<p>If a kid is a “music nerd” who could easily entertain himself 4 hours in the dorm room, playing his instrument alone, is it as bad as an anime or D&D nerd, in terms of the “desirability” in the eyes of the opposite sex?</p>
<p>His freshman year was the worst. I heard one girl, out of the kindness, would call him and told him “do not stay in your room with your instrument all the time. Get out to do something else!” It was better in later years as he joined a band or two.</p>
<p>At a certain age, he even said to his parents that “you will not understand, but playing music and listening to music are as important as eating the meals to me.” He is not even on the music career track and his skill is nowhere near the conservatory level. But many of his friends in high school and college years were near that level.</p>
<p>From a high school senior who had a boyfriend for 3 years: neither me, nor my peers doubt the possibility of a relationship if we don’t have sex with that person right away. If there are real feelings that both parties want to pursue, people wait even longer. Even so, I’m torn on how I feel about my generation’s hookup culture. On the one hand, I fear that we do it without dignity, making a competition out of who can hook up with the most people; however, is that anything new? (sadly I don’t think it is) On the other hand, I don’t think anyone can judge others’ motives for avoiding the commitment of a relationship; as long as people are being safe (I feel like people take more precautions when they’re just hooking up) and responsible, especially with their feelings, no one can complain.</p>
<p>^^ I don’t know about that. I honestly think some people might not be able to due to physical appearance. And I’m not talking about Quasimodo-like deformities.</p>
<p>I truly believe there is someone for everyone out there, beachlover. If it were my child in the situation you describe, my advice would be to pursue your passions and interests and get involved, be a happy, confident, interesting person and the rest will follow.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s bad. However, I do think that emotions can very quickly follow physical attraction, for both sexes, even when the intention is to keep it purely physical.</p>
<p>I wish young people of both sexes would respect their own body and feelings plus respect their partners body and feelings. If they started from there, instead of from physical attraction, I think there would be a lot less hurt feelings all the way around.</p>
<p>Hm. Changed attitudes? You guys didn’t have the youth I did. Neither of my kids could ever be as wild as I was in the sixties. I’m never telling them, though they may have an idea.</p>
<p>I agree that many women want more than a commitment than young men, particularly at colleges where women outnumber men by a considerable percentage.</p>
<p>However, I think some people are more sexual than others, and their are women who enjoy casual hook-ups. I feel we feminists have really lost the battle when they are called slurs or when their opposite contingent are called prudes.</p>
<p>The battle is to create sensitivity in both sexes so each party has a similar understanding if their encounter.</p>
<p>Career demands do impinge on relationships. I have one of each sex; both are grad students. Both have lived in heterosexual, monogamous relationships. One is now single, and the other now has a serious bf. Bith are now at home. To my knowledge neither hooks- up or at least not frequently.</p>
<p>I think we should get away from the heteronormativity of this thread because some of these issues arise in same sex couples too.</p>
<p>I know this is looking way down the pike, but the more vital question is whether or not someone plans to have children. It’s hard to provide for them in this economy, and many young women will put off thinking about this until their fertility has seriously declined. This can create great frustration and sadness.</p>
<p>I know that my D was very impacted by a graph her college bio teacher showed repeeaenting fertility. I think it’s one reason she is taking her current relationship seriously.</p>
<p>Both my kids have been balanced about love and sex. My only direction was to wait until they were at least 16. I’m nearly positive they did, and longer, but we’ve never discussed it since it is a private area of life.</p>
<p>^^ I agree that young women still want more of a commitment than young men and I think they are more disappointed by one night stands, or whatever they call them these days. I think young men take what the girls do/say at face value. That is an age old issue and one that I have never forgotten from my youth. </p>
<p>I don’t agree that there is any “hurry” to have children and that it is fine to settle down and marry in your late twenties. I, and many of my peers did not start having children until we were thirty and managed to squeeze our kids in during the decade before we turned forty. I do recall my physician telling me he was happy I was done when I was thirty nine as the incident of downs increases to scary levels. I was “tired” after my third and pushing forty…my oldest son is 24 and I can’t imagine him getting married in the next year or two…not in a million years. </p>
<p>I do think there is someone for everyone…but again, the age old problem is that sometimes people are looking for Mr. or Ms. perfect and that really doesn’t exist. Another reason to hold off marrying until later in the twenties. There are many changes that occur between 18 and 28 in terms of maturity, self realization and many aspects that form and shape us. So in between you dabble around and realize that what you wanted and what you need might be different and as the Rolling Stones so eloquently sang, “you can’t always get what you want…but if you try sometimes, you get what you need.” </p>
<p>Finally on another level, I do believe at the prices of today’s college that parents that are sending their Ds off to college to get an MRS degree (and this was often articulated as I was growing up) are fewer and farther between.</p>
<p>I agree. Also of concern are reports of recent studies indicating drops in sperm count and more common incidences of decreased libido and testosterone on young men. I would like grandchildren at some point in the future - I could wait at least 5 years, however!</p>
<p>There is a double standard when it comes to sex. Only women get pregnant. Also STIs are more easy to catch for women. There is no such thing as safe sex. Several STIs can be caught even with a condom. I honestly feel sorry for our children. They live in a very desensitized world where anything goes.</p>
<p>I don’t like “casual one night stand” hook ups even if both college-aged kids are willing. </p>
<p>I think that too many 18-21 year olds aren’t really grasping the potential harm that they’re doing by having such a casual outlook about sexual intimacy. I do believe that engaging in serial hook ups can destroy ones ability to be monogamous in a future committed relationship. </p>
<p>Why ever be faithful? What would be the “big deal” when you’ve spent so many years convincing yourself that casual sex isn’t a big deal??? How do you switch gears from “sex is just fun and games and doesn’t mean diddly squat” to “sex is so important that you should only do it with your SO”. </p>
<p>I think that behaving in one way undermines the respect one would have for a future committed relationship because sex will have been so demeaned and treated like it’s no big deal…yet it is.</p>
<p>Whoa… m2ck, I think you’re far underestimating people. </p>
<p>There are a lot of things people do where they’re young that they don’t do once they mature. Look at binge drinking. A lot of college students binge drink multiple times a month, however once they mature, they don’t all become alcoholics. They learn what responsible drinking is. </p>
<p>I know that both of my parents had multiple “partners” during their youth and yet somehow they’ve managed to remain faithful for well over 20 years. </p>
<p>I really think you’re selling people short.</p>
<p>I’ve always been conservative when it comes to sex. Think about how great the 70’s were…the b.c. pill, few stds, no HIV yet. I should have had a blast.
I’m no good on this question because it just never was “my thing” to sleep around. I had to be really in love and committed.</p>
<p>Edited to add…there have ALWAYS been women who look upon having sex as the same as scratching an itch. No big deal, it feels good and satisfies a need, so do it.</p>
<p>"I think that too many 18-21 year olds aren’t really grasping the potential harm that they’re doing by having such a casual outlook about sexual intimacy. I do believe that engaging in serial hook ups can destroy ones ability to be monogamous in a future committed relationship. </p>
<p>Why ever be faithful? What would be the “big deal” when you’ve spent so many years convincing yourself that casual sex isn’t a big deal??? How do you switch gears from “sex is just fun and games and doesn’t mean diddly squat” to “sex is so important that you should only do it with your SO”. "</p>
<p>Because now you’re in love. I don’t see what the huge deal is about having multiple relationships prior to marriage --as long as it is done so safely. A broken heart you can recover from, AIDS or an unwanted baby, not so much.</p>
<p>Well, I’m a product of the late 60s/early 70s, and I have had my share of life experiences.</p>
<p>As a very active feminist for many years, I’m very saddened these days by the so-called ‘liberated’ women we have ended up with. And, to some degree, the things we really thought back then were ‘sexual liberation’.</p>
<p>Case in point: I really don’t see the need for explicit sex columns written in some college newspapers these days. Typically written by females, they provide all kinds of advice on sexual situations, activities, how-to info, etc.</p>
<p>Is this really what the women of the earlier generations marched in the streets for? Actually, when I see these columns, written by young women who want to look ‘enlightened’, it just makes me very sad.</p>
<p>I just finished reading “The Unlikely Disciple” by Kevin Roose. Roose, a liberal from Brown, spends a semester at conservative Liberty. Although he expected the rules against physical intimacy to be horrible, he writes that instead he found freedom by not injecting sex into a relationship. He writes that he was able to really get to know a girl without the sexual games and expectations. Something interesting to think about.</p>
<p>^ I really, really don’t think that has to be an issue if you choose to not make it one. I don’t know why people think they need rules in order to show “self control” for lack of a better term. If you don’t want to be physically intimate with someone, don’t. When I first started dating my partner, he wanted to wait until marriage for sex, and I was fine with that because I respected his beliefs and that wasn’t make or break for me.</p>
<p>I don’t know why sexual games have to be involved if you don’t want them. Find someone that won’t play those games. It really doesn’t seem hard to me <em>shrug</em></p>