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 often heartbreak.

Society needs to start compromising on what is and what is not acceptable. Times have changed. Kids are no longer marrying right out of high school. Sex is a need that needs to be sated, and we have to instead educate our kids and stop trying to scare them to death about it.

Now, here is the other hand of the token.

Women need to come to terms with the fact that although sex is just swell and more accepted today, it has the great opportunity to bring a living being into the world, and it should be respected. If you want to sleep with a different guy every night, fine, but do me a favor and don't do it for feminism. Honestly, the real feminists would be offended. Sex *is* definitely a big deal, and those who say its not are simply jaded and desensitized from what it should be about.

Women used to kill themselves if they had a baby out of wedlock because they were so afraid of society's after lash. The term "love child" is very literal. Women used to follow their hearts, have sex with the men they loved, and an accident occurred that society then deemed a “sin.� The child had no chance at a decent life because they were considered bastard children. It was really traumatic.

Basically: we can’t forget why we established feminism in the first place. There is a balance that we're missing here that I hope the feminists today try to bring back instead of just making it all about sexuality. Hell, some “feminists� supported Clinton even though the guy broke his vows & cheated on his wife. We should have been on HER side.

I certainly hope women liked Lucy Stone didn’t just fight so we could spread our legs without penalty. Besides, you still have to look at yourself in the mirror.

Freedom + Responsibility = Balance

Feminism is about empowering ourselves with choices so we never have our backs against the wall again.

I certainly hope women liked Lucy Stone didn’t just fight so we could spread our legs without penalty. Besides, you still have to look at yourself in the mirror.

I don't quite understand what you are getting at in this post. Are you saying that we should be penalized for "spreading our legs?" And, BTW, nice turn of phrase, not one I frequently hear from feminists. Also, I've never had any problem looking myself in the mirror after any sexual encounter. Are you saying that women should be ashamed after casual sex? Also, most women, and certainly all the feminists I know, do understand that sex can cause pregnancy, and respect that fact. That's why feminists push for easy access to reliable birth control.

Feminism isn't all about sexuality. If you read this blog regularly you'd see that. And I think most feminists don't want to spend so much time dealing with sexuality, but we have no choice, as there are constant attacks on our sexual autonomy, and that includes our right to privacy. Personally, I wish we didn't have to worry about this stuff and could work on equal pay, but it's not going away anytime soon, not with all the abstinence education and slut-shaming going on out there.

I'd just like to point out that during the ever-sexually-repressed Victorian era, one of the treatments for "female hysteria" functioned suspiciously like a vibrator.

Chew on that for a while.

I'd rather have a passionate debate over coffee for a first "date" and then wild sex a week or so afterwards...

Oh fuck yes. That is my idea of the perfect start to a relationship.

"Sex *is* definitely a big deal, and those who say its not are simply jaded and desensitized from what it should be about."

And it's a "big deal" according to.....? And what *should* it be about exactly? If it is my body and my sexuality then I can make it about whatever I want, big deal or not. Other than consensual, I would have a pretty hard time generalizing to women what sex *should* be. But then again, maybe I'm just a shameful, jaded leg-spreader.

I don't quite understand what you are getting at in this post.

I don't mean social punishment, but self-punishment. I honestly think that a girl who sleeps around is probably a girl who has self-esteem issues. The only way she likes herself is when a man finds her attractive and wants to jump her bones. She wants to be prettier than her peers. The next thing you know, flings turn into a habit she needs to feed in order to feel good about herself. I don't really think a girl actively thinks, "wow, I need an ego boost, lets go find myself a man,� but every time we flip through a magazine or see a makeup commercial on TV, women are portrayed as this sex object we have to live up to. Somewhere along the line, I think the teen and early 20s generation feel like they need to live up to that.

And that is what I mean by penalty. Hating yourself is by far the worst.

Feminism isn't all about sexuality. If you read this blog regularly you'd see that.

From what I’ve read, I don’t think that this blog is the kind of feminism that gets involved politically… and by that I mean abortion rights. Politically, that’s all feminists seem to be talking about. Which of course, leads to sex and life styles. They’ve lost sight of the equal pay, which I also find very important.

And I think most feminists don't want to spend so much time dealing with sexuality, but we have no choice, as there are constant attacks on our sexual autonomy, and that includes our right to privacy.

Augh, I totally agree. Here is my concern: Somewhere along the line, feminist allowed it to be OK for women to make themselves out as sex icons. What bums me out is the latest generations: Teenagers who are like 13 years old, wearing fishnets and mini skirts at the movie theater. They’re putting their sexuality on display. They are walking sexual attacks. And of course, you can’t really have privacy when you are dishin’ out all your goods. It’s one thing if someone is 25 years old and chooses to do that. But at 13, you can hardly defend yourself or your morals, which are hardly established at that point.

I go back to the magazines and what women are being portrayed as today. Sex icons. And that is where I really hope the feminists take a stand and let the younger generations know there is more to being a woman than sex. Because they are oblivious.

Every woman today represents feminism. If all the newer generations only pick up the sexuality part, something was definitely lost in translation.

Thanks for your feedback…

"I honestly think that a girl who sleeps around is probably a girl who has self-esteem issues. The only way she likes herself is when a man finds her attractive and wants to jump her bones."

Is it not possible that she could just enjoy sex? Are you talking about girls or women? I can understand how it could be problematic for girls, but then again that may not be because of the sex but rather because of the slut/stud mentality. Women, on the other hand, I would not describe as having self-esteem issues because they enjoy sex, casual or otherwise.

As far as what is on this blog, do you read it regularly? Because I know I learn about all kinds of different issues facing women and feminists. However, it does feed off of what is in the media so it makes sense if it seems like it covers a lot of reproductive rights and sexuality.

"Here is my concern: Somewhere along the line, feminist allowed it to be OK for women to make themselves out as sex icons. What bums me out is the latest generations: Teenagers who are like 13 years old, wearing fishnets and mini skirts at the movie theater. They’re putting their sexuality on display. They are walking sexual attacks."

Feminism made it okay for women to define and enjoy their own sexuality. You seem to be conflating sexual autonomy with the brand of sexuality portrayed in the media, and the last time I checked women, particularly feminists, were largely not running the show. And describing teenage girls "walking sexual attacks" based on their clothing? Victim-blaming much?

And describing teenage girls "walking sexual attacks" based on their clothing? Victim-blaming much?

Yeah, I guess I am. It's a whole different story when we choose the covers we wear. If you walk around naked because you want guys to find you attractive and desirable, and then get angry because you get hit on... does that make any sense? If privacy is important to you, that is just counter-productive.

It's an entirely different situation if you walk around naked because you are trying to save the environment or something :) But lets be realistic here. Most girls who flaunt themselves want to look good and want to be popular.

I'm OK with a woman's choice.

I'm not OK with a young girl who has casual sex. I include college girls in this mix. I think someone is communicating the wrong message and fighting against feminist cause.

Obviously maturity plays an important role, but I think today's youth are taking "advice" from the wrong women.

Hope that clarifies. Thanks for your comments.

I am going to have to do a little more research on some of your feminist jargon, so I can keep up :)

Most of what I have to say is just my own personal opinion. I came from a very strict family where sex was never discussed and because of that, got me into trouble. I feel education is so important as well as blending healthy sexual natures into our society without all the afterlash.

Some people think of sex as just another fun thing to do. Others think of it as a deep emotional bond.

Can't it be both? Another fun thing to do with someone you're not in a relationship with, a form of emotional bonding for someone you are in a relationship with? I've had casual sex and felt nothing on an emotional level, and I've had sex with somebody I loved and had it be an amazing emotional experience. Why does it have to be either or?

I also dislike this idea that women are always hurt by casual sex and men never are. Neither are true. I've known men who got attached to someone they were just sleeping with, and got hurt when she didn't feel the same way, and I've known women (including myself) who can have sex with a man and walk away unaffected. Why is this always a gendered thing?

If a girl walks around "flaunting" her body because she wants attention then flirty or suggestive looks or comments are one thing. However, sexually aggressive and threatening comments or physical "attacks" are inexcusable, regardless of her fishnets.

"I'm not OK with a young girl who has casual sex. I include college girls in this mix. I think someone is communicating the wrong message and fighting against feminist cause."

So college women (usually 18-25 years old) should not have casual sex? I am in that age range and I am too damn busy for a relationship but that does not mean I should have to put my sexuality on hold until after I finish my PhD in six years. I mean, even according to you, we "aren't meant to suppress the sexual urge for that long." Though I would disagree that it leads to raping little boys.

Mostly, I just don't understand your interpretation of the feminist cause and how women's sexuality and sexual autonomy somehow sends a contrary message. I am not saying that pole-dancing or sleeping with a different person every night are feminist acts themselves. However, I do think it is feminist for a woman to claim her body, her identity, and her sexuality for herself and her own enjoyment, in spite of the shame and social restrictions so often placed on female sexuality.

under_zenith: It could, presumably, but for many people, it is and always is a deep emotional bond. My problem is not with people deciding what sex means to them-- that's good and healthy. My problem is when people start deciding what sex means or should mean to everyone else. Sex will always be something deep, personal, and requiring a loving and commited partner for me, and while I accept that others do not feel that way, I can't help but feel bothered when people start saying how I should just "get over it" and have sex for fun, without emotions, just for the experience or something.

And I agree about the gender issue. I was talking about women mostly because the article was, but the truth is, men and women are about equally divided on the subject and I know men who think that sex outside of some kind of a loving relationship would be unfathomable for them. Actually men might even be hurt more by today's culture because there is an allowance, if an unfair one, made for women who don't have much sex (they're "good girls") but men feel an enormous pressure to have sex and have no real excuses for not having it except "I can't get girls to sleep with me," which often causes more problems than it solves.

Men and boys are conspicuously missing from your scenarios, ModernFemme.

Would you give them similar advice? And if not, is there a reason you're not as worried about their self-esteem, mental stability, emotional maturity, decision-making abilities, and processes of reason?

Because as far as I can tell, you're just reiterating the slut-shaming arguments we're supposed to have overcome: a girl who has a lot of sex must feel ashamed and empty and hate herself, because if she were the smart, wholesome sort, she'd have realized that her worth rides on her sexuality and kept her legs together.

You can say whatever you want about a failure to educate and communicate with young girls and feminism needing to take a stand against senseless exploitation; we'll all agree with you. But assuming that the miscommunication lies in young women's inability to think straight and make informed decisions, and not in society's unwillingness to trust them to think straight and provide the information they need, is just taking us back to square one. Oh noes, a teenage girl had sex; stuff them all into turtlenecks and and abolish the condom, because there's no way that could have been the right choice for her. She's a cheerleader, for God's sake! What does she know? Never mind about the boy; he's a nice kid. Plays baseball. He won't get into any trouble -- he's going places. Boys will be boys, you know; he'll striaghten out. But look at her! How did she know she wouldn't get pregnant? She could have messed up her entire future! I'd keep an eye on her. You know how that type usually ends up.

A girl can have casual sex and be glad she did. A guy can be responsible and respectful of her. If we don't take that as the new paradigm, if we keep harping on her self-esteem and his natural sex drive, her short skirt and his porn collection, we'll revert back to the old double standard a lot faster than it took us to crawl as marginally far ahead of it as we are now.

I'm not OK with a young girl who has casual sex. I include college girls in this mix. I think someone is communicating the wrong message and fighting against feminist cause. Obviously maturity plays an important role, but I think today's youth are taking "advice" from the wrong women

I guess that's me--one of the wrong women. Because I think there's nothing wrong with college women having whatever sex they want, and younger ones too, if they're mature enough for it. What do you think is going to happen to these young women? If they use consistently use birth control, condoms, and are vaccinated with Gardasil, nothing all that terrible is going to happen. Other than being called a slut. I don't think most of them are unhappy and embarrassed about it, either, except maybe if they drink too much and make a dumb choice. But that's what the right wing wants to change, they can't stand it that young women are having sex without consequences. "Bring back slut-shaming! Make the Pill too expensive to afford! Make them fear pregnancy!" I don't understand why they care so much, unless they never had any fun when they were young and hate the idea that anyone else is enjoying themselves.

Part of the feminist cause is that women should own their own bodies, should own their sexuality, and be beholden to no one. I'm sorry, ModernFemme, that you were raised in a straightlaced home that so affected your outlook. But it still seems to be affecting your outlook. What you've said here is contradictory--on the one hand, you say people shouldn't stay virgins until marriage, and on the other, you say that women shouldn't have sex until they're 25. You've also made a lot of slut-shaming and victim-blaming comments. I think your heart is in the right place, but you need to think a bit more about what feminism means. It's not just about equal pay, although that's very important. It's about being a person equal to any man, in every way. Replace all the "girls" in your posts with "boys" and see if it makes any sense. I told my husband about your post, and he said that back when he was having casual sex, if he were to look in the mirror, he would have given himself two big thumbs up. Women should feel that way too. I did. (I'm a happily married monogamous woman now.) And I'm not ashamed or embarrassed. I'm just glad I had the opportunity. I hope it's not taken away from the next generation.

Brava, Misspelled and BluePencils.

ModernFemme, your description of young women who have casual sex sounds like a bad afterschool special. And saying that a woman who wants her privacy oughtn't be walking around in tanktops or short skirts is strange. I didn't know that if I wear a low-cut shirt that all of my personal business is suddenly fair game. Thanks for the warning. And what is so terribly wrong with a young woman wanting to look good or be popular? I like to look good. I like to be liked. I'm not sure what that has to do with fishnet stockings, but generally, I don't think those things are as awful as you seem to think. Along with enjoying their sexuality, you seem to want to indict women for wanting to have a place in the public sphere. I mean, surely good girls want to blend! They don't want everyone noticing them or engaging with them. Women have sex. There is nothing remotely wrong with that.

Basiorana: I sort of understand where you're coming from. I get all ruffled when I hear people who have open marriages insinuate that I'm deluding myself or that I'm just naive or dumb if I really believe that a) Mr. KMP will be faithful to me always, b) that he'll be satisfied staying faithful to me, and/or c) that the same is true for me. That pisses me off. If they want people to accept that monogamy simply isn't realistic or desirable for them in their relationships, I'd appreciate it if they'd accept that for some people monogamy is realistic and desirable, and that it is in some people's nature to be monogamous, and not just b/c of some idea of being raised to believe that love is jealous.

So I get what you mean about being shistey hearing that all people want casual sex at some point if that doesn't match your experience. I just wanted to let you know that someone here does hear you on that level.

Beyond that, I'm kind of surprised to have the possibility of emotionless sex within the context of a relationship not acknowledged here. I am deeply in love with Mr. KMP. But sometimes, we're just fucking. It's not like all relationship sex is deep and meaningful. And it's not like you can't have a one night stand that doesn't move you on a deeper level. Sex is many things to many people at many different times in many different ways. Conservatives just hate that it can be so complex...b/c it's just supposed to make babies...and maybe be enjoyable for men, right?

And why is sex always the culprit when it comes to a broken heart? I had a relationship in high school that never went beyond kissing. Like, not even making out or groping. And we were both devastated when we broke up. It took me years to heal from that, and I know it took him even longer. People in relationships get hurt. A lot of the time. Sex usually has little to do with it.

I'm 32, which may or may not put me outside the demographic Stepp was talking about, and I've been on maybe four dates in my whole life, most of which were with people with whom I was already in relationships of one sort or another. I don't have the patience for the tedious social rituals involved with dating; I'm as likely to approach a guy and ask him if he wants to do something as I am winding up in bed with someone on what you might call "the first date." Sometimes that turns into a relationship with duration, sometimes not.

On the other hand, I'm not one of these people who attaches great metaphysical import to sex (or anything else, for that matter). I liked one of the upthread commenters' phrasings that casual sex was "masturbation with a partner." I agree totally. Sometimes your hand (and/or your Plastic Pal Who's Fun to Be With™) just won't do it. I suppose because I don't make sex into this metaphysical Big Deal, I don't quite get the deal that "young girls," whoever those are, might not be mature enough to deal with sex. If someone is mature enough to use birth control responsibly, resist peer pressure (even if it comes from a prospective partner) effectively, and to realise when push comes to shove that maybe a bad breakup isn't the end of the world after all, what, pray tell, is the problem? (And what are these people's major malfunctions?)

FWIW, the worst breakup I ever had was when I was 25, which is well into adulthood by anybody's definition -- by that time, I'd attained two degrees and was working full-time, living on my own, and conducting my own, independent life, and had been for years. Based on my own experience, I'm not so sure there's a correlation between youth and inexperience and the things in romantic relationships that are going to emotionally kneecap a person.

Also, for what it's worth, I'm not "jaded" or "desensitised" -- I went into sex (at the age of 18, with a much older partner who made it his business to do right by me) with basically the same attitude about it as I have now. And if there are people out there who are having casual sex and aren't enjoying it as much as they should be, whatever are they doing it for? I hate to open up yet another feminist can of worms, but yet another thing I don't get is why anyone would bother having sex if they didn't feel like they had a reasonable chance of attaining the maximal amount of pleasure of which they were physically capable. Maybe it's just my hypercompetitive nature (yep, a woman with a hypercompetitive nature, bite me, Stepp), but if I'm in it, I'm in it to win it...

1. This article is complete and total bullshit, but that territory's been covered already. Brava, fellow Feministing commenters.

2. If we supposedly live in some sort of amoral hook-up culture, then why am I -- as one of those pro-choice, pro-orgasm, pro-sexual freedom skanks -- heading into my 23rd year of involuntary abstinence? Has my healthy, no-commitment relationship with my vibrator used up my finite oxytocin supply, thus dooming me to wonder what the big sexy fuss is about? ALAS.

I just graduated from college in May. I can count on one hand the number of dates I went on that didn't lead up to sex. Most of the time, the sex came before the relationship. And it wasn't just me. It was my whole circle of friends, smart and pretty girls who felt like we were taking charge of our own sexuality by having sex with the people we chose.

I don't think it's bad to hook up. I think that we should be able to do what we want to do. But I do also think that there's a difference between being totally in control and using sex as a tool to be accepted and, eventually, loved by a guy.

I just think, if you're going to engage in hooking up, you need to have some self-respect and confidence. Otherwise, you risk getting in over your head, and that's when the mental health crisis starts.

"Women's sexual organs are much more complex"

Christ on a pogo stick, I am so sick of this garbage. It's not difficult to get a woman off - any more so than getting a man off anyway. This "complex" baloney was started by sexually incompetent boys, I'm convinced. They couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it must be IMPOSSIBLE!

Please.

@lunalelle: Or you could buy the book, and display it on a suitably prominent shelf?

@EG:
Dead on about our male-oriented definitions of sex. To add to that, consider how we as a society define when the sexual act "ends," or how many "times" we've had it. It ain't based on the female orgasm, that's for damn sure.

If masturbation made people less able to bond with others, the entire world would be populated by narcissists.

@ModernFemme
What bums me out is the latest generations: Teenagers who are like 13 years old, wearing fishnets and mini skirts at the movie theater. They’re putting their sexuality on display. They are walking sexual attacks. And of course, you can’t really have privacy when you are dishin’ out all your goods.

While you're complaining about a culture and media that encourages younger and younger girls to display themselves in a sexualized manner, I don't see you complaining about how that same culture and media teaches boys that they're entitled to help themselves to what's on display. Stores display their goods, too, but if people steal from them, no one claims the store had it coming for flaunting its wares so brazenly. Why do you suppose that is?

Additionally, while there are definitely women who use sex to prop up a flagging self-esteem, or self-flagellate over having sex even when it was sex they wanted and enjoyed, these are both the fault of a culture where women are inundated throughout their lives with endless repetitions of the old virgin/whore dicotomy, not of the women themselves. Don't fault women for actually absorbing the lessons society has gone to such great lengths to teach them.

I don't see you complaining about how that same culture and media teaches boys that they're entitled to help themselves to what's on display.

I didn't explicity come out and say it, but this falls into the "something needs to change in society" comment.

While women are taught that to have sex is whorish, men are taught that "Scoring" only makes them cool, and from a gender-perspective, it is EXPECTED for men to have had sex at the very least in their teenage years.

Now, if all the women are supposed to keep their legs closed, how is this supposed to ever happen?

The double-standard needs to go. It's always been a huge society screw-up. To me, society has always made sex OK unless caught. And by that I mean, getting pregnant.

They are walking sexual attacks.

Wait, what? Teenage girls wearing miniskirts and fishnets are sexual attacks? Oh, how horrible! I shudder to think how many innocents I attacked when I was a teenager by dressing so outre.

Sexual attacks are violent assaults, usually made on girls/women by boys/men. Girls dressing up really doesn't compare.

Wait, what? Teenage girls wearing miniskirts and fishnets are sexual attacks?

There have been a zillion unfortunate situations where kids who dress like woman are hit on by men who obviously want a piece, and they don't bother to even tell them they are only 13. They have been seduced, flattered. Next thing you know, you've got a family who thinks their kid is a whore or, worse... a victim... and the man is in jail.

I'm tired of the bullshit when kids are concerned. Kids who dress like woman are putting themselves and others they want to attract in bad positions.

I'm not saying they deserve to be victims. That's silly. I am saying they are making themselves victims.

They are making themselves victims.

A girl cannot victimize herself.

Kids who dress like woman [sic] are putting...others they want to attract in bad positions.

Last I checked, it's up to an of-age person to ask for ID. I don't go around sleeping with people without making sure I know how old they are. That's not a minor's responsibility. And saying that a child who dresses in a sexualized (the sexualization of which is the action of other people) manner is actively soliciting male sexual attention is victim blaming at its most predictable and boring.

There have been a zillion unfortunate situations where kids who dress like woman are hit on by men who obviously want a piece, and they don't bother to even tell them they are only 13. They have been seduced, flattered. Next thing you know, you've got a family who thinks their kid is a whore or, worse... a victim... and the man is in jail.

So it's all the bad girl's fault for not dressing properly and misleading the man into thinking she's of age? Bullshit. Men who rape children--and 13-year-olds cannot consent to adults--are scum. As a mature adult, it's up to the man to find out beyond a shadow of a doubt whether or not the woman he's after is of age.

I am saying they are making themselves victims.

No. Predatory men make them into victims. Wearing a miniskirt and fishnets for fun is not "victimizing" oneself. I can tell you that from personal experience.

Next thing you know, you've got a family who thinks their kid is a whore or, worse... a victim... and the man is in jail.

Men who fuck underage girls belong in jail. And...I'm not sure where you're going with "it's worse to be a victim than a whore" thing. Obviously, it sucks to be a victim of rape.

Seriously--do you really think that grown men rape underage girls because the girls are wearing miniskirts?

Kathy Parker fails to remember that HPV is a virus, which means that it can be transmitted through non-sexual contact.

Seriously--do you really think that grown men rape underage girls because the girls are wearing miniskirts?

Nope, I'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying that girls who dress like hot sexah woman want attention and when they get it, often LIE about their age so they can move to the next step, or just to be more accepted.

I had a friend in the military who actually was dismissed from the army and almost went to jail because he slept with a girl who was underage. However, she told him she was 19, and definitely looked older with the getup and makeup she was wearing. She turned out to be 17. He was also 19.

This has nothing to do with rape. This has to do with underage woman sexing themselves up to get a guy, have consensual sex because they want to feel oh-so-good, and then their parents find out and go apeshit.

Oh, and the poor guy goes to jail :)

You are saying the GUY is an asshole? Am I understanding you right?

Give me a break :)

I just think young girls should hold off when it comes to casual sex. They can't control parents pressing charges if they aren't happy with her lifestyle...

and the men are then responsible for BOTH of our decisions.

xo,
Modern Femme

Last I checked, it's up to an of-age person to ask for ID. I don't go around sleeping with people without making sure I know how old they are

Hahahahaha!! That is the funniest thing I ever heard. "Baby, I am so going to jump your bones... by the way, can I see some ID?"

I like how your imaginary 13 year old has suddenly turned 17 to strengthen your argument.

It's up to the individual to make sure that their sex partners are old enough to consent. If there is any doubt, don't do it. Problem solved. Unless you're an entitled asshole who believes that he is entitled to fuck anyone who looks old enough, of course.

I'm not saying they deserve to be victims. That's silly. I am saying they are making themselves victims.

Sort of a contradiction, no?

At first you were talking about little girls and in your next story it's older teenagers.

Thirteen year old girls don't usually make their own money to buy clothes (fishnets and mini-skirts); their PARENTS are in the wrong if anyone is. I won't buy any daughter of mine "womanly" clothes, but thirteen year olds are not to blame when it's their braindead parents who allow them to dress age-inappropriately.

And it's pretty fucked up that you hold young girls to this standard of dress & behavior but when someone suggests that maybe the GROWN MEN preying on them should be held to a higher decent/ethical standard all you can do is laugh.

While this has nothing to do with an article about college women...

I actually agree about what very young people are wearing. If you're an adult, you and your peers should be mature enough that you can wear whatever you want. But in high school? Middle school? I really don't think school kids in general understand that they can suffer negative consequences for their attire.

Is it their fault somehow if they get raped? Of COURSE not. Should we be encouraging them to sexualize themselves more than your average adult before their period stabilizes? Of course not.

The truth is, many men do see 14, 15 year old girls who can't consent to sex and because of the way they dress and act they assume the girl is an adult. They should check, this is wrong, but if you admit that a girl is too young to consent you should also admit that she is too young to know the consequences from a "harmless" fling with an older man, often too young to understand things like birth control. And they're often driven by a desire for affection and attention and wanting to feel like they are in "love" which are dangerous.

And by the way, when I was 13 I took my dad shopping with me because he couldn't come into the dressing room and I could buy clothes that looked like they covered a lot more than they actually did. Then I would wear a sweatshirt over them. At that age, people were constantly mistaking me for 18, 21, etc because my body matured quickly and I was tall. I was smart enough to get away if someone started hitting on me, but I am just saying, all of you claiming that thirteen year old girls can't buy their own clothes or that no one in their right mind would mistake a 13 year old for an adult unless they were willfully ignoring the matter? I got offered a wine list by a waiter in a restaurant when I was 12. And I wasn't even trying to dress "adult" at the time.

@ Basiorana

You explained that way better than me :)

All of this makes a difference... how? It is contingent upon adults -male and female -to be sure that their sexual partners are capable of consent, i.e. are old enough, sober enough, awake enough... anyone who feels like this is too much responsibility should not be having sex. And I have no sympathy for the 'poor victim' who just couldn't keep his penis out of the teenager long enough to check her ID. Possession of a penis does not magically make you less responsible for your actions.

Do you see how I keep placing responsibility back on the ADULTS in this equation? Talking about slutty teen fashion only functions to abdicate adults who take advantage. I won't play that game.

It's not a kid's fault in any way unless she blatantly lies to the guy (fake ID etc), but that doesn't mean she should be encouraged to sexualize herself. Letting girls dress "sexy" teaches them that their most valuable asset is their body and they should use it to make boys and men like them (and that it is crucial to their own happiness that boys and men like them), when we should be teaching them to value their accomplishments and their minds. If when they are older they decide that they want to dress sexily then they have a right, but when they are still young, parents, teachers, counselors, and mentors should not encourage them to sexualize themselves.

This has gotten very off topic. To clarify, I still think that college women are mature enough to make their own decisions, whether that is for casual sex or for sex within romantic relationships or to wait until marriage.

I agree that overly sexualized clothing, especially for young girls, gives them the wrong message about what makes them valuable. I will certainly monitor that when I have a teen girl and will hopefully have conversations making this explicit to her.

I still hatehatehate the fact that, from the very dawn of their sexual feeling, the onus is placed on girls to dress respectably (or not), act responsibly, and to take the blame for any outcomes where sex is concerned. It's an old double-standard, but that doesn't make it sting any less.

And then when they get old enough to actually consent they are saddled with all of these lies about how damaged they will be if they are sexually expressive. And they are given messages about sexuality and responsibility that boys and young men are never given.

The imbalance is so profound that I'm tempted to say let's stop trying to control girls' sexuality for a while, lay off the talk about the slutty clothing (for instance), and work on the boys for a change, by trying to teach them to respect their partners and learn to control themselves just as much as women have been forced to through the ages. It doesn't seem to have been seriously attempted up to this point.

That is the funniest thing I ever heard. "Baby, I am so going to jump your bones... by the way, can I see some ID?"

I suppose it depends on whether or not you're such an asshole that you think that running the risk of raping a child is worth not having to alter the mood of what you hope will be a one-night stand.

What you're saying here is that we can't expect men to adhere to even a minimal standard of decent human behavior. If that's the case, then men's rights and privileges should be abrogated, not girls'.

sgzax: I intend to do both-- discourage my daughters from slutty clothing AND teach my sons to respect their partners and control themselves.

My feelings about all of this in a nutshell:

I don't think we as women will be able to get through to men about the doublestandard placed upon us in regards to sex, until we start taking some responsibility for our actions. In most of the comments, no matter what, we are placing the blame on men, and that is unfair. We are just as intelligent. We are just as human. We are just as equal.

Until then, we get over blaming everyone else for our actions, no one will take us seriously. IMO.

Just one little thing: Last year, my sister and grandmother were talking. My sister was in a very serious relationship with the first man she'd ever had sex with- they were months away from becoming engaged. My grandmother told her not to make the same mistakes that she did.
She told us that the only reason she married my grandfather was to have sex; they dated, were engaged, and got married within 8 months. She told my sister that if she'd had the opportunity to date and have premarital sex before (or after) meeting my grandfather, she never would have married him.
If that doesn't prove those antiquated ideals wrong, then I guess I'll just never understand.