend, a date, good friend, a long distance romance, etc. It includes random encounters with people you have no relationship with. I'm not sure where we get from there to forced virginity as the alternative. Who here is espousing that people must be forced into virginity? That is all or nothing thinking- either we're OK with our kids picking up strangers in bars, or we force them into virginity?</p>
<p>And there's the rub. If one partner is a serial monogamist and the other is into hooking up, the health/emotional risks are shared. I worry that the "hook-up" culture as stated in the OP could pose risks for college-age people who are less promiscuous but fall for someone who's into hooking up. </p>
<p>My conclusion is timeless, I guess. Know the person you plan to be intimate with really well before you take that step.</p>
<p>Well, I'm not sure how we "know" that there's no intimacy with a hook-up.</p>
<p>I'll pose a hypothetical. (No sex involved.) You meet someone waiting for a plane. Plane is delayed. You have a lot of time. You know you'll never see each other again, but you chat, tell your stories, have a meal together. It just so happens you find a very sympatico person and feel your life is enriched by spending an evening in his company. You sit next to each other on the plane (other strangers are happy to trade seats.) Then you go your separate ways. You never knew his last name.</p>
<p>I consider that a very intimate encounter, and if sex were involved, even more so. There may even be feelings of love.</p>
<p>We are making a lot of assumptions about what people feel.</p>
<p>Now some people wouldn't feel comfortable with the above scenario so it would be silly for them to do it. (My D is one of those. She disdains hooking up.) Others would feel comfortable. Why judge this as wrong?</p>
<p>Maybe I'm missing something, but I still haven't really heard reasons why people think hooking-up is wrong, besides concerns about these people's ability to commit in the future. I understand that it's not the right decision for some people--I don't think anyone is denying that--but how come it's universally wrong? If both individuals involved feel safe, respected, and pleased with whatever happens, what's the problem?</p>
<p>doubleplay, your point is valid. There is lots of space between forced virginity and hook-ups, and that's the space where I think most young adults live most of the time. But I also think when people talk about hook-ups, it covers a much wider spectrum of encounters than you describe. (I think you know that, too, given how carefully you phrased your post.) </p>
<p>My impression is that true no-relationship encounters with strangers are pretty rare. I think people tend to hook up with people whom, in another generation, they would have "asked out". Maybe someone they just met at the party, sure, but more likely the cute boy/girl they've been noticing in Econ for a couple of weeks, or their best friend's boyfriend's friend. Or someone who's in their group already, or the next group over. Stuff like that.</p>
<p>I also suspect that the "no expectations" rule -- and that does seem like one of the rules -- gets violated all the time, by participants of either gender. I think the rule is not really "no expectations," but probably "no whining or guilt-tripping if your expectations aren't met, and no talking about whether your partner's expectations are in synch with yours."</p>
<p>What the article describes (and the limited information I get from two college men) is sex first, date/relationship next... maybe. Which is the opposite of what mythmom describes, which seems more like date first (sharing of ideas, feelings, etc.). The scene is prevelant in fraternities (I have two brothers who are brothers) and they DO have parties where ALL girls are invited but only brothers can attend. Guess why.<br>
The arrangement seems more like taking a car for a test drive, then seeing if you want to keep it. The author admits that men are happier with the system, while the ladies are not as satisfied. Pardon this, but really, for many young women it must get tiresome to keep getting their tires kicked.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If both individuals involved feel safe, respected, and pleased with whatever happens, what's the problem?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the way at least some of us are defining a 'hook-up' (i.e. a one-night stand and no relationship afterwards), how on earth would you know if the other person had felt safe, respected, and pleased with what happened, particularly as hook-ups often seem to involve copious amounts of alcohol?</p>
<p>That's why girls like my D don't go to those frat parties. She does not "want to have her tires kicked." But her friend, let's call her K, does go and enjoys herself. She has a strong sex drive, and she likes to party. She doesn't think she is doing for the guys. And she enjoys "no strings attached."</p>
<p>In fact, one of the reasons she does it, according to her, is that she gets to have sex with gorgeous, popular guys "out of her league", I guess something like movie stars to her.</p>
<p>My D, who supports and loves her unequivocally, sometimes shakes her head at her trophy hunting, but she accepts that her friend's values are different from her own.</p>
<p>Seems as if we now agree that there can be many reasons a person engages in casual sex (with one or more partners). As JHS mentioned, some people are driven to do something sexual that they otherwise would not do, but, just as my HS friend who became a nurse shows, a female can have good reasons for her "unconventional" sexual choices. </p>
<p>QUERY: why didn't anyone mention the males who are on the train? Is "self loathing" a female only thing?</p>
<p>Some comments mention STD's and alcohol as a reason that casual sex is a questionable choice. I have previously posted on this thread and others that I have counseled my S that consensual sex is only where no alcohol or drugs is involved. I received a pm on that one from a female who observed that this requirement to be consensual would make a lot of married sex "rape." My point was that the "consent" needs to be real, not induced.</p>
<p>I agree with the posters who just believe that consensual sexual choices (even if not one they would make) are just that: choices. And, many of us just do not see that the risk of being hurt or used exists where the participants are going into it with open eyes (and protection).</p>
<p>I would not criticize a person for not having casual sex, nor would I criticize them if the did engage. If their reasons WHY they value abstinance or exclusivity or value a group, random and/or frequent casual sexual experience do not seem like good ones to me, well its really not for me to decide for someone else, is it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Pardon this, but really, for many young women it must get tiresome to keep getting their tires kicked.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It takes two. Or possibly more, if we want to go there, but my point is that the women are willing participants (if it is not consensual, that is a whole different matter - I'm presuming that we are talking about consensual encounters here). They aren't victims; they have agency. If they don't like the idea, or are tired of it, they can always not do it. I wasn't interested in hook-ups, so I didn't participate in them. I was interested in committed relationships that progressed at a pace I was comfortable with (i.e. slowly), so I did participate in those, once I finally figured out how to ask someone out semi-gracefully, tell if someone was interested in me, etc. :)</p>
<p>There are different kinds of hookups. Some are with strangers. Some are with friends. An intense make-out session with your friend whom you think is wildly attractive, but don't want a romantic relationship with, is not quite the same situation as being "passed around" a party full of strangers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
how on earth would you know if the other person had felt safe, respected, and pleased with what happened
[/quote]
You could say that you can't really be sure what the other person was thinking or feeling about any situation. Not being able to read minds isn't limited to casual sex. You do what you can: you check in with the other person, ask questions, don't make all the moves yourself, use protection when appropriate, and generally act in a respectful manner. As Jessie said, it takes two. If someone's not feeling safe or respected, they have the power and ability to say so (not talking about rape situations, which are obviously different). I know guys and girls who have politely gone home or walked the other person out after deciding, for whatever reason, that they didn't want to continue the encounter. If someone doesn't feel safe or respected, that's what they should do. In most cases, though, if you treat someone with respect, they will feel as if they were treated with respect. You can tell pretty well how a person feels by how they're acting. Anyone who suddenly gets quiet or stops participating has a problem; it's hard to miss. On the other hand, an active participant is choosing to participate. The way the other person feels in two days or two moths is usually a different issue, and that's out of the control of the partner. </p>
<p>A lot of posters seem to be talking about this issue as if the men are in control and are taking advantage of women. That's not the case at all. I agree with Jessie above. Women aren't being coerced or used any more than the men are, at least at least in the types of consensual encounters I have been talking about.</p>
<p>I also just wanted to add that I think JHS is exactly right on this:
[quote]
I think the rule is not really "no expectations," but probably "no whining or guilt-tripping if your expectations aren't met, and no talking about whether your partner's expectations are in synch with yours."
<p>07DAD: "consent" needs to be real, not induced</p>
<p>Separate and apart from alcohol and drugs, isn't consent a very thorny question/issue? At what point does surrender to repeated subtle (and not so subtle) pressure cross the line from consent to - - - well, something else?</p>
<p>Also, I think the frequency of no-relationship encounters increases dramatically for students who are not on isolated campuses. Sure, if you're attending an LAC of 1500 in VT and the nearest neighbor college is 2hrs away, you're likely to have laid eyes on your hook-up partner. But that's far less likely at a large uni or at colleges w/i shouting distance of each other (Wellesley/MIT/Harvard, Smith/Amherst/UMass/MHC/Hampshire, the Claremonts, Lehigh/Lafayette, etc.). And alcohol is almost always involved.</p>
<p>I am confused. This is and always was a college info site, right? Why are we discussing things that, quite frankly should be on sites where I would never venture. This is not the place for this, and merely placing it under the guise of an intellectual discussion doesn not make it so. In fact, this is quite prurient and has not place here. I find discussing anyone's sexual pasts with a bunch of strangers totally inconceivable and incredibly inappropriate. And how can any parent think that discussing their children in this way is OK? Children deserve at least this much privacy. TMI!</p>
<p>In my opinion, aspiring college students need information about all aspects of college life, including sexual interactions on college campuses; and it is much better to learn it from a reputable source, such as College Condifential, where its historical, ethical and medical aspects are discussed in depth. Several posters on this thread provide a very insightful perspective and they seem extremely well informed, apparently they speak from experience, not just their own but also their friends, children or parents. Young women and men should know that casual chain sex with multiple partners can facilitate relationships, become a source of pride and compassion, even live saving experience! They should consider that STD wont kill them and a little herpes is just an inconvenience compared to a life full of memories. Sexual education is a very sensitive subject and I am sure that no one wants their kids to dig into porno sites for information; they should take advantage of a CC forum instead.</p>
<p>As a high school teacher, I have recommended this site to my students and their parents for advice on COLLEGE. This type of thread places any teacher's or counselor's judgment into question and job into jeopardy. This is not the purpose of this site, as I understand it. If it is, then it needs to be rated differently and explained more accurately. I am sincerely sorry to see this happen to a site where my students and I were able, in the past, to gather the information that we needed.</p>
<p>I understand exactly what you're saying ejr. That's a very valid point, especially coming from a teacher. </p>
<p>It's not as if the student has to wander into the Parent's Forum to find this thread. Each time there's a new post, it bumps up on the Latest Posts on the Discussion Menu.</p>
<p>ejr1 has a point. I think that I could make some parents very upset with me if I were to recommend this site to their kids and they read some of this stuff. I'll be careful who I recommend CC to in the future -- and if I do, I'll have to remember to give a warning. I'm not at all sure I'll even admit to some people that I post here after reading this thread and the toilets one . . .</p>
<p>OTOH, I'm still trying to get a handle on <em>the life saving</em> aspects of chain or group sex. I have to say, I have never thought of it that way before. Hadn't thought that much about chain sex really at all before now . . .</p>