-
USCKhan said...
I think what Morethanafan is missing is the evidence, that the 'Hookup Culture' does have a real affect upon women and men and larger society. Multiple studies have shown that sex, either too early or with too many partners presents later problems in terms of the increased likelihood to divorce;
"According to a new study, women who are sexually active early in their adolescence--specifically, before age 16--are more likely to divorce.
Researchers at the University of Iowa used the responses of 3,793 women who are married or have been married at some point in their lives from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth to examine the relationship between the age at which they had their first sexual experience, and the success of their first marriage.
At first glance, the findings seemed alarming: multiple outlets (including this one), reported that up to 47 percent of women who lost their virginity during their teen years divorced within 10 years of getting married--implying that women who lose their virginity during adolescence will inevitably face conflict in their later adult relationships.
In fact, while the age at which sex first occurred was significant in determining women’s likelihood to divorce, more important was whether that sex qualified as “wanted." That's because the earlier women had their first sexual experience, the less frequently the sex was actually wanted. In short, the study's conclusions were less about the correlation between when a girl loses her virginity and her risk of divorce than it was about how the nature of the first sexual experience affects later romantic relationships." Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/relationship-between-early-sex-and-divorce_n_882681.html
and;
"Jay Teachman, an academic, investigated this matter further. The study, which is available online, makes for interesting reading. Teachman's genius was to look stratify the cohabitors risk of divorce by the by the number of sexual partners/cohabiting history.
The study was based on data from the National Survey of Family Growth 1995 cycle and involved over 6500 women.
It was controlled for a host of variables.
The study was in no way sponsored or funded by any conservative organisation.
Teachman's conclusion:
The results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions. These findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation have become part of the normal courtship pattern in the United States. They do not indicate selectivity on characteristics linked to the risk of divorce and do not provide couples with experiences that lessen the stability of marriage.
Executive summary: It's not the liberal values, it the number of partners that matter.
And,
This limitation notwithstanding, the results presented here should shift attention away from research that focuses on the selection of individuals into cohabitation and premarital sex to a focus on the selection of individuals who do not marry the individuals with whom they first cohabit or initiate first sex. It may well be the case that, irrespective of the legal status of the relationship, the relevant distinction to make is between people who form multiple relationships and people who form a single, longer lasting relationship." Link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract
If the evidence is correct, then 'hook up' culture isn't in the best interests of women, men, or society.
Morethanafan
- 4 stars Rating: 72
7840 votes total - (10965)
- 21 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Morethanafan said...
You are missing my point and your post is not responsive to it. If Bennett's article was that hookups are not good for society and I took exception to that, your post would be on point (however, I mention a flaw in your logic below).
The title of the thread and Bennett's point was that WOMEN DEBASE themselves with hookups. Your post does not go to that. Please tell me why women debase themselves more than men with hookups. How do either debase themselves. Your post does not address either issue at all. Your post points out that hookups are bad for society. That is not the issue that I discussed. It simply is not on point to the thread or my posts.
As far as the logic flaw, you argue that when a woman has sex with more partners or younger, her marriage is more likely to end in divorce. I have seen studies consistent with that. However, virtually all of the studies admit that they do not know the causal link. I.e. you imply that the larger number of partners or younger sex cause the divorce. However, there is no reason to believe that. I can think of several other potential reasons. I will give a couple. I suspect that a higher than usual (for society as a whole) highly relgious people do not have sex until marriage and after 16. Highly religious people tend to marry other highly religious people of the same faith. Those people are less likely to divorce than society as a whole. People that have sex when they are very young are more likely to have psychological issues before the sex (unless they are coerced). I.e. the same pschological issue that cause the person to have sex when younger may well cause the person to choose a lousy partner or to be more prone to divorce. Simply stating a correlation does not tell us the causation.
I will not be working with you, but against you. - USC Outsider
USCMichigander
- 4 stars Rating: 79
1909 votes total - (3157)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
Morethanafan
- 4 stars Rating: 72
7840 votes total - (10965)
- 21 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Upstairs - Video Dailymotion
A couple at the end of their first date gets down to business.writer/director: Shawn Wines / producer: Brooke Sebold / starring: Josette Barchilon Adam Lustickcontact: shawnwines@gmail.com
www.dailymotion.com -
wake6830 said...
These poor women just can't help themselves. Even if they consciously "decide" to become promiscuous, they're really just doing it out of a mix of naivete and desperation and there is just no way they'll ever be able to handle the absolute psychological and emotional terror that all non-romantic sexual relationships bring.
Good thing they have men around to set their moral standards for them and keep them from falling prey to... men.
This whole discussion continues to be retarded. People can fuck whoever and however often they want, and it's nobody else's fucking business. Stop trying to save people from themselves and let them do what they want as long as its within the law.
This post was edited by USCMichigander on 4/9/2012 at 11:24 AM
I will not be working with you, but against you. - USC Outsider
USCMichigander
- 4 stars Rating: 79
1909 votes total - (3157)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
Morethanafan said...
You explain to me how hook ups differ today than when I was young. I am all ears, Mr. In Touch.
Kids think they know it all and that things have changed that much over the years. You did not intend this to be part of your 90% humor, but it is.
I await your answer to my question.
I will not be working with you, but against you. - USC Outsider
USCMichigander
- 4 stars Rating: 79
1909 votes total - (3157)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
USCMichigander said...
Jesus Christ. What did Cosmopolitan magazines look like in the 1960s? What is the difference between Marilyn Monroe and Snooki, Lucille Ball and Paris Hilton? This isn't about sexual activity at all, this is about the culture that breeds promiscuity and whether or not it is having a positive effect on the youth today. I think "free sex" of the 60s is WORLDS apart from what we have today. The activity on paper may be the same, but the psyche of the participants are not. That is the problem.
Morethanafan
- 4 stars Rating: 72
7840 votes total - (10965)
- 21 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
USCMichigander said...
Jesus Christ. What did Cosmopolitan magazines look like in the 1960s? What is the difference between Marilyn Monroe and Snooki, Lucille Ball and Paris Hilton? This isn't about sexual activity at all, this is about the culture that breeds promiscuity and whether or not it is having a positive effect on the youth today. I think "free sex" of the 60s is WORLDS apart from what we have today. The activity on paper may be the same, but the psyche of the participants are not. That is the problem.
-
Morethanafan said...
You have no f**king clue. There were less outlets in the '60s (three national channels and a few local ones). There was less technology (no porn on computers). So, variety was less. However, I had lunches, dinners and drinks at Playboy Clubs (most in the U.S. are no longer around). I believe that there was MORE promiscuity in the '60s among younger people than today. The worst disease back then was Herpes, not HIV. HIV has had a big impact on screwing around. That started in the '80s. You are arguing something for which you have no clue. Unlike older posters, you were not around in the '60s and '70s. You are simply guessing. I find it ironic that you consider me out of touch. You were not even around to have any touch in the '60s and '70s. You are speaking out of ignorance. A common trait for the youth that believes it knows it all.
I will not be working with you, but against you. - USC Outsider
USCMichigander
- 4 stars Rating: 79
1909 votes total - (3157)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
wake6830 said...
You are idealizing the past because you don't know anything about it other than what you see in retrospectives.
People then were saying the same thing about culture that you are now. This isn't a new problem.
I will not be working with you, but against you. - USC Outsider
USCMichigander
- 4 stars Rating: 79
1909 votes total - (3157)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
USCMichigander said...
Jesus Christ. What did Cosmopolitan magazines look like in the 1960s? What is the difference between Marilyn Monroe and Snooki, Lucille Ball and Paris Hilton? This isn't about sexual activity at all, this is about the culture that breeds promiscuity and whether or not it is having a positive effect on the youth today. I think "free sex" of the 60s is WORLDS apart from what we have today. The activity on paper may be the same, but the psyche of the participants are not. That is the problem.
This post was edited by KChilders on 4/9/2012 at 11:47 AM
-
wake6830 said...
You are idealizing the past because you don't know anything about it other than what you see in retrospectives.
People then were saying the same thing about culture that you are now. This isn't a new problem.
The serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.
901Club
- 5 stars Rating: 95
2747 votes total - Your Ad Here
- (5636)
- 21 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
cstory80 said...
Any culture....be it the culture of a religion, or the culture of a sorority, or this "hook up" culture being discussed debases women if one of the goals of that culture is to convince young women to adhere to a certain type of behavior. What women should be thinking about on an individual level is what they want to do. Do they enjoy having sex. If so, have lots of sex? Do they prefer chastity? Great, don't have sex.
The important thing is for every woman to decide what she wants.....and what she is all about.
My overall premise is that when it comes to sex, men and women are less different than many believe. The perceived differences that are there are the result of males typically being physcially stronger gender. It's a case of "might is right". Humans are animals. Men are human. On the most simple and basic level, men have put women in to 3 categories throughout history.
#1 - There are women that we want to have sex with.
#2 - There are women (often family or friends) that we want to protect.
#3 - There are women that we don't really care about one way or the other.
Those first two that I listed are the reason that most cultures tend to stress chastity in females. Again, men are animals. We don't want another guy messing with our "flock". We also don't want another guy being in position to hurt the women we would protect. Over thousands of years patriarchal establishments have drilled this in to the heads of people.....to the point where we almost just accept it because it feels "right".
If things were different and women were the stronger sex, the situation would be reversed. The pressure would be on men to remain chaste.
I will not be working with you, but against you. - USC Outsider
USCMichigander
- 4 stars Rating: 79
1909 votes total - (3157)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
KChilders said...
I think what Morethanafan is trying to point out is that there really isn't much difference between what you've described today's condition to be among young people and what it was forty years ago. Not much at all. The same kinds of media and cultural influences existed, the same kinds of differences in the motivations of the people involved existed. Sex sells and people like to scr... uh, "hook up." It's kind of the nature of the beast.
But more than that, you seem to be writing as if you think it's only young people who are hooking up and only young people who aren't following whatever the acceptable reasons for hooking up are. The author of the article Khan posted at the beginning of this thread was in her mid-thirties or older. Old people hook up in large numbers too and old people are targeted by sexually oriented media as well.
The only real difference is that old people are smarter. ;-)
The serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.
901Club
- 5 stars Rating: 95
2747 votes total - Your Ad Here
- (5636)
- 21 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
KChilders said...
I think what Morethanafan is trying to point out is that there really isn't much difference between what you've described today's condition to be among young people and what it was forty years ago. Not much at all. The same kinds of media and cultural influences existed, the same kinds of differences in the motivations of the people involved existed. Sex sells and people like to scr... uh, "hook up." It's kind of the nature of the beast.
But more than that, you seem to be writing as if you think it's only young people who are hooking up and only young people who aren't following whatever the acceptable reasons for hooking up are. The author of the article Khan posted at the beginning of this thread was in her mid-thirties or older. Old people hook up in large numbers too and old people are targeted by sexually oriented media as well.
The only real difference is that old people are smarter. ;-)
I will not be working with you, but against you. - USC Outsider
USCMichigander
- 4 stars Rating: 79
1909 votes total - (3157)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
USCMichigander said...
You make my point for me. There were less outlets in the 60s, and those outlets are hardly as sex-driven as they are today. We can agree with that right? So young women weren't BOMBARDED by messages reminding them to be promiscuous, chiseling their minds into thinking a certain way. While you are talking activity, I am talking psyche. Hell, I'm all for rational decisions leading to sex, but I don't think that is the case for a lot of instances today. I've been focused on how the female-focused 'hook up culture' is demeaning the woman outside of the bedroom, I'm not really interested on how many people are shagging because we don't know specifics. I think women should have a female Steve Jobs in their face 24/7 like male business or political icons are in my face constantly. That is my point. Your dinners in Playboy Clubs have nothing to do with this. I am talking about something that you seem to be unaware of because of your age. That is okay. You aren't walking into classrooms hearing girls talk about Snooki's body instead of paying attention. That's what has made a mark on me and that is why I am a proponent of cleaning up female-focused media in order to help women. Thankfully I stand with the powers that be in feminism today on this, the question is what powers they still have.
This post was edited by KChilders on 4/9/2012 at 12:03 PM
-
USCMichigander said...
This is a great post cstory and I agree with absolutely all of it. My issue is that media doesn't pressure men to be sexually active and appealing like it does for women. So I think that is a problem. You say we pressure women to be chaste, but I think walking through a mall will paint a very different story. I like your point about stronger/weaker sex, but in the brain we are equals. We haven't seen women act that way, and I think that is because we haven't seen the media portray them this way.
"A woman one year out of college and working full time typically earns only 80% as much as her male counterparts. Why? According to the AAUW's 2007 "Behind the Pay Gap" report, women with business degrees are twice as likely as men with similar degrees to enter administrative, clerical or support positions earlier in their career. On the other hand, men with a business degree are more likely to enter management positions. "
-
KChilders said...
.
But wake is also right in that people's choices with regard to sex are nobodies business but their own. Including whatever might be the motivation for those choices and regardless of whether other people label that motivation good or bad according to their own personal standards.
-
901Club said...
There are some real differences between now and then, although you are right about old people being smarter.
But as to differences, unwed mothers jumps out.
"....Whereas in the 1960s fewer than 10 percent of all babies were born outside of marriage, today that number is over 40 percent. And for some groups it has already reached 50 percent or far surpassed it. For example, nearly half of Hispanic children and nearly three-fourths of African-American children are born to single mothers annually...."
https://quitenormal.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/new-normal-40-of-children-in-u-s-now-born-to-unwed-mothers/
Is this related to sexual mores, and a "hook up" culture that's different now? The "new normal"?.
-
KChilders said...
No, it's you that is unaware of something because of your age. You have a very interesting, idealized and limited view of what the world was like forty years ago. I have news for you, people were bombarded with sexual imagery in the seventies too, and "girls" in school talked about exactly the same kind of issues. If anything, the pressure to be promiscuous was far greater in the seventies than it is today, because not only was there the pressure from advertising and the media, but there was also a social insistence that the new free speech, free love ideal was better than the old one it replaced.
But wake is also right in that people's choices with regard to sex are nobodies business but their own. Including whatever might be the motivation for those choices and regardless of whether other people label that motivation good or bad according to their own personal standards.
The best that should be done is to educate and inform people about what goes on in terms of societal influences on them, and about what their choices are. And as soon as someone comes up with a reliable means of ensuring the development of emotionally stable as well as intelligent human beings able to make the best choices for themselves 100 percent of the time, you let me know. Until then, we just have to let people learn whats best for them all by themselves.
This post was edited by USCMichigander on 4/9/2012 at 12:24 PM
I will not be working with you, but against you. - USC Outsider
USCMichigander
- 4 stars Rating: 79
1909 votes total - (3157)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
zitorocks said...
That philosophy works as long as the individuals making their choices do not expect the rest of society or others to absorb the consequences of their choices. That's the tricky thing about freedom of choice...it MUST go hand in hand with personal accountability and responsibility. However, too many people want their cake and to eat it too. They want freedom of choice, without responsibility and accountability for their actions/choices. I'm all for freedom of choice in their sex and it being their own business, but don't come to the government (society) and expect them to absolve you of the consequences.
-
Ashley Judd Slaps Media in the Face for Speculation Over Her ‘Puffy’ Appearance - The Daily Beast
The speculation is a misogynistic assault, the actress writes, and its time to change the conversation.
www.thedailybeast.comI will not be working with you, but against you. - USC Outsider
USCMichigander
- 4 stars Rating: 79
1909 votes total - (3157)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
- Post a New Topic
- Back to Topics
- « Previous Topic
- Next Topic »
- Boards ▾
- Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
Hookup culture debases women