The non joy of the hook-up for women

<p>From the COHE today:</p>

<p>"In their book forthcoming early next year from Oxford University Press, Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think About Marrying, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker report that having more sexual partners is associated with "poorer emotional states in women, but not in men." The more partners women have in the course of their lives, the more likely they are to be depressed, to cry almost every day, and to report relatively low satisfaction with their lives.</p>

<p>Paul Chara and Lynn Kuennen's research seems to support the female souring effect that Townsend found. Chara and Kuennen asked young women and men in high school and college if they would be willing to engage in sex after a wonderful first date. On average, college seniors are certainly more sexually experienced than ninth graders. Yet 30 percent of the ninth-grade girls said they would be game for sex after that great first date, while only 5 percent of college-senior women said they would be. The trend for young men was the opposite. About 30 percent of the ninth-grade boys also said they would have sex after a great first date, but 60 percent of the college-senior men said they would.</p>

<p>My female students tell me that the emotional pain caused by casual sex goes largely unreported by women, because they are often ashamed that they care about men who treat them like strangers the next morning. They don't want the men involved or the rest of the campus to know about their tears.</p>

<p>Casual sex comes with more psychological costs for women than for men (and for that matter, more likelihood of sexually transmitted disease). Feelings don't change with the times in quite the same way that behaviors and attitudes do. If the evolutionists are right, those feelings are rooted in women's evolutionary history and will not disappear anytime soon."</p>

<p>The</a> Emotional Costs of Hooking Up - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education</p>

<p>Hmmm... the more things change the more they stay the same (?).</p>

<p>This "hooking up" business is nothing new, it's just that men have stumbled on a way (with women's help?) to make that particular form of exploitation 'acceptable'...</p>

<p>women's liberation...and men like it just fine.</p>

<p>Asked my D about this, as she just finished her first year in college. She's in a long term relationship, so not really involved in the hook up scene, but she said it's not the emotional thing which turns the girls off to the hook up scene after their first chunk of time freshman year, it's the fact that the guys are so bad at sex that the girls get nothing out of it, physically and figure, "why bother?"</p>

<p>This just in: Women less than thrilled by casual sex.</p>

<p>It seems that every other generation or so there is discovered a "new" uninhibited sexual freedom in which women have at last thrown off the shackles of the past. And like every previous generation of women that has embraced cheap casual sex, they find that in the end it's all kind of empty.</p>

<p>Every generation of men, on the other hand, generally finds that cheap, empty, casual sex suits them just fine.</p>

<p>"Yet 30 percent of the ninth-grade girls said they would be game for sex after that great first date, while only 5 percent of college-senior women said they would be."</p>

<p>I don't doubt that the ninth-graders are telling what they believe to be the truth, but this doesn't mean that they will do it. This is a hypothetical for ninth graders. Lots of them have never been on a "date," much less a great one. They don't really know how they will feel in that situation or what they'd choose to do. They may well end up making the same kind of choices the college seniors do.</p>

<p>The authors also don't do enough the address the "association" between a woman being miserable and a woman having lots of sex partners...based on my experience, the causation for those individuals runs in both directions. Women seek casual sex because they are depressed and lonely, as much as the other way around.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Women seek casual sex because they are depressed and lonely, as much as the other way around.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>good insight.</p>

<p>Hanna, unfortunately, I know ninth-grade girls who are sexually active. Sometimes it doesn't even take a date -- just attention from a boy.</p>

<p>Whenever I delve into the lives of my children and their friends, I am more or less convinced that the differences vs. my generation are generally vastly exaggerated. (And most of them boil down to much greater familiarity with contraception/disease prevention options and a more casual attitude towards fellatio.)</p>

<p>For that reason, I am flabbergasted by learning that only 5% of college senior women said they would be willing to have sex after a great first date. Something is messed up with that. I'm not going to claim that sex on the first date (if it was a good date) was universal in my generation, because I'm sure that somewhere it wasn't. But the rate among the college seniors I knew was pretty close to 100%, absent unusual circumstances. I find it very difficult to believe that college seniors have gotten significantly more chaste. Here everyone is whining about hook-up culture, which implies that some meaningful percentage of women -- including some who have attained the lofty age of 21 or 22 -- are willing to have sex after a great not-even-a-date, or maybe just a decent chat and a grind or two. (And, by the same token, I am morally certain that 30% of 9th graders aren't putting out on the first date, no matter how much fun they had at the bowling alley or the mall. Although yes, some are.)</p>

<p>What's up with this? Why are 90% of college seniors lying to researchers, or perhaps exhibiting little or no ability to predict their own behavior?</p>

<p>In answer to your question JHS, I'll just repost my original post:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Asked my D about this, as she just finished her first year in college. She's in a long term relationship, so not really involved in the hook up scene, but she said it's not the emotional thing which turns the girls off to the hook up scene after their first chunk of time freshman year, it's the fact that the guys are so bad at sex that the girls get nothing out of it, physically and figure, "why bother?"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Casual sex comes with more psychological costs for women than for men (and for that matter, more likelihood of sexually transmitted disease). Feelings don't change with the times in quite the same way that behaviors and attitudes do. If the evolutionists are right, those feelings are rooted in women's evolutionary history and will not disappear anytime soon."

[/quote]

Perhaps this is because there is still a double standard. Men are expected to like sex for sex. Women are not allowed this luxury.
I think both men and women have a great capability to like and need sex - for whatever reason. However, many women still have to deal with the 'shame factor' the next morning. Take that away and you will have fewer depressed women and more women skipping to work with a smile.</p>

<p>JHS - I agree, that 5% number is bogus. Seriously. I think they just want to give the 'right' answer.</p>

<p>I swear, my D says there's no shame factor for her friends, they just aren't getting the same "bang" out of it. to be crass.</p>

<p>She said lots of girls were in for the casual hook up when college started and then by Christmas they were like, "Why?" If the boys were better in bed or more attentive to thier partner's sexually? More senior girls would remain interested in casual sex. But when so much of casual sex implies you will not be pleased? It's not that much of a draw.</p>

<p>poetgrl, I read your post. I discounted it a little, because it didn't conform to what I hear elsewhere. But only a little, since the phenomenon of "second virginity", girls getting way more picky, was certainly a feature of the landscape I traversed (only it happened their sophomore years). </p>

<p>Still, it wasn't ever 95% of women, at least not at the same time. And I understood your conversation with your daughter to refer to casual hooking up, not to a great actual date, which implies some advance planning, and acknowledgement of mutual interest while sober, and enjoying each other's company for several hours doing something other than the nasty. Now, I'm sure there are lots of young women who will not consider sex before marriage, no matter how much they like a boy, and boys who believe in that, too. And there are lots of young women who believe in The Rules and require multiple dates to qualify a potential boyfriend. But I continue to believe that the majority of 21-22-year-olds -- nice girls, like my daughter, like my nieces -- are not going to say no under those circumstances. They're just not wired that way. And it hardly makes them promiscuous, either. A "great first date" is sure not a frequent event in the life of anyone I have known. (With the possible exception of one cousin who was a great dater but very, very picky. And in her case, it was the guys who all thought they were having great first dates, not so much her, although she usually found a way to have fun. I stopped fixing her up with men, because they all got crushes on her and then had their hearts broken. But this was in her late 20s. I don't think she was anywhere near that kind of professional dater as a college senior.)</p>

<p>I suppose I should have heaped equal-opportunity scorn on the 40% of senior boys who said they would not have sex after a great first date. Ha! A whole bunch of them are lying, too, or really out of touch with their feelings.</p>

<p>So how do we differentiate "evolutionary psychology" -- from side effects like "emotional sickness" that come from people's unconscious adherences to patriarchal ideology? Where the genome project hasn't yet ventured, how do we differentiate what is "natural" from the stubborn byproducts of prolonged cultural inequalities?</p>

<p>The lessons from evolutionary biology are ambiguous, at best. If the most aggressive, virile men had the most sex and the greatest number of offspring, wouldn't promiscuity be selected for in men? And, if I understood correctly, wouldn't these be the men, likewise, that women would be most inclined to choose as mates? If this is correct, then Victorian mores are actually the perfect evolutionary result: double standards for men and women, and a culture of profound hypocrisy. I suspect this is not the outcome desired (or maybe it is?) by the social conservative who penned this tripe, or the "research" that informs it.</p>

<p>JHS-- I guess I didn't really key in on the 95% rate, which is probably way overblown or skewed by the fact that they were even answering this question.....</p>

<p>statistics are notriously irrelevent, which is why I asked my D.</p>

<p>I'm not much of a one for the morality issue. I was born in an artists commune and wasn't really raised with that mindset, nor did I raise my daughters with it, either. I did notice, however, in our conversation, that the boys are really shooting themselves in the foot by not getting a little bit more educated sexually.</p>

<p>But, yeah, I suppose a "great" first date implies a higher level of interest than what I was talking about, and, I suppose, a guy might be more attentive if he agreed it was a "great" first date.</p>

<p>poetgrl - have you never heard your daughter refer to another girl as a 'slut'.<br>
they even call each other 'slut' or 'ho' in jest.<br>
Round here any girl who breaks up with a boyfriend to date another guy is labeled a slut.
Any girl who sleeps with a guy 'too soon' is a slut.</p>

<p>You could be right though - by the time they are in their early 20's they realize a lot of guys are just bad in bed. Take that one step further - it takes two. If they were so comfortable with their own sexuality they would teach these guys how to be better lovers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If they were so comfortable with their own sexuality they would teach these guys how to be better lovers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Which they do, according to D, in the context of an actual ongoing physical relationship. This is why no casual sex. It's not about morality. (though, to be fair, it could be about that for some girls)</p>

<p>My daughter doesn't use the word slut. It is a derogatory term used by others to steal a girl's power, and it was absolutely forbidden in my house.</p>

<p>Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker report that having more sexual partners is associated with "poorer emotional states in women, but not in men.</p>

<p>How convenient.</p>

<p>I have had way more partners than H- I agree sometimes sex is just sex- but it has to be a mutual decision for it to work.</p>

<p>My daughter doesn't use the word slut. It is a derogatory term used by others to steal a girl's power, and it was absolutely forbidden in my house.</p>

<p>here too.</p>

<p>here too. have never heard any of my kids use that word.</p>

<p>my youngest, 14 yr old son, shared over dinner last night that a bunch of girls his age are now sporting belly button rings, asked if I would have let my d wear one at 13, I said no. he then pointed out that in his opinion it doesn't say anything about a girl, it's just a style Mom...</p>

<p>When he's a little older he will learn differently.</p>

<p>
[quote]
My daughter doesn't use the word slut. It is a derogatory term used by others to steal a girl's power, and it was absolutely forbidden in my house.

[/quote]

yes, it's derogatory and it is forbidden in my house too. that was my point. Girls are very hard on each other.<br>
I have heard plenty of girls use this term as well as the slang 'ho'. Mine don't use it (around me anyway) and we have had conversations about it.<br>
They do call each other these names in jest and that makes me crazy too.</p>

<p>One of mine has a belly button ring. I signed for it on her 17th birthday. I don't think it says anything about her at all. She's been with the same bf for three years. It was a novelty for a while now, it's just there.</p>