The Book on Hooking Up

Kathleen A. Bogle, author of a new book, Hooking Up: Sex, Dating , and Relationships on Campus, was interviewed here for InsideHigherEd about her book. She is an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice. An excerpt from the interview:

Q: Can traditional dating survive alongside “hooking up"? Should the two paradigms coexist, or are they merging into a single overall “script” that students follow?

A: I think traditional dating is surviving alongside of hooking up in the larger culture, but on campus hooking up has replaced dating as the primary means for students to meet and form sexual and romantic relationships. This does not mean that students never go out for dinner and a movie. The “date” still exists among college students, but it is couples who are already in an exclusive relationship who do it. In other words, the pathway to a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship where a couple might go on a date begins with hooking up. In the dating era, students would go on a date, which might lead to something sexual happening; in the hookup era, students hook up, which might lead to dating. This is a reversal of the traditional order of things. The problem is that many college men are pleased with the status quo; they can hook up and if they want to pursue an ongoing relationship they can, but they are under no obligation to do so. Women, on the other hand, get increasingly frustrated after freshman year with how often it seems that hooking up leads to “nothing.”

Some of this reminds of points made about sex and dating and the path to marriage made by Dawn Eden in her book  The Thrill of the Chaste.

Sex first, then dating? Is some of this due to years of teaching little kids in elementary school about sex first, but not about dating? Who are their role models? She also notes in the interview that guys who are active in the hooking up scene are known as players but girls who can easily end up being termed sluts. And then there is the "walk of shame." I thought we were past all this stuff when we got liberated by the sexual revolution. More education is needed, a federally-funded program to quash sexual relationship hate speech.

Comments

[Seth R.]

I don't really think it has much to do with public education at all.

I think it's mainly because American parents are failing miserably.

Today's kids are shell-shocked and gun-shy of committed relationships because so many of them have seen their own parents' failed relationships. The kids therefore vow not to repeat their parents' mistakes and are VERY cautious about entering a committed relationship.

Understandable as the impulse is, the practical effect is that half the young people out there are entering into relationships with eventual failure and separation firmly in mind. Even when they do get married, they do so secretly planning their future divorce.

But I don't think it really has anything to do with sex-ed. The controversies over sex-education and creationism at public schools are just excuses that lousy parents are making for their own failure to instill any values or character in their own kids. "The kids are failing! Well it can't be MY fault! Must be that nasty liberal sex-ed teacher..."

Yeah... sure.

[David Gray]

>But I don't think it really has anything to do with sex-ed. The controversies over sex-education and creationism at public schools are just excuses that lousy parents are making for their own failure to instill any values or character in their own kids.

Having the state, through public schools, instill an animalistic amoral understanding of sex is not helpful whether parents do a good or poor job raising their children. Of course really good parents are going to endeavour to keep their kids out of government schools.

[labrialumn]

Luther wrote on his commentary on the 10 Commandments that parents and the government had the duty to get people married at a fairly young age.

I don't think that we can count on the civil government. Perhaps the Church ought to take this up, rather than leaving it to secular culture.

[Seth R.]

I'm not arguing it isn't a negative in and of itself. I'm just saying that I think it's impact is rather marginal compared to home influences. If the parents were doing their job, we wouldn't have to worry about whether the schools are doing their job for them properly.

[Kathy Hanneman]

I think another factor that can't be overlooked is the list of false promises offered by feminism. I was a college student in the Seventies when feminists were yelling, "double standard." Their solution to remove the double standard was not to hold men to a higher one (abstinence before marriage) but to give a lower one to women (free recreational sex.) I believe that what is happening now is just the logical progression of what was started back then. And guess what?
"Players" and "sluts"? The double standard still exists!

[DGP]

The first and greatest factor is the pandemic degradation of marriage from an immutable institution grounding sex and family life to a self-expressive lifestyle option. The interruption and loss of parenting traditions and the rise of feminism, both mentioned above, play a role. Still other factors include (1) the contraceptive mentality, according to which non-procreation has become the standard for sexual activity, (2) immodest social communications, in which media gleefully and explicitly discuss all manner of sexual stimulations, and bring images thereof to every man's desk, and (3) the shamelessness of a sexually liberated culture, which neither demands nor expects the resignation of a President who perjures himself on the subject of sex.

But if you're here, you knew all this already. Mr. Kushiner is shooting fish in a barrel.

[jason]

Odd that this post seems to find some virtue in dating. If you would have asked me before I read this, I could have predicted that, with the way dating in our culture is progressing, "hooking up" as a norm would be the inevitable and logical end.

I like the "marriage at a young age" thought, but it would take a lot of commitment on the part of the supporting community nowadays since the larger society is strongly against it. A commitment I am willing to make. I am delighted that I am close to two engaged couples under the age of 23.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>Of course really good parents are going to endeavour to keep their kids out of government schools.
<<<

Give me a list of the places you've lived so I can be sure to stay the hell away from them. We've got great public schools in my town and in the whole area was what I can see. I sure pity you folks who are stuck there in Sodom.

[David Gray]

>We've got great public schools in my town and in the whole area was what I can see.

A school which is obligated to be "neutral" regarding God (behaving as if He is not there) is likely going to be functionally atheist.

[Christian]

DGP has it: if contraception is understood to reliably prevent pregnancy, then contraceptive sex is without consequence, so what's the problem?

[maggie]

Read this book for an internship last summer. Ugh. Living, as I do, at a small-town Christian college, I felt like I was reading about life on another planet.

I don't think we realize just how different the world is than the one we've grown used to . . . makes me want to go up to the next "scandalous" couple I see kissing behind the soccer fields and thank them for being so chaste and discreet . . .

[Bobby Winters]

>>>A school which is obligated to be "neutral" regarding God (behaving as if He is not there) is likely going to be functionally atheist.<<<

Like I said, we've got great schools. The really good parents are the ones who choose to live places where the schools are good. Pity the children of those who choose to live in Sodom!

[Bob]

I guess the really bad parents are those who don't have money or means to do anything other than live in a place with bad school and send their kids to such?

[The young fogey]

Mainstream society has become this vile.

[Bobby Winters]

>>I guess the really bad parents are those who don't have money or means to do anything other than live in a place with bad school and send their kids to such?<<

The median household income in my county is $25000.

[Joe Long]

"The really good parents are the ones who choose to live places where the schools are good."

I trust this isn't really intended quite the way it comes across, but I'm going to comment on it as if it were.

The prime mark of a good parent is NOT necessarilly how much care he takes in selecting an institution to act "in loco parentis". That's like saying "the best teachers are those who show the highest quality educational videos to their classes". I would indeed expect that, in those cases where an educational video might be called for, better teachers would strive to pick good ones - but the best of PBS-approved video lessons would be as poor a substitute for a real teacher, as the best of schools is for real parents.

[Nick]

I'm not sure I agree with the double standard language. There have always been those that admire sluts and players. To those admirers the words both mean good things. To those that don't those words are both vile. Note the use of, "you don't want him, he's just a player." The "double standard" has just been an excuse for a race to mediocrity.

[Bob]

'The median household income in my county is $25000."

With all due respect, so what? The intention of your comment was far from clear.

A person who lives in a poor area, who makes little money, who can't afford to move anywhere (this is something a lot of people with money don't realize is the case for most other people), and who just doesn't have the means to move up economically is a bad parent because he/she sends their child to the only school they can?

Again: If the "good" parent is the one who "chooses" to live in a particular place, what do you call the parent who hasn't the luxury of choosing where to live?

Frankly, the whole thing stinks of class smarminess.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>I trust this isn't really intended quite the way it comes across, but I'm going to comment on it as if it were.

With all due respect, so what? The intention of your comment was far from clear.

A person who lives in a poor area, who makes little money, who can't afford to move anywhere (this is something a lot of people with money don't realize is the case for most other people), and who just doesn't have the means to move up economically is a bad parent because he/she sends their child to the only school they can?

Again: If the "good" parent is the one who "chooses" to live in a particular place, what do you call the parent who hasn't the luxury of choosing where to live?

Frankly, the whole thing stinks of class smarminess.<<<

Folks, look at the genesis of my remarks. Someone leveled a shot at anybody who would send their children to government run schools. Quite frankly, a statement that broad is something that belongs on the stable floor. There are some really good public schools.

As far as those not having a choice where to live, there are those who don't have a choice of a parochial school or homeschooling, and the attitude that good parents don't send their children to public schools is worse than smarmy.

[Bob]

"the attitude that good parents don't send their children to public schools is worse than smarmy."

On that we certainly agree.

[Joe Long]

"The intention of your comment was far from clear..."

My apologies. My intention was to point out, charitably if possible, how far you had overstated yourself - implicitly defining "good parents" on the sole basis of where they "chose" to live (this choice, too, defined on a single criterion: the quality of the locale's government schools).

The odd assumption that everyone has the means to relocate to a "good" school district worries me a good deal less, than the parallel assumption that a parent's highest duty is choosing who ELSE raises their kids - "ah, we've got a good school district! Now we can get back to our adult lives and priorities, 'cause everything should unfold properly, with 'professionals' educating and socializing our children!"

Fie on that! If you truly have a good local school, be thankful, but it won't make up for bad parenting . Nor can a lousy one defeat determined, involved Christian parents. The rehab centers are full of the offspring of hard-working folks, who broke their backs and wallets to send their kids to "good schools"; getting your kids into a "good school" is great, but neither strictly necessary nor entirely sufficient for being a good parent.

Now, if I haven't made myself clear, it's beyond my powers.

[David Gray]

>Folks, look at the genesis of my remarks. Someone leveled a shot at anybody who would send their children to government run schools. Quite frankly, a statement that broad is something that belongs on the stable floor. There are some really good public schools.

How do you have a good public school if it is not permitted by law to acknowledge the existence of God? If I want something similar to what I find on a stable floor then I assume I am looking at the typical academic content of a public school which is a different topic (and in that less important regard there are good public schools).

[Bobby Winters]

>>How do you have a good public school if it is not permitted by law to acknowledge the existence of God? If I want something similar to what I find on a stable floor then I assume I am looking at the typical academic content of a public school which is a different topic (and in that less important regard there are good public schools).<<

The more you write, the clearer you make it that you and I have had completely different experiences with public schools. Quite frankly, the vast majority of public school teachers I've known are Christians. They offer their opinions on God freely when asked, even in the classroom setting.

As for academic content, I find our public schools to be quite strong and challenging.

[David Gray]

>Quite frankly, the vast majority of public school teachers I've known are Christians.

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in a public school on faculty in any role. My wife and I have both taught in public schools and in very different parts of the country and neither of us have observed this truly remarkable phenomena.

>They offer their opinions on God freely when asked, even in the classroom setting.

So they teach as if God did not exist but will offer an opinion if asked?

[Ethan C.]

>>So they teach as if God did not exist but will offer an opinion if asked?<<

My 6th grade science teacher, in small town Bethany, Missouri, let us know quite explicitly that he did not believe in the evolutionary material presented in the textbook. He did so with no prompting.

My Latin teacher in high school, here in Jefferson City, Missouri, was a devout Catholic who let his opinions be known in the classroom, and when a group of his students toured Italy with him, he took us to the crypt of St. Francis and encouraged us to ascend the Holy Stairs in Rome on our knees.

Your mileage, of course, may vary. And I do, by the way, believe that homeschooling is almost invariably superior to public schooling in the early grades and should be seriously considered by anyone who might find it within their means.

[Blake Walter]

I have to confess that I have never worried too much about what our public schools are teaching my kids (and we are blessed with very good ones), or what my church is teaching them either, for that matter. I know what I teach them, and I work hard to have a relationship with them where they can feel comfortable coming to me with questions. Now that they're teenagers, that doesn't happen too often, but I expect that to change again someday. My kids are pretty good at identifying stupidity no matter how it is dressed up, my own included. Whether they choose to avoid stupidity, well, now that is a matter for prayer.

[Bobby Winters]

***>Quite frankly, the vast majority of public school teachers I've known are Christians.

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in a public school on faculty in any role. My wife and I have both taught in public schools and in very different parts of the country and neither of us have observed this truly remarkable phenomena.
***

I am university faculty and administration. I live in a town of 20,000 is southeast Kansas. Every teacher I know belongs to a church. So of them Catholics, some Methodist, some Presbyterians, some Nazarenes, some from scary, scary, scary little millennial churches that would consider you to be a loony liberal. You've apparently chosen to live your life on the border of Sodom and Gomorrah.

***>They offer their opinions on God freely when asked, even in the classroom setting.

So they teach as if God did not exist but will offer an opinion if asked?
***

Nope, the teaching as if God didn't exist is your imposition on the situation.

[labrialumn]

Bobby,
Not everyone is a nomad, and considering the law, those schools are on the shortlist for lawsuits from the ACLU. For if they are being open about their faith, they are breaking the law. If they are teaching from good 'living' books, from the classics, if they are teaching creation as true rather than philosophical materialism as true, then they are breaking the law. In fact, these schools you describe must be failing terribly in the NCLB program, which is a -federal- law, applicable even in the back country of SE Kansas. This will be noticed and it will be dealt with - apart from national repentance.

God be with those teachers, they are in for a very rough time before the law.

[labrialumn]

Back on topic, apparently a "Relevant Church" that is the name(?), is having a 30 days of sex challenge for the married couples, and 30 days of no sex for the singles in their congregation. They interviewed one young man who said that he hoped that someday, when he met the right woman, he could tell her that back in 2008, he did this thing for her.

Ok, so the pastor knows the singles are sleeping around, and he hasn't put them under discipline??? Or gotten a shotgun? ;-)

If that is where the church is, what can stay the mighty wrath of God?

[David Gray]

>Every teacher I know belongs to a church.

Wow. No Jews, Mormons or atheists? Every one of them committed to living out their faith? What a great place.

>You've apparently chosen to live your life on the border of Sodom and Gomorrah.

What a genuinely foolish comment.

[David Gray]

>Ok, so the pastor knows the singles are sleeping around, and he hasn't put them under discipline??? Or gotten a shotgun? ;-)

It is okay. They are supplying teachers to the public schools...

[ron chandonia]

I live in a town of 20,000 is southeast Kansas.

Kansas? The state that shelters "Killer Tiller," America's most notorious abortionist? I wouldn't want to discredit your testimony, but I really wonder how different your community is from the rest of your state . . . and the rest of America today.

Here in the most politically conservative community in Georgia, I would never put my daughter in a public school. They are PC-Paradises, and they get away with it because the students have phenomenal standardized test scores and college-placement records. In the minds of most parents, that more than justifies dumping their kids into an amoral cesspool every day.

[James Kabala]

I sympathize with the posters who are opposed to public schools, but I think many of them are completely oblivious to the class issues involved in the decisions parents make as to where to send their children to school, and take pleasure in their obliviousness.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the current generation are themselves poor, I might add, but those who went to public school themselves and think that they turned out all right, and (if they still live in the same town) perhaps even have loyalty to the high school they attended, are likely to continue in the same way with their own children rather than act as if they are above their upbringing. The public school graduate who sends his own kids to private school is more likely to be a social climber than a devout Christian, at least in my experience.

[Mairnéalach]

Some Christians should homeschool.

Some Christians should utilize public schools.

Some Christians should figure out when to trust the informed consciences of other Christians, and quit imposing extralegal burdens upon them.

Believe it or not, some Christian parents actually know what they're doing, and are successfully teaching their children to fear the LORD in whatever setting they are in.

Say not, "Why were the former days better than these?" For it is not from wisdom that you ask this. -the HOLY SPIRIT via Qoholeth

[Bobby Winters]

***>Every teacher I know belongs to a church.

Wow. No Jews, Mormons or atheists? Every one of them committed to living out their faith? What a great place.

***
It sure is a great place. Please don't move here.

***>You've apparently chosen to live your life on the border of Sodom and Gomorrah.

What a genuinely foolish comment.
***

I bow to the expert on foolish comments.

[David Gray]

>I bow to the expert on foolish comments.

Write less and my expertise will diminish...

[Bobby Winters]

>>Write less and my expertise will diminish...<<

;)

[Bill R]

Don't make me do my Rodney King impersonation, guys!

[Bobby Winters]

I hope no one is taking this exchange between David and me as a serious disagreement.

[David Gray]

Well we are in serious disagreement but it ended in good humour...

[Bobby Winters]

Amendment well-taken.

[Steve Nicoloso]

And I do, by the way, believe that homeschooling is almost invariably superior to public schooling in the early grades and should be seriously considered by anyone who might find it within their means.

Helluva lot cheaper than private schooling... and in comparison to (what, alas, passes in most dioceses for) "Catholic" schooling, a lot more Christian. I'm not sure about this "early grades" qualification. By my reckoning the most important ages during which to homeschool are between "grades" 6 thru 9, that being about the ages, where peer pressure can really destroy a child.

And I actually DO live next door to Sodom & Gommorah (north central NJ) but I'd still send my kids to public school if we couldn't homeschool, almost entirely for financial reasons. But, we'd probably do just about anything to keep homeschooling.