<p>I was the one who said “dating” now means “having sex,” and this may be a regional thing, because it came straight from my Ds’ mouths, and they are just slightly younger than you. </p>
<p>In response to a casual conversation about some of Ds’ friends, I said, “Oh are Suzie and Jimmy dating now? That’s nice.” Both Ds looked at me in horror and said, “No mom, they are NOT dating, they are … just going out.” That is when I asked what “dating” meant to them and their peers.</p>
<p>Granted the conversation took place in high school, not college, but it sticks in my mind because it was so similar to an experience I had with my own mom. She looked at me one day and said, “Oh honey, you’ve got a hickey.” I reacted with absolute horror, and said, “What???” She said, “you’ve got a pimple on your forehead.” lol</p>
<p>I, for one, would like a current dictionary of dating terms. “Talking” is one term that seems to be a distinction we didn’t have. It’s the getting-to-know-each-other precursor to an exclusive relationship, or at least I think that’s the meaning. So does “going out” imply exclusivity? </p>
<p>In my parents’ day, dating was the least committed. You could go on one date and that’s all. We just used the terms “going out” or boyfriend and girlfriend for repeated dating of the same person. “Married” referring to a non-married couple tended to mean the couple was very serious, long-term, and likely having sex.</p>
<p>February 2013 CDC reports two new studies confirming “an ongoing, severe epidemic” of chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, HPV, etc.<br>
Remember, you are not only sleeping with him/her, but everyone with whom he/she has hooked-up. Knowlege is the true liberation.</p>
<p>thank you, Glido for bringing some facts and not some ideology to the table.</p>
<p>Look, LF, I don’t have any sons. I only really talk about young women because I haven’t parented young men. I frequently ask the parents of young men what they tell their sons. There is a strong correlation between what fathers tell their sons about women, how fathers treat women and how sons see young women, as well.</p>
<p>Most of my daughters’ boyfriends have the same values. It’s not like they are running around hooking up with all sorts of young women, either. If I had sons, I would tell them the EXACT same thing I’ve told my girls. You assuming I wouldn’t and going to a knee jerk idea of “limited options” is kind of clich</p>
<p>Perhaps I should have been clearer: the relationship is on a continuum from 1 (all you could ever want) to 0 (none at all). Zero is a valid extreme point on a continuum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Point taken, poetgrl: I was “off the market” by then and wasn’t much paying attention to the dating scene. There likely was a slight downward blip in sexuality experimentation for a few years. But hormones will not be denied and fundamentally the same range of complex relationships still held sway, albeit at a reduced pace.</p>
<p>The real point I wished to make is that I very much doubt that the young woman of today are any more promiscuous, less intelligent about making choices or more pressured to have sex they really don’t want than their predecessors. Maybe a small subset of today’s young women give first-date sex in order to assure a second date. But there was a lot of just-shut-up-already sex and pity sex going on in my day. Nothing has fundamentally changed.</p>
<p>I was making dinner for D2 and some of her friends when one of the guest’s mother called me. We chatted for a moment, and then I said, “Gosh, we haven’t really seen each other in ages! Let’s try to hook up some time next week, ok?”</p>
<p>My D and her friends practically went into hysterics over this. Obviously we had two different definitions of “hooking up.”</p>
<p>D2 says in her world “dating” and “going out” are the same thing. No particular meaning with regard to sex.</p>
<p>Lookingforward, I agree 100% with everything you said in your last post. And I assume you didn’t need a lecture.</p>
<p>The Flintstones…wasn’t life great when you could watch the Flintstones, Gilligan’s Island, The Andy Griffith Show, I Love Lucy, and Bewitched back to back?</p>
<p>Funny, pg, but I’m doing my best not to argue with you. Or suggest how you operate. You’ve offered context for your thoughts; I get it.</p>
<p>I simply have a concern about the picture presented and the framing. I don’t know what’s right. We can quote stats and studies, state our opinions, but we don’t have an arbitrator.</p>
<p>Well, Poetgrl, no flames here. I totally agree with you. And I’ll invite my own flame fest by saying that I don’t think most women (there are, of course, exceptions) are biologically wired to have recreational sex and that we almost always need a relational connection.</p>
<p>Flame away, folks, but I’m unlikely to respond, as I know I’m right, if not PC.</p>
<p>These discussions are tough because the valence is so high and folks are as worried about how they might be misperceived as much as perceived. I actually don’t think I read anyone as disagreeing…just making different points. It seems to me that those arguing for women having the choice to have sex are not endorsing (or for that matter not endorsing) stranger sex, “looseness,” or reckless behavior. In other words, they aren’t opining that such behavior will produce good results or disagreeing that women have some relational component that matters (and for gosh sakes, maybe men have a relational component too that would be preferable for them too if we weren’t so darn awkward and responding to all the cues men get caught up in responding to). Anyway, I read them as arguing for women being in control of their sexuality, being allowed to have their sexuality and own it separate from that being defined by the necessity of a “relationship” with a partner, and even be owning it enough that maybe they make some sexual mistakes. Sometimes folks of both genders have a pretty mature, consensual encounter (and maybe already were friends) and regret it afterwards. Making a bad decision or having an experience you regret having had later doesn’t mean you don’t want the power, and your own real, full deciding power, to engage in the activity (or not). Men often regret one-night stands too, but usually they are on the other side of the power dynamic. It would be nice for women to also regret one-night stands from that same space (they wanted to, they decided to do it, they weren’t “putting out” for the boy’s sake, and then later the wish they hadn’t done it…which is a very different dynamic than we presume usually happens and which it seems the other side in this discussion is keen on avoiding which also makes sense).</p>
<p>Having recently read “Sex in History”, there was an interesting correlation related by the author between periods of promiscuity and periods of economic prosperity. It’s when times are tough, the food supply is dwindling, and survival is less certain, that cultural and religious elements reinforce the strong, monogamous pair-bond that is necessary for the survival of children (and hence, the whole species). Clearly, times are not too tough right now.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, you won’t be flamed by me either! My daughter, now 24 and married, had only two boyfriends; the second she dated for 7 years and then married. I tried to teach her to respect young men and to expect them to respect her and to accept nothing less. She said that she never, ever missed the hook-up culture, partying, etc in undergrad, and now she is busy in a PhD program. My boys, 18 and 20 yrs, have been taught the same way. They both enjoy doing activities with girls, eg eating out or concerts, but neither has dated yet (and certainly not hooked up). I agree that a Christian “fundalmentalist” viewpoint on dating relationships is a wise one. My boys often do activities with girls, but they are waiting for the right young lady to date/get “in a relationship” with, and I hope that they will always treat women respectfully.</p>
<p>"•People can also lower their chances of getting HPV by being in a faithful relationship with one partner; limiting their number of sex partners; and choosing a partner who has had no or few prior sex partners. But even people with only one lifetime sex partner can get HPV, and it may not be possible to determine if a person who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected. Because HPV is so common, and almost every sexually-active person will get HPV at some time in their lives, it is important to protect against the possible health effects of HPV."</p>
<p>Anyone note the contradictions? “Almost every sexually active person will get HPV at some time in their lives…” In other words, you can lower your chances, and it won’t make any difference.</p>
<p>My grandparents in the 1920s were much more sexually active and freer than my parents were. They likely had multiple gay friends who were open about their sexuality, and something akin to “hooking up” was common. But was is different is that there wasn’t an average of 15 years from puberty to marriage; more like 8.</p>
<p>^^^ That’s why there is a vaccine for HPV. </p>
<p>I was in college when the AIDS scare became a big factor and, from what I observed, it did make a big difference in behavior for a little while. </p>
<p>While I posted, much earlier, what the feminist view would be- no double standard for men and women, we can’t ignore the reality that the woman carries more responsibility in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Right or wrong, a man is more easily able to shirk the consequences of that event. Biologically, a woman cannot. Morality aside, it is logical for women to be more careful about who they choose to engage in sexual relations with because of that factor. Women can take responsibility by using some of the best methods of birth control, but they all have failure rates. And, without getting the abortion argument going (because we know that won’t end well), even if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, there are still more physical and emotional consequences for her. </p>
<p>My grandma married at age 16 to my grandpa, who was 25 at the time. How would that be looked on today? Oh my! By the time she was 22, she had four children. </p>
<p>I had an aunt and uncle who celebrated their 60th anniversary this year. They secretly got married a year before their public wedding because they wanted to engage in relations.</p>
<p>Well, finally. Yep. Humans have been having sex as youths and not necessarily only after marriage for a long time. My parents were born in 1912 (Dad) and 1915 (Mom) respectively. </p>
<p>Like mini and 2016BMom’s relatives, they reported a society with premarital sex, oops pregnancy/quick marriages (but with the middle-middle and upper middle class girls usually disappearing for 6-7 months and middle going to the homes for unwed mothers) etc. and “VD.” They mentioned that females did not stop having sex during WWII just because most 18-25 males were in the military.</p>
<p>As mini indicates, the average age of first marriage has gone up from 20(female) and 22 (male) in 1960 to 27 and 29. And now according to a Pew report barely over half of all adults are currently married. Only 20% of 18-29 are married and 44% of 18-20 think that marriage is obsolete. And, while in 1960 85% of all adults had been married at some time, that has dropped to 72%.</p>
<p>I wonder if a lot of the conversations about all this really have little reality basis in the lives of most young people. A group of 40 somethings and older glamorizing chosen facets of a mythical past and trying to make sense of the new order of things.</p>