<p>From the article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now that’s a ridiculously low bar of entry. So I could have a dozen hook-ups in the 5 minutes immediately past midnight on New Year’s Eve? Yea, and with the bubbly being served, alcohol is involved, leading to that reported 64% figure.</p>
<p>Wow! Am glad I never heard or thought of SWUG. That’s seriously depressing. I had many interesting relationships with men. None of them were hook ups and I feel I grew from each of them. My goodness, if your washed up at SR year, that would be depressing. </p>
<p>To me terms can be self fulfilling. I think coining a term like SWUG does much more harm than good. I hope our D has never felt this way. I know I never have and still don’t feel washed up. Ick!</p>
<p>Women tend to enjoy first-time sexual encounters less often than men because we have been socialized to think that our pleasure doesn’t matter, and men have likewise been socialized to think that their pleasure comes first, so terms like ‘clitoris stimulation’ are mostly absent from our thinking about heterosexual sex.</p>
<p>The female body is not some magical no-sex zone where orgasms only happen when you’re in a long-term relationship with a loving, financially solvent man of good breeding; plenty of women have no trouble bringing themselves to climax without such a prop. Orgasms merely occur more often with partners who care about your pleasure and know how to deliver it, which tends to happen in established relationships–or they wouldn’t stay relationships for long. All these statistics really tell me is that most heterosexual women only have sex with men who are bad at sex once.</p>
<p>The fact that the study cited in this thread was conducted on heterosexual college students in 1989 is also very important. I’d wager that the percentages would look different today, or in urban areas that have an active dating/hookup scene, or for gay women, or for women in their late 20s and early 30s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, couldn’t let this go by, especially since everyone else did. Not new, not nuts: Been there, did this, joy of my life. Choice is good.</p>
<p>LI, if you actually read the study, and that was what you chose to quote, then :rolleyes:</p>
<p>ghosstt, the studies in my APA link are multitudinious and all occured after 2000. Also the 1989 study you reference was replicated twice in 2011. Also, the Kinsey researcher agrees with you and wonders at the end why it is that men are recieving more oral sex in one night stands than women.</p>
<p>I don’t think the behavior in hook up culture is feminist. </p>
<p>And I don’t know why everyone wants to act as if the numbers do not matter. We know woman aren’t having reciprocol pleasurabe one night stands and hook ups. Multitudes of studies show this. It’s not actually debatable. And it doesn’t sound very feminist to engage in non recipricol one time sex with someone who thinks your pleasure is “less important” than his.</p>
<p>carry on.</p>
<p>“Encounters between uncommitted individuals who are not romantic partners or dating each other.” There’s a gap between casual college sex and picking up total strangers.</p>
<p>I apologize if this has been covered.</p>
<p>Aside from the reasons most think of (including the desire-dampening religious overlay), there is another very ordinary (and not as political) reason why men experience more physical success than women in these brief encounters (and which I’m sure some women would lament only improves marginally in ongoing relationships including marriage). Male pleasure and how that happens is easier and more obvious and overt (or at least most operate as if this is true). To be blunt, most men, and especially college-age men, have no idea what they are doing. They find female anatomy confusing, and the type of communication required to counteract that is unlikely to happen in brief encounters, stuporous or non-stuporous, and I would guess that this relative lack of communication and relative confusion persists well into adulthood and even marriage for many. I am curious if some of you women out there agree with this, at least in some measure.</p>
<p>Not sure this forum will eventually allow us to sort this out or shed light, the way a longer running conversation could. I don’t think we’ve initially agreed (in that sort-of forum way,) on the range of perspectives we hold. I think some have shifted their positions, wanting to clarify, but watching how it’s presented, considering TOS.</p>
<p>During college years, men and women are at different developmental stages. Traditionally seen as men on the performance downswing and women yet to reach some apex. That doesn’t preclude a young woman from wanting to engage, take what she does from that. Measuring in percentages of orgasms is limited. It is not always the goal, for women. In that respect, the link leaves a lot of questions. I’m also wondering how much “regret” is genuine psychological regret for engaging, grief at what they have done, versus (are LI and others saying this?) dissatisfaction with that male.</p>
<p>Personally, I’m caught between several viewpoints. Agree (always have, even in hs and college,) that wanton, indiscriminate behavior can be a marker of underlying sociopsychological issues. True also for women who use sex to maintain relationships that are in-progress. But, that leaves plenty who wish to engage, are stable, and- as much as any college person can- know what they are doing.</p>
<p>And, I think it’s difficult to have this conversation as women and separate it from our natural, parental concerns for our daughters.</p>
<p>But, to get back to the OP: I’d be terribly worried if my girls felt washed up as seniors. I’d be looking for underlying explanations. I’d steer them away from the old notion our fixed relationships with men define us. The acronym doesn’t entertain me, in the least.</p>
<p>But, I did think Patton was tongue-in-cheek, a side commentary. Not to be taken as seriously as some do.</p>
<p>This is the last thing I will say on this topic:</p>
<p>I was born in an artists commune and raised by hippies, and monogamy was not only not presented to me as a “norm,” but as less than ideal. So, whoever is attributing religiousity to my statements is completely missing the mark. With me, anyway.</p>
<p>I do not believe that hook up culture is healthy and I’m grateful my own daughters agree with me. For many reasons, not the least of which is my sense of the actual value of intimacy and how intimacy actually develops between people, I don’t value the hook up culture as a place which values women. If you do? I have no judgement on that. </p>
<p>For reasons of safety, note that in the 15-25 age group, only 46 percent who engaging in oral, anal or vaginal penetration are using condoms, and almost all of these encounters are occuring in the presence of significant alcohol consumption, I also see this as a less than ideal form of sexual congress. That young women are accepting a lesser amount of pleasure or recipricocity in these encounters, is a strong indication for me, that, again, this is not ideal for women, even those who purport to be in it for the great sex.</p>
<p>But, if you believe this is a path to freedom? by all means take it. I will not be the one to say you are “doing something wrong.” I don’t think with that filter, at all.</p>
<p>Once agree again with poet. For me hookups are lacking in intimacy something I learned waay back when hookups were called one night stands and if a woman or a man is looking for intimacy they will rarely find that with a hookup. Intimacy can develop from a one night stand but there are no guarantees. This might be why sometimes people end up marrying someone they met as a friend.</p>
<p>The first time I had sex I was raped ( by my " boyfriend") so my responses may be colored by this. But I don’t think that for young women that sex is generally about " sex", it is about connection. So how thoughtful or skilled their partner is, is not as important as how the relationship continues- whether as friends or romantically.
Physiologically women are programmed to become attached to those that they have been intimate with.
Even if they weren’t beforehand and even if they don’t want to be.<br>
Thats why studies show that when hookups do not advance into even a casual relationship, women feel badly.
Because of this, they really need to give more thought to whom they hook up with because it is going to affect them even if they try & deny it.
Its healthier, IMO to frequent a shop like Babeland and educate themselves about their bodies so that when they meet a partner that is worth getting naked for, they are ready.</p>
<p>One of the (many) things I dislike about hook-up culture becoming mainstream, is that it not only destroys the idea that sex has an emotional dimension, but that sex is anything special at all. It becomes more like an itch on your back that you can ask practically anyone to scratch in order to get relief. (I am not religious, so you can’t blame religion on my views, either). On the other hand, maybe most people do prefer to look at sex that way, and I am an outlier.</p>
<p>I’m all for choice and having people lead the life they prefer, but I do feel for kids who are born to single parents who made that choice. The child had no say in said choice and may choose to want to establish some relationship down the road with the biological parent s/he never met. I suppose that’s the risk of having kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What you are describing is the beta-male geek who sincerely believes that the “conquest” of women can be reduced to a rigid almost-mathematical set of rules. These guys pay big bucks to attend seminars by leading pick-up “gurus” and, if they persist, they eventually make their “numbers” by sticking their necks out aggressively and getting rejected 20 or 30 times for every “yes” they receive. </p>
<p>But there are indeed alpha-male “naturals,” and they are like catnip to women. I had a chance to observe one of these rare fellows over a period of a few months while in college and as far as my BS-sensors could determine, he was the real deal. He was 21 and held back on his pursuit of women for a few months so that he could hit #200 on our nation’s bicentennial. At 15, he was seduced by his girlfriend’s mother and by 21 he had a couple of lovers in their 30’s and 40’s respectively paying his rent, his tuition and supplying a car for him to use. </p>
<p>He absolutely loved women, but in a general sense, and sampled them as one might sample the delights at a high-end Las Vegas buffet – with great enthusiasm yet little repetition because there were so many other delights to explore! He was relaxed, confident, quick to smile and fearless in making physical contact, even with women he had just met. It might be a gentle hand rested on her hand for a few seconds or a light massaging of an earlobe as he held and admired an earring she was wearing. In at least one case, he placed a hand on each side of the woman’s face, turned her head toward him and stared deeply into her eyes for 10 seconds without saying a word. Then he said, “You have the most stunning eyes,” let her go and went back to his previous conversation like nothing had ever happened.</p>
<p>By the time I met him he had become quite adept at getting many of the women around him to simply seduce themselves. Of course he was already known by many members of the group as “the guy with all the women,” so a newcomer couldn’t sit around for more than half a hour before some guy started asking for dating advice or some woman whispered the news from ear to ear. As with Kübler-Ross, this seduction transformation went through a number of stages:
<p>As the amused and amazed anthropological observer, I can only conclude that the genetic imperative trumps all reason: deferred to by men for his “wisdom” and vetted by many women as a desirable lover, surely this prime genetic stock is worth fighting for!</p>
<p>Or the answer could be much more mundane. As one woman told me afterward, “I just had to see what all the fuss was about.”</p>
<p>Dear God, if some man held a hand on each side of my face and told me I had the most stunning eyes I would laugh out loud! It seems quite transparent and a bit creepy.</p>
<p>I had a haircutter once who wouldn’t accept a tip. “My tip is that you come back to me”, with some creepy stroking hand on my shoulder or somewhere. I ran.</p>
<p>But seriously, I never enjoyed casual sex but I had good friends and roommates who did. I was amazed, and a bit envious at the time and these weren’t drunken, irresponsible hookups (it was the 80’s and AIDS was much scarier then). Those women eventually found someone they wanted to keep, married and had kids and are just as happy today. Good for them!</p>
<p>LI,
It sounds to me like your friend knew how to <em>act</em> like he was in love with each woman, and that was the key. Everyone wants to be loved.</p>
<p>Personally, casual sex has NEVER held any allure for me. I have always cherished friendships, which have endured even after the romance. I guess we’re all different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I agree that 99 out of 100 men couldn’t pull this off successfully. It cannot looked staged or planned, it has to be spontaneous. You can get away with outrageous things if you are supremely confident, don’t care about the reaction and if the people around you expect you to do outrageous things because “it’s your nature.”</p>
<p>Beyond that, what works on an 18-year-old might not work on an older, more cynical woman. Plus it wouldn’t surprise me if the woman in question had already expressed her interest non-verbally by leaning in too close and laughing too often. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe the love was genuine and intense, just largely directed at womankind in its infinite varieties rather than at the individual. By all accounts, he was a “dreamy” lover – but what self-respecting woman would want a long-term romantic relationship with a guy unable to ever keep his hands to himself, even for a single week?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The woman who reads bodice-ripper books and thinks she can “change him.”</p>