tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post3366801365734167380..comments2024-03-28T21:56:51.675-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Data on what Millennials actually mean by "hooking up" agnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-46777424239511228822013-10-20T15:45:49.187-04:002013-10-20T15:45:49.187-04:00"They are also, however, reporting not being ..."They are also, however, reporting not being in a relationship with the people who have sex with them much more than they did thirty or forty years ago."<br /><br />That doesn't mean that they're having sex with several people at once. Kids these days are much less comfortable putting "a label" on anything. They may be sleeping with the same person for months, but they're too afraid to admit that it's a relationship. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-88304269830900165322012-12-15T15:00:38.525-05:002012-12-15T15:00:38.525-05:00"These days, women are mating on the lek patt..."These days, women are mating on the lek pattern, which involves less sex and fewer sexual partners, but still makes them bigger sluts and less monogamous."<br /><br />This is what I"ve been saying, but its actually debatable. Certainly, Millenials are more reluctant to call each other "boyfriend and girlfriend", and don't go on dates as much, but they still could have basically monogamous mating patterns.<br /><br />Agnostic made a previous post about how modern young people will sleep with someone exclusively but deny that person is a boyfriend or girlfriend.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-26700738061443031462012-12-14T22:20:30.747-05:002012-12-14T22:20:30.747-05:00I hope there's another Bernie Goetz.I hope there's another Bernie Goetz. asnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-30002885173619414282012-12-14T22:04:46.143-05:002012-12-14T22:04:46.143-05:00Women are reporting less sexual partners than they...<i>Women are reporting less sexual partners than they did 30 or 40 years ago. </i><br /><br />They are also, however, reporting not being in a relationship with the people who have sex with them much more than they did thirty or forty years ago.<br /><br />Which is not monogamy, but hypergamy.<br /><br />Hypergamy is in some ways the reverse of sexual promiscuity. It is, however, <em>sexual immorality</em><br /><br />These days, women are mating on the lek pattern, which involves less sex and fewer sexual partners, but still makes them bigger sluts and less monogamous.<br /><br /><br />James A. Donaldhttp://blog.jim.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-77385386312457281442012-12-14T20:04:06.167-05:002012-12-14T20:04:06.167-05:00School shootings. They really seemed to get more ...School shootings. They really seemed to get more common in the 1990s, right? <br /><br />asnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-68846240074851883092012-12-13T23:41:27.211-05:002012-12-13T23:41:27.211-05:00"If you compare today's world with that o..."If you compare today's world with that of 30 or 40 years, you will see that nowadays women´s tendency is to have more casual and uncommitted sexual relationships, more permissiveness and promiscuity, but only with alfa men."<br /><br />Women are reporting less sexual partners than they did 30 or 40 years ago. <br /><br />While it *may* be true that sexual relationships have become more casual, there are simply less of them going on. To use the word "promiscuous" is inaccurate, since promiscuous means having sex with lots of different people.<br /><br />Also, PUA is wrong about almost everything. Its just a mixture of wishful thinking and seething resentment. A bunch of bitter nerds who, having been rejected, want to believe that women are a bunch of sluts being exploited by "alphas". It makes the pain a little easier to live with, I guess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-49831926903757748482012-12-13T23:32:34.228-05:002012-12-13T23:32:34.228-05:00Macguyver:
."You fail to predict the actual ...Macguyver:<br /><br />."You fail to predict the actual pervasiveness of female promiscuity and adultery using observable behavior." <br /> <br />I'm not sure what you mean by observable behavior. All you people who say times are wild are basing your perceptions on television.<br /><br />Anyway, I agree with most of what you said. with a few exceptions. First, women aren't more promiscuous! They have less sexual partners. It may be that women are becoming more polygamous - meaning, as you said, only a small portion of men are getting laid. But this is not the same thing as promiscuity. <br /><br />Promiscuity = having many different sexual partners.<br /><br />Second, "beta" males - an ambiguous term, since attractive men can actually be monogamous and caring - never supported feminism thinking it would give them "a bigger piece of the pie". Feminism was forced on them. <br /><br />What caused feminism is debatable. In my opinion, teminism is the result of new weapons technology, which has led to the end of infantry warfare and the end of large land armies. Nations no longer need to maintain a large supply of men. <br /><br />-Curtis<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-72432317930961520252012-12-13T15:00:48.815-05:002012-12-13T15:00:48.815-05:00If it doesn't sound like rising monogamy to yo...If it doesn't sound like rising monogamy to you, you have no frame of reference.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-48364115339524097502012-12-13T13:57:17.745-05:002012-12-13T13:57:17.745-05:00"Hookups involving oral, vaginal, or anal sex...<em>"Hookups involving oral, vaginal, or anal sex were reported by 51% prior to college, 36% during their first semester, and 60% by the end of their first semester."</em><br /><br />Does not sound like the rise of monogamy to me.James A. Donaldhttp://blog.jim.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-58122452610582418522012-12-13T11:05:04.117-05:002012-12-13T11:05:04.117-05:00“the social milieu is sexually repressive. You hav...“the social milieu is sexually repressive. You have to establish yourself in the power structure - by getting a job, or joining the right frat, or whatever - to get laid, because the girls are so averse to having sex with some guy off the street.”<br /><br />You are biased, you should read a little bit about modern sexual trends there are interesting articles and books (Henry Laasanen, Steve Moxon and Baumeister) on female sexual power and sexual market. You fail to predict the actual pervasiveness of female promiscuity and adultery using observable behavior. All we know what happens in most interactions ritual associated with men approaching women like in single bars or nightclubs; In bars you will likely see a number of men trying to meeting women and a much smaller number of women rejecting most of those men. This is repeated, bar after bar, city after city. The women tend to choose only very attractive male suitors in the establishment (even if the women are only of moderate attractiveness or uglies).<br /><br />If women rejecting 80% of men it is not due to restriction and women´s puritanism or chastity but their sexual selection. It is only on evaluations and dating preferences as a function of physical attractiveness. I can assure you that a modern woman is not restrictive with a man who she is attracted to. Women want to engage in social interactions with good-looking men, so these one are enjoying the ample premarital rewards of sexually available women. You fail to predict the actual pervasiveness of female promiscuity and adultery using observable behavior. <br /><br />If most of men can not get laid does not mean that women are sexually repressed. If you compare today's world with that of 30 or 40 years, you will see that nowadays women´s tendency is to have more casual and uncommitted sexual relationships, more permissiveness and promiscuity, but only with alfa men. Young women engage in sex at an earlier point in their relationships, and to be involved in relationships characterized by less investment, commitment, love, and dependency. The attitude of sex is becoming open. Premarital sex, extramarital sex is also increasing between women and top ranked men.<br /><br />In an important sense, the sexual revolution of the 1970s was itself a market correction. Once women had been granted wide opportunities for education and wealth, they no longer had to hold sex hostage. That is, they no longer had to suffer the indignity of Beta provider courtship. Now that they had the resources, it was open season on alpha male cock hopping. <br /><br />the sexual revolution have backfired on beta males expecting a bigger slice of the snatch pie. What does all this mean for men? The social trends suggest the continuing influence of a stable fact, namely the strong desire of young men for sexual activity. As the environment has shifted, men have simply adjusted their behavior to find the best means to achieve this same goal. Back in 1960, it was difficult to get sex without getting married or at least engaged, and so men married early. To be sure, this required more than being willing to bend the knee, declare love, and offer a ring. To qualify as marriage material, a man had to have a job or at least a strong prospect of one (such as based on an imminent college degree). The man’s overarching goal of getting sex thus motivated him to become a respectable stakeholder contributing to society.macgyvernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-40274961935189767032012-12-13T09:58:31.294-05:002012-12-13T09:58:31.294-05:006- Things have turned out to be more complicated. ...6- Things have turned out to be more complicated. Men in a new, global mating market (mobility became unprecedented, more of the population moved into cities, Internet age, excess of single males over single females at all reproductive ages) find themselves in great competition they would never have otherwise had to compete with, so men face the prospect of having to stand out as special and attractive amongst a much larger pool of singletons than they were used. Whereas before a man just needed to be one of the best looking guys at his rural village, in his town or in some nighclubs and bars to get a date with a girl, now he needed to be in the top high attractive 10% of all men to get a date with one of the women in huge cities and/or online dating websites.<br /><br />7- What's interesting is this new social order affects mating dynamics in the years of high school and college, but less in sexual dynamics. this sexual freedom affects always and mainly well beyond and outside of the college years, with the difference being that, in their 20s and 30s, a select number of fewer men (let's call them highly attractive men) are enjoying the ample premarital rewards of sexually available women.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-45775095294918766542012-12-13T09:57:54.466-05:002012-12-13T09:57:54.466-05:00Agnostic,
I am not convinced by your argument abo...Agnostic,<br /><br />I am not convinced by your argument above. The current actual mating is multidimensional and involves tradeoffs. I am familiar with the study you cite, but, it is only one papper, and at least you should bring a few more researchs in number. And its conclusions and implications are too ambiguous, to overturn the current orthodoxy. should be better equipped with empirical material<br /><br />I find the evidence unconvincing, because there are so many factors (both in support of the hypothesis and opposed to it) that are unquantifiable. <br /><br />1- In the current decade teenagers and young girls in their early 20s are more eager to have sex than the generation of our mothers and grandmothers; that constitutes a selective force in behalf of a major contributor to proclivity to promiscuity. You point out that rightly millennials prefer young women into dating and mating guys into their same social circle. (It is mainly due to possible increased in the women´s social environment.) But how much more? We have absolutely no way to quantify this, just as we have no way to quantify if these girls are less willing to meet strange potencial partners in public places. This calculation is entirely speculative.<br /><br />2-Women must certainly have felt less restricted in their sexuality once they were meeting their own financial needs and could afford to risk happy dalliances with sexually desirable, but more non-committal, top ranked men. For women increased men’s sexual access by noting that it was likely contraception and cost-of-sex-reducing technology — the Pill, abortion, and penicillin — which opened the floodgates to “free” love. I put “free” in quotes because in reality, the sexual revolution did not benefit all men equally; attractive males got the lion’s share of premarital sex from economically self-sufficient women. The unattractive males is suffering more than usual, having to endure watching from the sidelines as alpha males cleaned up, while simultaneously being deprived of the best leverage they had in the sexual market: their promise of femenine resources.<br /><br />3- I would expect genetic factors, associated with the current culture and society, to play a role in promiscuous women rates. Early puberty in girls is starting earlier and there are correlations among early puberty and strength of sex drive, and sexual attitudes and behaviors in women. The matter is women now have as close to a hypergamous utopia as has ever existed, where they can pursue alpha males because they do not need to extract subsidization and mating beta males. All the new freedoms available to women that freed them from their traditional responsibilities. In the past, extremely few women ever had more than one or two sexual partners in their lives, as being an unwed mother led to poverty and social ostracization. Contraception made it possible for females to conduct campaigns to act on their urges.<br /><br /><br />4- Current younger people have wider social bonds and a lifestyle in which daily interaction with a lot of friends, classmates, coworkers (female entry into the workforce) and others friends of their age (in person, by computer or by smartphone), it is the trend. As recently as a few generations ago, dating was commonly viewed in the West as the first step toward a potential marriage. Dating and courtship involved a pattern where only can interact with only a few men in theirs small town or neighborhood. Now passes for dating may be the most tragic example of the shallowness of the modern age. <br /><br />5- Young females are raised co-educationally with males, so they are very tuned-up to status in their age and near-age cohort, and in high-growth periods. They’re socialized to mating at or near their age cohort and educational environment. It is the reason because school and university female students prefer be related and dating guys within their social circle.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-85164300750089560072012-12-13T00:48:15.974-05:002012-12-13T00:48:15.974-05:00And we know that those low herpes rates among toda...And we know that those low herpes rates among today's teenagers are not because they followed the dorky advice from their sex ed class and used a condom during a blowjob. The study I linked to in the post shows that no one does that during a hookup.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-85797573134508055182012-12-13T00:48:13.467-05:002012-12-13T00:48:13.467-05:00Yeah this exactly right. Kids today are dull dull ...Yeah this exactly right. Kids today are dull dull dull.<br /><br />In game circles, you'll hear the phenomenon that Agnostic talks about - of girls only "hooking up" with friends - as social circle game.<br /><br />Well, guess what? Girls *always* had friends and social circles. It was just that in the past they were more daring and adventurous. The idea of being picked up by a guy at the bar or club, or in an earlier era at a dance or diner was not creepy. It was normal.Ranjihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01991158226921895446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-81589405514486247722012-12-13T00:46:18.514-05:002012-12-13T00:46:18.514-05:00There was some report last year or maybe this year...There was some report last year or maybe this year... Something Something on the Family... or something. It showed that there was no oral sex "epidemic" among teenagers, that oral was not being substituted for intercourse. They're just less sexual no matter what the act.<br /><br />I also recall an article in the late 2000s in the NEJM or something, showing that oral herpes had all but disappeared among teenagers. And here they were in the 1970s suggesting that they might as well put it in the water since everyone was gonna get it anyway.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-17168606085907305422012-12-12T22:43:52.438-05:002012-12-12T22:43:52.438-05:00That's weird that they will make out with a gu...That's weird that they will make out with a guy but not have sex. Actually I think even that's inaccurate, for some reason I can't think of now.<br /><br />I remember a few years back the researchers were theorizing that Millenial girls were really giving lots of oral sex, but not going all the way, hence the reduced reportings of sexual partners. But that was a stupid theory. Giving a blowjob is basically as intimate as sex, and a pain in the ass for the girl also. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-85598596323287093992012-12-12T22:38:23.213-05:002012-12-12T22:38:23.213-05:00"But if it's about having a bunch of guys..."But if it's about having a bunch of guys in her orbit providing for her in one way or another, then she feels like she has to give them a little something in return, but not enough to risk getting pregnant by them all."<br /><br />Well, I'm not sure this is the case. Girls don't kiss guys they don't like (:P) Unless they're older and totally broke. But we're talking about college girls here.<br /><br />I meant more like, guys have to be established in the social hierarchy in order to get laid. Whereas, in the New Wave, the culture was more open, less conformist, and women were more likely to take a chance on some guy who perhaps didn't have a good job, or maybe was a loner, or wasn't vetted by a bajillion of her friends. <br /><br />-Curtis<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-63133121641074134272012-12-12T18:33:55.792-05:002012-12-12T18:33:55.792-05:00(not gonna correct all these typos...)(not gonna correct all these typos...)agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-85200191522058014472012-12-12T18:31:47.092-05:002012-12-12T18:31:47.092-05:00"Current mating market is leading to a scene ..."Current mating market is leading to a scene where there is a greater tendency and an increasing number unrestricted women (girls who are open to short-term relationships and casual sex)."<br /><br />Girls are not more open to casual sex than before -- just the opposite. At least among young girls, like high school or college.<br /><br />The Youth Risk Behavior asks several questions about sexuality, including sociosexuality. The percent of high schoolers who've had 4+ partners has been falling for 20 years, and ditto for those who lost their virginity before age 13.<br /><br />These data on what the drunken hookup culture among college-aged girls suggests something similar -- getting a little bit of satisfaction for themselves, but by and large blue-balling the guy.<br /><br />On a more everyday level, when was the last time you heart anyone describe a girl as a "nymphomaniac"? The good old days are long gone.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-34129650070956857802012-12-12T18:26:56.369-05:002012-12-12T18:26:56.369-05:00"I also wonder if this is related to the idea..."I also wonder if this is related to the idea of falling-crime times being more "provider" friendly."<br /><br />It fits with the fact that the girls tend not to go very far during a hookup. If it were about getting the guy's good genes, they'd want sex and would probably not want to get drunk, since that interferes with orgasm. (And orgasm helps retain the guy's load.)<br /><br />But if it's about having a bunch of guys in her orbit providing for her in one way or another, then she feels like she has to give them a little something in return, but not enough to risk getting pregnant by them all.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-53834757178493634582012-12-12T18:24:16.894-05:002012-12-12T18:24:16.894-05:00Isn't the drink before sex level flat?
You fo...Isn't the drink before sex level flat?<br /><br />You found a trend in the binge:pre-sex ratio, not a trend in the pre-sex level.<br /><br />That doesn't suggest they're having worse sex due to being more drunken. Just that they drink before sex at about the same rate, but have stopped binge drinking. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-14363485208393782402012-12-12T18:22:30.674-05:002012-12-12T18:22:30.674-05:00"but I would guess even the Baby Boomers tend..."but I would guess even the Baby Boomers tended to find their partners through friends or friends of friends."<br /><br />It's hard to know without data back that far, but I think the appeal of strangers in the night was greater back then.<br /><br />"He walked up to me<br />And he asked me if I wanted to dance<br />He looked kind of nice<br />And so I said I might take a chance<br />...<br />And then he kissed me"<br /><br />"We might be lovers if the rhythm's right<br />I hope this feeling never ends tonight"<br /><br />I'm sure that the Boomers and X-ers chose friends or acquaintances for their flings too, but they were more out-and-about, and more spontaneous. So I'd say that they were more likely to hook up with someone who caught their eye and it felt like magic.<br /><br />I don't think I've ever heard Millennials talk about "love at first sight".agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-128274303213811832012-12-12T12:22:14.351-05:002012-12-12T12:22:14.351-05:00I just worry that your theories do not fit with th...I just worry that your theories do not fit with the reality. You must consider the differences in sociosexual orientation of current women with women before sexual revolution. Current mating market is leading to a scene where there is a greater tendency and an increasing number unrestricted women (girls who are open to short-term relationships and casual sex). It is known sociosexual orientation and sex drive it is attributable to cultural environment and also determined by genes, so was this evolution cultural or genetic? How does one distinguish cultural from genetic inheritance? And is it possible for genetic evolution to work that fast?<br /><br />More masculine women have more sex partners and have a less restricted sociosexual orientation than did feminine women. <br />Women inclined toward greater promiscuity and most of promiscuous women tend to have higher testosterone levels (Cashdan, 1995; van Anders, Hamilton, & Watson, 2007) and a more masculine physical appearance than controls (Mikach & Bailey, 1999; Ostovich & Sabini, 2004).<br />Therefore, most masculine women are more willing to engage in sex at an earlier point in their relationships, be involved in sexual relationships characterized by less investment, commitment, love, and dependency and participate with their partners in acts as fellatio, anal sex or facial eyaculation.<br /><br /><br />Even if we assume that you could find a beautiful feminine woman with a high sex drive, testosterone or other hormone levels are not the only factors affecting sex drive. There are many other factors. If libido increases with higher levels of testosterone, factor 1, factor 2, …, factor n, then you can have high libido with low testosterone levels if other factors are present at high levels<br /><br />Also women's sex drive, sociosexuality, and lifetime number of sex partners is related to self-control.macgyvernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-72795464539428972472012-12-12T12:00:01.616-05:002012-12-12T12:00:01.616-05:00I also wonder if this is related to the idea of fa...I also wonder if this is related to the idea of falling-crime times being more "provider" friendly.<br /><br />the social milieu is sexually repressive. You have to establish yourself in the power structure - by getting a job, or joining the right frat, or whatever - to get laid, because the girls are so averse to having sex with some guy off the street. <br /><br />This is why so much of Millenial culture is geared towards intimidating or impressing rivals, rather than directly attracting the opposite sex.<br /><br />-CurtisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-90120339533609607052012-12-12T11:31:22.942-05:002012-12-12T11:31:22.942-05:00Hard to say.
It seems that from 2002-2005 girls w...Hard to say.<br /><br />It seems that from 2002-2005 girls were more open to meeting strangers. <br /><br />-CurtisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com