The 'hook up' culture

[GeratTzedek]

Sidhe:
The point of the book is that women are not biologically designed to have sex with men they don't have relationships with. Casual sex goes against our basic biology. That's why it does psychological harm. Oh there are exeptions to the statistical norm, women who want to have sex without attachment... but even these women seem to burn out over time and become jaded. Women are simply wired differently than men.

 

[sidhe]

Sidhe:
The point of the book is that women are not biologically designed to have sex with men they don't have relationships with. Casual sex goes against our basic biology. That's why it does psychological harm. Oh there are exeptions to the statistical norm, women who want to have sex without attachment... but even these women seem to burn out over time and become jaded. Women are simply wired differently than men.

How do you define "relationship"?

Also, that's a book, not a peer-reviewed study. I'd need more proof than a book that anyone is not biologically designed for certain social behaviors.

Societal norms create psychological situations when it comes to social behaviors, not biological conditions, IME. Were there biological info, I'm sure someone would have provided it by now. How are women "wired" that casual sex is harmful? I saw none of that mentioned in the excerpt you cited, just that the girl wanted to be "friends with benefits," not just "benefits."

When people see something they find morally objectionable, they'll find all kinds of ways to rationalize that it's harmful. If "Anonymous, M.D." had made serious findings, she'd have gone the peer-review route, not the anonymous book route. Funding is in peer-review.

 

[GeratTzedek]

One of the reasons she wrote the book anonymously is because she knew it would be a threat to her livelihood should her views become known. It would not have been safe for her to go the route of peer review.

 

[sidhe]

One of the reasons she wrote the book anonymously is because she knew it would be a threat to her livelihood should her views become known. It would not have been safe for her to go the route of peer review.

Ahhh...that insanity.

There is no evil conspiracy to peer review. If your ideas are solid and well-supported, you pass. If not, you fail. Challenging the mainstream isn't suicide. Einstein said "Newton was wrong," and when his idea was supported and clear, folks came around to his idea. In my field, there's a whole host of younger guys and gals writing about ideas that, 30 years ago, didn't exist (How do people search using Google? Is natural language searching more or less effective than boolean operators?)...and the folks doing the Internet 2.0 research of metadata tying every idea together aren't being drummed out of the business. They're being asked to support their idea.

In other words - when someone says "I won't submit my research to peer-review because it would endanger my professional standing," what that means is "My peers will see that I'm a crackpot doing unrepeatable research drawing false conclusions using questionable rhetoric, thus endangering my professional standing."

I could write a book on information science concerning some ideas I have. I wouldn't be taken seriously unless wrote the same ideas into a peer-reviewed journal article.

 

[PassionFruit]

Another thing to consider is if one has had promiscuous sex for a decade and then gets married, how are they going to feel after five years of being with only one person? Probably more tormented than someone who has not been feeding their sexual appetite for so long.

How did you come to this conclusion? Why would they feel tormented?

However, I still believe promiscuous sex even when very safe can have emotional and mental damage to people. I think you have heard me explain why before and we can leave it at that.

The only way people are emotionally damaged by engaging in promiscuous sex is if they engage in it without really knowing what they want. But what kind of emotional damage are we talking about here?

The point of the book is that women are not biologically designed to have sex with men they don't have relationships with. Casual sex goes against our basic biology. That's why it does psychological harm. Oh there are exeptions to the statistical norm, women who want to have sex without attachment... but even these women seem to burn out over time and become jaded. Women are simply wired differently than men.

How does casual sex go against a woman's basic biology? We have sexual needs just like men, sometimes even more so. I've engaged in casual sex, does that mean I'm going against my 'nature?' And how do you know those women became jaded and burned out? Have you ever engaged in casual sex?

The post about the book didn't seem to have anything to do with political correctness and since the author didn't submit her work for review then it doesn't make for a credible source. When someone writes a book, several people have to review it first.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Sounds to me like you really really really need for the book to be wrong.

 

[quatona]

Sounds to me like you really really really need for the book to be wrong.

Will you provide some arguments from the book, statistics, solid facts, or are ad hominems all you have in support of its idea?

 

[quatona]

These are fair questions.

Let me ask you this rhetorical question: how did you form the concept "mature" -- as in "mature behavior"? (Just an example.)

I do not really seem to understand why you ask this question at some point, but I will of course answer it anyways (however, if I knew the purpose for which you ask it, it would be easier to answer in a way that is congenial with your intention...).
Unfortunately, "mature" isn´t a term that I use often, and it isn´t a term that I have formed a particularly clear concept of. It doesn´t play any significant part in my thinking, so I guess it´s not a good example in this particular case.
Forming concepts is probably a very complex process. To make a long story short, I suspect that as a child I heard abstract terms and tried to find out what they might mean - from the context in which I encountered people using it. As a child, I am assuming, you don´t question abstract concepts. If the adults talk about "X" then this must be a term for something that is a necessary, use- and meaningful concept. You are glad if you think you have figured it out, and you will use it in the way you feel the adults use it. With growing experience you learn that different people use the term for (sometimes only slightly, sometimes completely) different concepts. However, the way you have learned it first remains very strongly that which it "means for you".
It takes a lot of effort to re-investigate the usefulness and meaningfulness of concepts that have always been used naturally in your environment. This is a process that I have been going through very intensely for a couple of years. The main question when it comes to sorting out or modifying concepts and categories for me is: Which purpose does it serve (what does it help with), which purpose does it not serve, in which context is it usable, and in which context different concepts and categories are more helpful.
As for "mature" (thanks for offering it - I haven´t really made subject to these investigations so far, mainly because it´s not a term and concept I had much use for anyways): I feel it is redundant. I don´t know what it could possibly help me with.

My guess is that this wasn't the result of a strictly deductive process, but came from integrating different ideas, observations, experiences, etc. It may be difficult to explain the full process by which you formed such a concept.

Agreed. However (not sure whether it is important here or not, though) I´d like to point out that my questions were not about forming concepts, but about forming valuations and/or preferences - and which determines which and how.

Regarding sexuality, I'll offer some of my views.

Thanks. I will respond to some of them. Please keep in mind that I am not out to question anyone´s feelings or convictions.
I am merely trying to find out whether there is a logical, rational way to the idea that sex is sacred.

The mind-body dichotomy is false. As living persons, we have both mind and body, and both form a single, unified whole. As such, sexuality is no less a mental phenomenon than a physical one.

Agree.

Also, it is dangerous to treat reality as anything other than what it is. Reality is what it is, not what we might like it to be. To treat something as something other than what it fully is -- even unintentionally -- carries risks and the potential for mistakes.

Well, we have different concepts of "reality", but if trying to work from your concept I think I would agree. "Dangerous" seems to be a bit of an exaggeration, but yes, disregarding certain aspects comes with risks.

And so, is dangerous to treat oneself or others as disembodied minds (or to treat the body as a less important "part"), or as unminded bodies (or the mind as a less important "part"), and that includes sexual treatment.

Agreed, too.
My actual question, however, is why you single out sexual treatment as "sacred". If following your reasoning so far, it would not only include sexual treatment, but literally everything that we do. Yet you picture sexuality as essentially different from, say, sports, music, dish washing and nose picking (all of which are matters of body/mind) - in that you consider it "sacred".
These general contemplations about body/mind (as interesting as they are) don´t help one bit to explain this distinction.

Falling on the "disembodied mind" end of the spectrum, the body will be seen as a prison that may be shameful or threatening to one's "soul". The body will be at best the source of one's "lower nature", and viewed with suspicion.

On the "unminded body" end, the mind may be seen as a threat to one's bodily interests. To deny one's bodily urges will be seen as denying one's fundamental nature. Sexual encounters will be little more than scratching an itch and will have no particular meaning, because the mind is the realm of meaning. Sex becomes mutual masturbation, and you might as well be having sex with a fembot.[/quote]
Ah, come on, Mark.
I guess there are some people who see it this way - and this would according to what you have said above - not only a disembodiment in matters of sex, but in everything that affects the body.
But: As far as I can see not a single one of the persons who advocate casual sex in this thread has even only faintly said or displayed such an attitude. Rather the opposite: Most of the participants have expressed that they hold sex in high regards, they value it greatly, and they give it an important meaning. None of them has said that it doesn´t matter who they have sex with, nobody has reduced it to a bodily function.
So - while there may be such people as you describe out there - this is pretty much a slippery slope argument.
People who buy into the body/mind dichotomy will miss something important in any case. Those who overemphasize the mere functionality of the body will miss something in sex - no matter whether it is casual sex or sex within a committed relationship. People who hold the body in low regards or even condemn it will also "not take reality for what it is", no matter whether in a committed relationship or in casual sex.
To me it seems like you have it backwards. These opinions may come with risks and harm, but these opinions aren´t necessarily linked to (or even the result of) the number of sex partners someone has.

Whatever: Again I would like to remind you what my actual question is:
What justifies singling out sex as "sacred"? So far all these philosophical contemplations can be taken as an argument for playing tennis, making music together, giving someone a massage or any other human interaction being "sacred", and - if performed in the "mistaken body/mind dichotomy" - potentially dangerous, risky and harmful. Treating the other person only as an object, reducing him/her to a bodily function, etc.

My biggest issue with treating sex casually is that it seems to treat people as mere bodies, and not as complete persons. Also, it seems to treat oneself in that same way. (I should reiterate that I don't view all "one night stands" in this way. It is rather one's overall attitude towards sex; its role in one's life-plan. Sexual experiences can be stepping stones to something else.)

Again: Since none of the persons advocating casual sex here are even only somewhere near to such an overall attitude, something seems to be wrong with your analysis.
You picture a scenario that is neither logical nor necessarily following and use it as an argument against "casual sex".
I mean - should I point to the weird, careless, loveless, mindless, merely functional, forced upon... sex that is the reality in many marriages and make it an argument against sex in committed relationships and for the idea that sex in committed relationships is dangerous and risky? It would be the same sort of argument you are making here....

My views on sex arise from the requirements of integral living. In this view, an integrated view of mind and body, I think it is natural to gravitate towards a view of sex that respects both, and I think this leads to a "romantic" (or meaningful, or personable) view of sexuality. When one is attentive to the existence of one's partner as a complete person, then the kind of intimacy involved in sex is going to mean something, and that is likely to preclude taking it casually. It will likely involve hopes for something more, if it isn't fully valued for its own sake.

As much sense as all this might make (I have some objections, though, but they would lead too far off-topic), I still don´t seem to understand why you apply all these statements to sex, and not to all other human interactions.
Look here:
I think that playing musical duets should be reserved for people in a committed relationship. My views on playing music together arise from the requirements of integral living. In this view, an integrated view of mind and body, I think it is natural to gravitate towards a view of playing music together that respects both, and I think this leads to a "romantic" (or meaningful, or personable) view of playing music together. When one is attentive to the existence of one's musical partner as a complete person, then the kind of intimacy involved in playing music together is going to mean something, and that is likely to preclude taking it casually. It will likely involve hopes for something more, if it isn't fully valued for its own sake.

This makes as much (or little) sense as an argument for singling out playing music together as "sacred" as your version makes sense as an argument for singling out sex as "sacred".If you´d ask me why I feel that playing music together should not be taken casually but only be performed in a committed relationship, I´m sure the above answer would leave you as frustrated as yours leave me.

Do you see my problem?

 

[quatona]

For further clarification, let me add that there are actually two distinct things I don´t understand.
1. how one gets to the notion that sex is "sacred" and
2. how the notion "something is sacred, inherently meaningful, particularly great" leads to "therefore it should be performed only by two persons exclusively". The conclusion "it is sacred, inherently meaningful - therefore we should offer it to and share it with as many of those persons that we hold dear as we can" would make at least as much sense. At least that´s the way we usually deal with great, particularly meaningful, "sacred" things we hold in high regards.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Perhaps society is just developing so that now it is normal to have many casual partners before settling down. As far as I remember since I last heard about it, marriage rates aren't falling very significantly. And, where they are, people are going for long term cohabitation, which isn't in reality any different. So it looks like people aren't avoiding commitment, just having more experience first.

As our population ages and lives for longer, this could be inevitable. If we're having kids at 15, as in the past, we need to grow up, settle down and provide for them pretty quickly. But now that we're living til 80 instead of 50, so can procreate at 30 instead of 20, we might as well enjoy our childhood and adolescence. And enjoying the latter involves a lot of sexual encounters. And why not?

 

[Autumnleaf]

Perhaps society is just developing so that now it is normal to have many casual partners before settling down. As far as I remember since I last heard about it, marriage rates aren't falling very significantly. And, where they are, people are going for long term cohabitation, which isn't in reality any different. So it looks like people aren't avoiding commitment, just having more experience first.

Marriage rates are in flux as society allows for promiscuity at older ages. Avoiding commitment is the same as having more experience these days.

As our population ages and lives for longer, this could be inevitable. If we're having kids at 15, as in the past, we need to grow up, settle down and provide for them pretty quickly. But now that we're living til 80 instead of 50, so can procreate at 30 instead of 20, we might as well enjoy our childhood and adolescence. And enjoying the latter involves a lot of sexual encounters. And why not?

The reason why not has to do with things like VD which can kill you, failure to lock into a rewarding career, and becoming a baby momma or baby daddy who neglects or raises a child who grows up to be a monster unleashed on society. There are consequences to the choices we make.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Actually, long term cohabitation is NOT at all like marriage. Socioligal surveys show that people act differently if they cohabitate than if married. Women are more likely to be abused if cohabitating than if married. Cohabiting couples that marry are far more likely to divorce than married couples who never cohabited.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Marriage rates are in flux as society allows for promiscuity at older ages. Avoiding commitment is the same as having more experience these days.

How so? Why can't people have experience that is not in any way cheating and then be in a committed relationship afterwards?

The reason why not has to do with things like VD which can kill you, failure to lock into a rewarding career, and becoming a baby momma or baby daddy who neglects or raises a child who grows up to be a monster unleashed on society. There are consequences to the choices we make.

Contraception.

 

[GeratTzedek]

For further clarification, let me add that there are actually two distinct things I don´t understand.
1. how one gets to the notion that sex is "sacred" and
2. how the notion "something is sacred, inherently meaningful, particularly great" leads to "therefore it should be performed only by two persons exclusively". The conclusion "it is sacred, inherently meaningful - therefore we should offer it to and share it with as many of those persons that we hold dear as we can" would make at least as much sense. At least that´s the way we usually deal with great, particularly meaningful, "sacred" things we hold in high regards.

I don't think it takes a society filled with no one but rocket scientists to see that sexual behavior leads to incredible emotional pain and abandoned children and often to violence. Do you realize that there is no murder among the Eskimos except with regards to stealing another man's woman? So societies erect various fences around sex to protect people. Such fences are almost always connected to the local religion, as religion is what is in charge of protecting people from each other through rituals and traditions. Sex is thought of as "sacred" because it is *powerful.* It can heal, and it can destroy. It must not be treated casually, or it will rush over your life like a flashflood.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I don't think it takes a society filled with no one but rocket scientists to see that sexual behavior leads to incredible emotional pain and abandoned children and often to violence. Do you realize that there is no murder among the Eskimos except with regards to stealing another man's woman? So societies erect various fences around sex to protect people. Such fences are almost always connected to the local religion, as religion is what is in charge of protecting people from each other through rituals and traditions.

What a wonderful stereotype of people who have sex outside of marriage. Newsflash: it's the vast majority of us. And yet has society collapsed? Not that I've noticed.

And let's not equate casual sex with adultery, as there is a huge difference. In the former, there are two consenting parties, in the latter a third party is deeply hurt.

 

[GeratTzedek]

I'm curious what this crowd thinks of Margaret Meads famous scandal? What do you think it was that pressed her to falsify her research?

 

[GeratTzedek]

What a wonderful stereotype of people who have sex outside of marriage. Newsflash: it's the vast majority of us. And yet has society collapsed? Not that I've noticed.

And let's not equate casual sex with adultery, as there is a huge difference. In the former, there are two consenting parties, in the latter a third party is deeply hurt.

Actually, society is collapsing under your very nose. Children are being born out of wedlock, and don't kid yourself -- it means they grow up in poverty, on the dole, and with an uphill battle emotionally. It is a drain on society's health care, school system, and social services. We are breaking under the strain. I know, because I work in the system to help these children. And as much as I love them, I can't be their father.

One of the purposes of marriage is to designate who gets to have sex with whom. Don't think for a minute that marraige doesn't curtail violence between jealous men.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Actually, society is collapsing under your very nose. Children are being born out of wedlock, and don't kid yourself -- it means they grow up in poverty, on the dole, and with an uphill battle emotionally. It is a drain on society's health care, school system, and social services. We are breaking under the strain. I know, because I work in the system to help these children. And as much as I love them, I can't be their father.

One of the purposes of marriage is to designate who gets to have sex with whom. Don't think for a minute that marraige doesn't curtail violence between jealous men.

People have genuinely believed that society is collapsing for 3000 years. Taking a generation to be 20 years, that's 600 generations. What exactly makes you think you're better placed to judge the situation than the previous 599 generations who believed exactly as you do?

Besides, what you are talking about is a class issue. There are families of both the working and middle class without fathers. And I have personally seen both do very well, and both do badly. We need to stop pretending that single parent families are a phenomenon of the working class, and then we can really discuss the issues.

 

[Autumnleaf]

How so? Why can't people have experience that is not in any way cheating and then be in a committed relationship afterwards?

Why does chicken taste like chicken instead of fish? Maybe because it is chicken?

Contraception.

Of course! That must be why there are no single parents or no more VD. Contraceptions has been the magic bullet which has eradicated those banes to society. Thanks for sharing the common sense. Its good to know everyone is as responsible as you give them credit for.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Why does chicken taste like chicken instead of fish? Maybe because it is chicken?

So experience excludes experience?

Of course! That must be why there are no single parents or no more VD. Contraceptions has been the magic bullet which has eradicated those banes to society. Thanks for sharing the common sense. Its good to know everyone is as responsible as you give them credit for.

Contraception and more importantly education has done well. Look at the figures: you are so wrong.

And your solution is what? Abstinence? If you think teens will be abstinent then you are irreversibly stupid.