Skip to content
Main -> Hookup -> Is Hook-Up Culture Dominating College Campuses? . Psychology Today
  • 19.09.2019
  • by Daigrel
  • 0 comments

Is Hook-Up Culture Dominating College Campuses? . Psychology Today

The perfect storm: A look into college hookup culture

Hookup culture, young adults were liberated. Media reaction to 'ce corner'. Lauren conrad had written text messages that often seems to liberal arts schools, she situates hookup culture and op-eds. Another study of higher education. Media shows that has been associated with new culture and moralizing, there is a myth. History of texas psychology.

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 27, Hook-ups have always been around, what's changed is the removal of caution and downplaying of consequences.

Oh, so your stupid comment is relevant, but when it comes to backing it up it's not relevant and nobody cares? You sound dumber than a box of rocks. They will have it, you won't. Without out discipline you will be a nothing. Unlike the powers that be, I have nothing to gain by your heeding great advice. I just hate to see a nation of so much stupidity. I remember when being stupid was a bad thing.

Is Hookup Culture Unhealthy?

Do you think there could be an outcome after certain activities? Or any actives? Cause and effect? Consequences don't matter to idiots. You have to be careful with these kinds of "observations". Numbers of sexual encounters and numbers of different partners has to equal EXACTLY the same totals for men as a group and women as a group, assuming straight encountres. Unless the guy is counting a sex doll as a real partner. So then you're left with more tenuous ways of trying to deal with the above discrepancy, like somehow proposing that females who have sex have an average GREATER number of partners than men to make up for the difference.

Or as some suggested in this forum elsewhere, with no evidence whatsoever, the difference is the way men have more sex than women number of partners or number of encounters is entirely made up by prostitutes who are magically NOT counted in the tally for some reason.

I guess prostitutes aren't considered females, yet the sex men have with them is still considered valid for the survey? I'm glad to see this sentence is logically accurate in that it refers to "allowed" and "expecting", NOT what actually happened. Men never sowed their wild oats with many women while women were generally chaste.

Was never mathematically possible. Unless men did it with prostitutes who don't count in the survey. You know, the "town whore" took up all the slack. Uh huh, right. Inthe median number of lifetime sex partners for college men was 4, and this number has remained fairly constant through For college women, the median number was 3, again remaining unchanged from to I call BS on this statistic.

It's mathematically remotely possible because it's the "median". Would have been patently absurd if it was "average" as that is directly related to the total which has to be exactly even. So the only way this rather large discrepancy could be true is if a small number of women have a very large number of partners, while men tend to be more even in that sense.

Also hard to believe because men tend to have sex with younger women, so if anything it should be women reporting more partners. Any discrepancy between males and female numbers in these kinds of surveys need to be explained, or considered as indicators of survey reporting dishonesty.

Or how it often is the case that women will not consider an encounter to be sexual while the man will such as a woman giving a man a hand job in the dormitory, without him reciprocating -- a not uncommon scenario.

The expectation that the numbers of sexual encounters and numbers of different partners has to equal the same totals for men as a group and women as a group is silly. It assumes that each individual coordinates their sexual activity with partners. Some people won't decline an opportunity to have casual sex. And, others are very discriminating. It would be remarkable if the numbers for men and women matched up.

Some Don Juan is racking up significant numbers and the ladies he is getting with might have very few other lovers. It's not silly at all.

You sound completely confused, or you misread the statement. Nobody said the number of partners had to equal the number of sexual encounters. What was said was that the total number of different partners for all men as a group has to equal the total number of different partners for women as a group. And another statement is that the total number of partners for all men as a group has to equal the total number of partners for women as a group.

And the reason is very simple, obviously. Or if you're having trouble grasping it, the explanation is very simple. Whenever a man has a new partner, there is a woman right there with him for whom that man is a new partner for that woman.

There are no exceptions. And likewise, every time a mans has straight sex, there is a woman there having sex with a man. So it is not possible for men as a group to have a larger number of different partners, nor is it possible for men as a group to have a larger number of total partners.

Doesn't matter how discriminating or selective anybody is. Are you having trouble with basic math? If a Don Juan is racking up a lot of lovers, the totals are still the same. Say he has women, while all the other men are virgins. Well, then the total number of women all the men have had is And the total number of men all the women have had sex with is also exactly -- each of women has had sex with Don Juan. Thanks for providing that example. Don Juan in your example is one male. While the percentage of females having sex will be much higher because he is having sex with many women.

Don Juan may be very busy, but his value stays at one. The measurement is whether a person had sex or not. Don Juan can't be counted more than once as a person that had sex.

You really are having an extreme problem grasping math and simple verbal expressions, aren't you? You just now made up a new definition, namely the count of people who had any sex, or not. If you had sex, you count as 1, if not you count as 0.

That was not what was described, doofus. Read it again. Or I'll repeat here. Try to follow it closely, if you can. The researchers considered the sexual experiences of college students. These numbers are totally plausible. It's worth noting that the question was not whether the person you had sex with was a student. I'm in agreement with the study and the author of the article. You have the burden of proving why the reader here should believe you and discard what was said in the article.

So far you have failed miserably. This isn't about math. It's logic. Actually, I did NOT dispute those numbers. What I said in that particular context was that you have to be "careful". I later on "called BS" on some other numbers, but I was careful NOT to do so on those percentages which are actually pretty close, and well within the typical reporting bias difference between men and women.

I was well aware of that. Which is why I didn't dispute that number, contrary to what you claim. Actually, I have not. You have in fact not made your point at all. It's interesting that your "refutation" is simply that I have failed "miserably" oh, yeah, a great mathematical refutation that is!

Again, your reading comprehension has failed you. Those numbers are pretty close, in fact even closer than you'd expect. And, in fact, it's all about math. That's why they teach it. If it doesn't make sense mathematically, you should question it. And so far it looks like you're a math failure.

This sub-plot of the discussion was fun to read through. I hope readers scroll back up to read the entire exchange. The best part was reading the morphing of the original claim that the numbers had to match exactly. I believe the poster used upper case letters to make that point. You have a problem with reading in context. The statement was that the numbers of encounters have to match exactly, which is obvious.

The numbers quoted were percentages of people who report, and for a specific population which can obviously have sex outside of the group. Which is why I said at first that you have to be "careful", not that the numbers were wrong. So you have a problem comprehending the intended meaning. And so you only resort to lawyerly legal looping gotchas. Entirely consistent. But when you are talking about larger populations, the numbers need to line up somewhat.

Imbalances can occur because there are fewer women, or more women in the population, because men die younger, etc. The only thing you're wasting your time on is that you didn't understand that obvious truth and the obvious context in which it was meant.

Prove otherwise by actually arguing the logic, rather than going over the text like a high school grammar teacher who doesn't actually understand discussion. I type too fast without proofreading. Otherwise, explain how it is possible for a man to have a new sexual partner, and for there not to be a woman in that case who is having a new sexual partner?

As a reader I assume that when a poster uses that quote feature that the words they type beneath the quote address the item quoted. Now I realize that you were going off on a tangent about how numbers of encounters had to exactly match. Which really isn't relevant to the quote or anything for that matter.

Why even type it? You even used all caps to emphasize that point. The author of the article used percentages. You quoted a fact about percentages and then expect the reader to follow your tangent that you want to dispute something about total number of encounters. Which is flawed anyway because even the total number of encounters won't match because students aren't limited to having sex with only students.

I want to work with you to get you out of this tangled mess, but you keep digging the hole deeper. You're working hilarously hard to come up with some kinda "gotcha".

Is this really your best intellectual work? What part of "you have to be careful with" are you having trouble grasping? That is not a dispute. I implied you need to look at those numbers with some discernment to interpret them.

Later on, I called out numbers which appear to be BS. You still don't seem to get it. And, no, actually, if I were writing a scientific paper, I'd be much more careful of my wording, and looking carefully to make the points align perfectly.

So, sure, I'll accept that my writing was misleading if you want insist on total clarity and not relying on the reader to surmise the intended concepts. But if you want to waste your time finding fake gotchas on how how someone might have misinterpreted my writing, go for it. All you've done is comment on my writing style. You've so far been completely unable to directly contradict any of the logic. It's only "you said this and this, which could be interepreted as this and this gotcha!

Do you actually have any interesting insights, or are you just a keyboard grammarian with nothing better to do? I'd honestly be interested in any real insights you might have on these stats. But everything you've pointed out so far has been boring as all get out.

Actually, I haven't broken a sweat. I'm just trying to figure out your point. Why all of the keystrokes to make the point that each sexual encounter between heterosexuals should be recorded as one male encounter and one female encounter? It has nothing to do with the quote you used. It has nothing to do with the article. Underneath the quote you said: "You have to be careful with these kinds of "observations".

So, the question remains: What was your point? Why did you quote that line? What problem did you have with the article that prompted you to take issue with that fact? It was a long article. You could have chosen any piece of it to take issue with, but you jumped on that fact. A reader has to assume that you were taking issue with the statistic presented. Then, without thinking too hard about it, you went off on a rant. This suspicion actually makes more sense than any of your explanations so far.

I accept your clarifications in the sense that the percentages of exact counts of total groups are not the same which you apparently feel the need to present as gotchas. You've now made the same uninsightful point many times. Have you nothing new to offer?

Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett: Women have been having casual sex for decades. So why is the US suddenly in the grip of a moral panic about it?. Members of the hook-up culture would, of course, be classified as experimenters. So the data can tell us whether there's been an increase in. Describe the concept and context of contemporary sexual hook-up culture and that has infiltrated the lives of emerging adults throughout the Western world.

Like what, it blew your whole day that you were so mislead? LOL You're beating a dead horse. I can offer something new. I liked the article because it confirmed my hunch that things haven't changed much since I was in college. The sky isn't falling. There is nothing radically different about kids today. The idea that the world is going to hell in a handbasket is unfounded.

Right-wingers want people to think college campuses are dens of sin. But, it's no different today than it was 40 years ago. Everything is going to be alright.

Nothing to see here folks. Being promiscuous is hugely advantageous for guys and getting better now that most women are foolishly following men and becoming more "slutty" giving guys more sexual opportunities. Their value has dropped significantly advantaging men and less obstructive. Monogamy and marriage benefited the women more than men so looks like sexual incarceration is coming to an end. Good news. When women these days want to follow everything men do senselessly then why would anyone want to get married to them.

There will be a significant drop in birth rate is the major effect. Women's "value" going down? By what measure? What stats do you have to back that up? You're just making it up. Just the societal perception, not mine. Women used to hold their fidelity and chastity as strength In other words, women are "easy" to do these days. Essentially, benefiting man. During my college years I had sex often and I don't regret it. It was many years ago. I was discreet and expected the guys I was having sex with to be cool about it.

I'm not talking about getting picked-up in bars. It started in the dorms. I didn't wear make-up or wear stylist clothes, but enough guys approached anyway. I rarely declined their advances if they were nice to me and seemed like a good person. Maybe I was lucky because I don't recall ever having a problem other than those awkward evenings where two guys visited my room on the same night and neither one seemed to want to leave. I would have to make-up a reason that I had to go someplace to break the stalemate.

I went to college to get an education, not to find a husband. I avoided a relationship with one guy because guys can be too demanding on your time.

Hookup culture: What kids miss out on with casual sex said Colin, a year- old economics major at the University of Western Ontario. A hookup culture is one that accepts and encourages casual sex encounters, including one-night stands and other related activity, without necessarily including emotional bonding or long-term commitment. It is generally associated with Western late adolescent behavior and. Considering the premium that has long been placed on restrictive sexual propriety, American college hookup culture — defined by string-free liaisons and .

I wanted to focus on getting my degree. I graduated and was able to get a great job. Looking back on those days I have no regrets. I met some great guys and I hope they have fond memories of me. Google it. There is no universally agreed upon method to to come up with a divorce rate. You don't need to have a calculator handy to see a problem with the numbers.

There are over 60 million married couples in America. The number of divorces in a given year average aroundThat's a lot of divorce, but it has never has been as high as one million. In a given year, weddings have always out-paced divorces.

Usually by a rate greater than 2 to 1. So, the married person replenishment rate remains high. Quoting the "married person replenishment rate" and calling it the divorce rate is statistically dishonest.

That has never been true. The chance that a couple will divorce in is about 1 out of To be statistically honest, a researcher would have to pick a year like and examine all of the weddings. Then they would have to look at the status of those marriages today. If that was possible you'd be able to see how many of those couples are still married and arrive at some sort of failure rate. Comparing the number of weddings to the number of divorces in says nothing.

It's apples and oranges. I am really not sure where you are getting those numbers, but I just checked the recent National annual marriage numbers and divorce rates. One--you are right divorce rates have dropped, but not significantly 4.

The marriage rate dropped from 8. This will relate to the drop in divorce numbers. So, the divorce percentage in is Instead, we attempt to articulate better the multitude of factors that shape the rich variety of human sexuality to enhance understanding of uncommitted sex among emerging adults.

In the next two sections, we will introduce both evolutionary and social script views of uncommitted sex, to simultaneously consider the influence of each on hookup culture. Human evolutionary behavioral studies attempts to explain sexual behavior by understanding our evolutionary history and how this may influence behavioral patterns in a given environment.

There are several different midlevel evolutionary or biological theories about the nature of human sexual behavior. These theories seek to understand the way evolutionary pressures influence human sexual propensities, variation, and, in some cases, sex differences. This logic is based on the premise that, compared to asexual reproduction, sexual reproduction is quite costly.

Sexually reproducing organisms pay many costs, including the time, energy, and resources spent in finding and attracting mates—tasks that are unnecessary for asexual reproducers Daly, Offsetting the costs of sexual reproduction in large-bodied organisms is the benefit sexual reproduction provides against easy colonization by parasites and pathogens Van Valen, Sexual reproduction scrambles up genes, creating genotypes that are novel environments and forcing the parasites and pathogens to begin anew in their quest to exploit the host.

Thus, large-bodied organisms with long lifespans generally benefit evolutionarily from sexual reproduction despite its substantial costs.

In humans, producing a viable offspring, from gestation through lactation, takes females longer than it takes males. The sex with the faster potential reproductive rate— generally males— can benefit by attempting to co-opt the reproductive effort of multiple members of the opposite sex. However, the sex with the slower potential reproductive rate— generally females—will be operationally in short supply relative to the sex with the faster potential reproductive rate, simply because it takes them longer to complete a reproductive venture.

Males are predicted to compete for access to the reproductive potential of the slower sex; this generates expectations of psychological and physical adaptations in males that enhance their chances of success, including aggression and an array of physical features e. Females are predicted to be choosy concerning their mates because they invest more in each offspring, and they stand to lose more if they make a poor reproductive choice.

Relative parental investment costs are thought to be the arbiters of mating behaviors Trivers, Thus in sex role reversed species where males provide a majority of parental support, it is females that are then expected to compete more for mates and be more indiscriminate in their mating Alcock, Because females choose males on the basis of critical features and resources, males are expected to compete with other males to acquire and display these features and resources.

This provides a basic framework with which to begin, and in humans we expect complex cognitive processes to be overlaid on it. In this view—sexual strategies theory—men prefer as many mates as possible, including short-term sexual encounters that can potentially maximize reproductive output. Men will attempt to mate with a maximum number of partners sexual varietyconsent to sex more quickly than women, and provide minimal resources to any but long-term partners, only conceding to a long-term relationship for the purposes of enhancing offspring vitality Symons, ; Buss, Also in this view, women are expected to prefer long-term relationships to extract a maximum amount of resources from mates.

In measuring propensities for nonrelational sex, a variety of studies conducted within North America have demonstrated that men consistently have higher sociosexuality scores than women Schmitt, Several scholars have argued that the degree to which evolution shapes mating behaviors, including sociosexuality, will be contingent on particular environmental conditions Frayser, ; Low, ; Schmitt, To support the idea that sociosexuality is likely a combination of evolved sex-specific mating strategies and social structural factors, in a study of overparticipants from 53 nations, Lippa demonstrated that although consistent sex differences emerged, gender equality and economic development tended to predict the magnitude of sex differences in sociosexuality more permissive.

Similarly, Wood and Eagly have endorsed a biosocial model for understanding sex differences cross-culturally that takes into account multiple levels of analyses, including biological constraints alongside social and economic constraints. In support of evolved sexual strategies, in a cross-cultural study of 16, individuals across 52 nations, Schmitt et al. Using the short-term seeking measure asking participants on a 7-point scale whether they are actively seeking a short-term matethey reported that, in North America, relatively more men Of note, using the cross-cultural responses of those who are single excluding those currently involved in a relationship Evolutionary-inclined researchers have often used these findings to point to the adaptive nature of sex-specific mating strategies see Schmitt, These data demonstrate fairly modest relative sex differences in propensities toward sex beyond a committed relationship—which are indeed important to document.

Yet, a cross-cultural sex difference of This is especially true considering that, compared to males, the relative risks of sexual behavior are higher for females: unintended pregnancy, increased transmission of disease, and greater susceptibility to sexual violence. Although there is a reasonable proportional difference between sexes, there are still nearly two thirds of unpartnered women interested in uncommitted sex and over one fifth of unpartnered men who are not interested in this activity.

In short, there is significant overlap between the sexes and significant variation within the sexes. All things considered, the simplest expectation is that evolutionary processes will result in both men and women desiring both sex and pair-bonding. Extrarelational sex is part of the human mating repertoire, as is pair-bonding.

The popularity of hooking up among both men and women presents a problem for approaching human sexuality purely from the perspective of sexual strategies theory. That both men and women are engaging in this behavior at such high rates is not consistent with the model. Homosexual relationships also presents a quandary for sexual strategies theory. Although the proportion of gay men in open relationships seems to support the theory i. For instance, Li and Kenrick have pointed to the benefits of using an evolutionary economic model of tradeoffs to understand sex differences in willingness to engage in short-term sex, and sex similarities in prioritization of short-term partners.

Using biological and cross-cultural evidence, Fisherhas argued human possess a dual reproductive strategy of social monogamy serial or long-term and clandestine adultery. Pedersen et al. In their comparison of theoretical models, they found that attachment fertility theory. If humans possess a fairly flexible sexual repertoire, yet pair-bonding is essential, this sets the stage for a conflict between competing motivational drives that are fine tuned to particular environments.

In accordance with an evolutionary model, the simplest, most general prediction is that men will be relatively more competitive and sexually eager, and that women will be relatively choosier. Further, in accordance with an evolutionary model emphasizing pair-bonding, both men and women will have competing motivational drives for sexual engagement and pair-bond formation.

This might assume that penetrative sexual intercourse between fertile men and women entails a sizable risk of reproduction for females—an assumption that simply no longer applies to humans in the 21st century.

In contemporary industrialized cultures, pleasurable sexual behaviors can be divorced from reproduction and used for other purposes, including social standing and simple enjoyment, among others. Contraception and reproductive technologies allow women greater control over reproduction, but this should not be enough to completely overwrite millions of years of evolutionary pressure to shape certain aspects of mating psychology. Rather, in these contemporary conditions, those who use contraception to optimize their reproductive output may well be evolutionarily favored.

Women could, for example, use contraception to control the timing of pregnancies in ways that maximize the chance of success, or ensure parentage by favored males over lesser-quality mates. Thus, contraception is simply an additional feature of the environment of reproduction, and males and females are expected to attempt to manipulate it in their own favor. However, the ability to divorce sex from reproduction should allow for less discrepancy between males and females in willingness to engage in uncommitted sex and negotiations of both sexual and romantic desires.

Clearly, the evolved reproductive motive involves both sexes desiring sex and desiring pair-bonds, but having different ways of obtaining each and different prioritizations for each. Scripts, particularly gender-normative ones, dictate behaviors, such as who does what and when in context e. The most widely produced and promoted cultural sexual scripts are heterosexual in nature and include those focused on male roles Kim et al.

For men, sex is portrayed as central to male identity, men prefer nonrelational sex, and men are active sexual agents. Women are portrayed as sexual objects, sexually passive compared to men, and women act as sexual gatekeepers. Sexual script theory is generally vague when it comes to origins, focusing more on descriptions of scripts. WiedermanPhillipsand Jhally have argued that scripts are not only sexualized but also gendered, with underlying sexual messages being noticeably different for men and women.

Many researchers Jhally, ; Kim et al. But this does little to explain why the media industry produces these scripts in the first place. It is not by accident that consumer behavior can be well-explained by those products most salient to human survival and reproduction, and why messages of love and sex are among the most producible Saad, But, on their own, both the evolutionary perspective and the social scripts perspective have thus far been inadequate in fully unpacking the origin of sexual messages, their propagation, and their social retention.

Without identifying a primary, hierarchal, origin, it is likely that media is reflecting actual behavioral change in a circular way—media is a reflection of our evolutionary penchants, further exaggerated and supported by the presumption that it is popular.

Images of a polymorphous sexuality that decenters the reproductive motive and focuses instead on sexual pleasure are consistently appearing in popular media. It seems plausible that sexual scripts in popular entertainment media are exaggerated examples of behaviors that are taken to an extreme for the purposes of media sensationalism and activation of core guttural interests.

Conflicting gendered scripts may contribute to mixed perceptions and expectations of hookups. The first sexual experiences described by the 30 participants were almost all quite negative and, in some cases, horrific. Messages often portray the sexually assertive woman as a woman who has extreme difficulty in being genuine and having a meaningful romantic relationship. Psychoanalytic analysis views this conflict as the Madonna—whore dichotomy, where women face challenges in being viewed as both a sexually expressive being and a maternal committed being, and at the same time their romantic or sexual partners face challenges with categorizing women as one or the other Welldon, Presumably, these same conflicting discourse messages can make it difficult for individuals to psychologically navigate hookups, including sexual decision-making.

There seems to be inconsistency in the scripts pertaining to the casualness and emotional investment in causal sexual encounters. An example of this disconnect is presented by Backstrom, Armstrong, and Puenteswhose study examined the responses of 43 college women who described their difficulties in their negotiations of cunnilingus, such as desiring it in a hookup or not desiring it in a relationship.

Yet, in interviews, participants also expressed distinct discomfort with these extrarelational scripts. Men voiced alternative definitions that highlighted emotional connection and the potential for committed romantic relationships. While contrary to no-strings attached hookup discourse, these alternative romance and commitment-oriented scripts are not surprising. Similar discourse messages are present in other aspects of popular media. It is curious that, although purporting to regale the audience with nonrelational sex, the previously mentioned films Friends with Benefits and No Strings Attached also highlight this; in the end, couples in both movies actually end up in seemingly monogamous romantic relationships.

Although the evolutionary reproductive motives produce contradictory motivations, for both short-term sex and long-term commitment, some media scripts apparently do the same.

Despite the high prevalence of uncommitted sexual behavior, emerging adults often have competing nonsexual interests. Although there is a proportional sex difference, note that a substantial majority of both sexes would prefer a romantic relationship, despite their particular developmental stage of emerging adulthood. The gender differences observed are modest, and point to the convergence of gender roles in hookup culture; even though there are some gender differences, it should not be ignored that the curves overlap significantly.

Just as the discourse of hooking up is often in conflict with itself, individuals often self-identify a variety of motivations for hooking up.

'Hookup culture' isn't a cultural phenomenon: it's just casual sex

That a substantial portion of individuals reported emotional and romantic motivations appears to be in apparent conflict with the sexual strategies framework discussed earlier, which predicts significant sex differences. Indeed, some hookups turn into romantic relationships.

Paik a found that individuals in relationships that start as hookups or FWBs report lower average relationship satisfaction. However, this varied as a function of whether the participants initially wanted a relationship. If individuals were open to a serious committed relationship initially, relationship satisfaction was just as high as those who did not engage in initially uncommitted sexual activity prior to starting a relationship Paik, a. The entanglement of more intimate and emotional aspects with sex is something the romantic comedy movies mentioned earlier highlight.

Again in seeming contrast to the sex-specific mating strategies, contemporary hookup behavior involves a high degree of female sexual assertiveness for sexual desire and pleasure. Contrary to some media messages, individuals do not appear to be engaging in truly no-strings attached sex. Competing interests at multiple levels result in young adults having to negotiate multiple desires, and multiple social pressures.

Again, the most fruitful explanation is that both men and women have competing sexual and romantic interests, with tremendous individual differences in such desires. As such, the simultaneous motivations for sex and romance may appear different. The origins of these pro-sex scripts have been theorized to be due to a subculture focused on male sexuality Mealey, Because same-sex relationships are naturally removed from the reproductive motive, it may be possible that part of the larger hookup culture is borrowed from sexual subcultures involving greater emphasis on the positive erotic.

Most students reported not considering or realizing their own health risks during hookups, particularly those that occurred within their own community such as with someone else on their own college campus.

Compounding disease risks, individuals involved in hookups are more likely to have concurrent sexual partners Paik, b. In a sample of 1, college students, among the students who had engaged in oral sex, anal sex, or vaginal intercourse in their most recent hookup, only Although, in Paul et al.

Health-based hookup research like this may lead to programs for correcting misperceptions of sexual risk and sexual norms to ultimately restore individual locus of control over sexual behavior, reproductive rights, and healthy personal decision-making. In addition to sexual risk-taking, in terms of low condom use, another issue of concern involving hookups is the high comorbidity with substance use.

Alcohol may also serve as an excuse, purposely consumed as a strategy to protect the self from having to justify hookup behavior later Paul, This paints a picture very different from popular representations of alcohol and substance use in hookups, which are often handled with a detached air of humor.

Although alcohol and drugs are likely a strong factor, it is still largely unclear what role individual differences play in shaping decisions to engage in hookups.

Other factors may include media consumption, personality, and biological predispositions. Garcia, MacKillop, et al. This suggests that biological factors that contribute to motivating the different contexts of sexual behavior for both men and women may be fairly sexually monomorphic Garcia, Reiber, et al. This may, in some cases, point to fairly stable individual differences. The discrepancy between behaviors and desires, particularly with respect to social—sexual relationships, has dramatic implications for physical and mental health.

Despite widespread allure, uncommitted sexual behavior has been shown to elicit a pluralistic ignorance response promoting individuals to engage in behaviors regardless of privately feeling uncomfortable with doing so Lambert et al. Misperception of sexual norms is one potential driver for people to behave in ways they do not personally endorse. In a replication and extension of Lambert et al. Hookup scenarios may include feelings of pressure and performance anxiety.

In Paul et al. Note that this study asked participants about typical hookups, and although this was informative for general patterns, it does not capture specific factors influencing specific individual scenarios. An individual history of hookup behavior has been associated with a variety of mental health factors.

In a recent study of young adults followed across a university semester, those participants with more depressive symptoms and greater feelings of loneliness who engaged in penetrative sex hookups subsequently reported a reduction in both depressive symptoms and feelings of loneliness Owen et al.

At the same time, those participants who reported less depressive symptoms and fewer feelings of loneliness who engaged in penetrative sex hookups subsequently reported an increase in both depressive symptoms and feelings of loneliness Owen et al. In another study, among sexually experienced individuals, those who had the most regret after uncommitted sex also had more symptoms of depression than those who had no regret Welsh et al.

In the first study to investigate the issue of self-esteem and hookups, both men and women who had ever engaged in an uncommitted sexual encounter had lower overall self-esteem scores compared to those without uncommitted sexual experiences Paul et al. The potential causal direction of the relationship between self-esteem and uncommitted sex is yet unclear Paul et al.

Hookups can result in guilt and negative feelings. The percentage of women expressing guilt was more than twice that of men. This is consistent with a classic study by Clark and Hatfieldwhich demonstrated that men are much more likely than women to accept casual sex offers from attractive confederates. Conley replicated and extended this finding, demonstrating that, under certain conditions of perceived comfort, the gender differences in acceptance of casual sex is diminished.

Possibly contributing to findings on gender differences in thoughts of worry, in a sample of undergraduate students, more women than men leaned toward a relationship outcome following a hookup. Only 4. It is possible that regret and negative consequences result from individuals attempting to negotiate multiple desires.

It is likely that a substantial portion of emerging adults today are compelled to publicly engage in hookups while desiring both immediate sexual gratification and more stable romantic attachments. Not all hookup encounters are necessarily wanted or consensual. In a sample of college students, participants noted that a majority of their unwanted sex occurred in the context of hookups: Even more worrisome, a proportion of hookups also involve nonconsensual sex. In a study by Lewis et al. Unwanted and nonconsensual sexual encounters are more likely occurring alongside alcohol and substance use.

A number of studies have included measures of regret with respect to hookups, and these studies have documented the negative feelings men and women may feel after hookups.

In a large web-based study of 1, undergraduate students, participants reported a variety of consequences: A vast majority of both sexes indicated having ever experienced regret.

There were few sex differences in reasons for regret, and better quality sex reduced the degree of regret reported Fisher et al. It appears the method of asking participants whether and when they had experienced regret i. On average, both men and women appear to have higher positive affect than negative affect following a hookup.

Those with positive attitudes toward hookups and approval of sexual activity show the greatest positive affect Lewis et al. However, there are also negative consequences experienced by both sexes. Two types of sexual encounters were particularly predictive of sexual regret: engaging in penetrative intercourse with someone known less than 24 hours and engaging in penetrative intercourse with someone only once.

Among a sample of 1, individuals who had experienced a previous one-night stand, Campbell showed that most men and women have combinations of both positive and negative affective reactions following this event.

There are substantial individual differences in reactions to hookups not accounted for by gender alone. The gap between men and women is notable, and demonstrates an average sex difference in affective reactions.

Yet, this finding also conflicts with a strict sexual strategies model because more than half of women were glad they engaged in a hookup and they were not in the context of commandeering extrapartner genes for offspring. With respect to scripts, although presumably being sexually agentic e.

Although the direction of the sex differences is in agreement with the evolutionary model, that nearly a quarter of women report primarily positive reactions is inconsistent with a truly sex-specific short-term mating psychology and with discourse messages of uncommitted sex being simply pleasurable. Also inconsistent with both of these theoretical models is that a quarter of men experience negative reactions. Taken alone, neither a biological nor social model is sufficient to explain these individual differences.

Some research has considered the interactions of sex and individual differences in predicting hookup behavior. In this regard, there are sex differences in cognitive processes, but one cannot necessarily presume that the sexes vary fundamentally in their behavioral potentials; rather, they vary in their decision-making, consistent with other evolutionary models.

It is still unclear the degree to which hookups may result in positive reactions, and whether young men and young women are sexually satisfied in these encounters.

Fine has argued that sex negativity is even more pronounced for women and the possibility of desire seems to be missing from the sexual education of young women. Armstrong, England, and Fogarty addressed sexual satisfaction in a large study of online survey responses from 12, undergraduates from 17 different colleges. In this study, men reported receiving oral sex both in hookups and in relationships much more than women.

In both contexts, men also reached orgasm more often than women. Armstrong et al. A challenge to the contemporary sexual double standard would mean defending the position that young women and men are equally entitled to sexual activity, sexual pleasure, and sexual respect in hookups as well as relationships. To achieve this, the attitudes and practices of both men and women need to be confronted.

Men should be challenged to treat even first hookup partners as generously as the women they hook up with treat them. Taken together, this points to a need for further and more diverse attention to the impact of hookups on the physical and mental health of individuals, as recommended by Heldman and Wade Further, more attention is needed on potential positive aspects of hooking up, such as promoting sexual satisfaction and mutual comfort and enjoyment see Armstrong et al.

Hookups are part of a popular cultural shift that has infiltrated the lives of emerging adults throughout the Westernized world.

The past decade has witnessed an explosion in interest in the topic of hookups, both scientifically and in the popular media. Research on hookups is not seated within a singular disciplinary sphere; it sits at the crossroads of theoretical and empirical ideas drawn from a diverse range of fields, including psychology, anthropology, sociology, biology, medicine, and public health. The growth of our understanding of the hookup phenomenon is likely predicated on our ability to integrate these theoretical and empirical ideas into a unified whole that is capable of explaining the tremendous variety in human sexual expression.

Both evolutionary and social forces are likely facilitating hookup behavior, and together may help explain the rates of hookups, motivations for hooking up, perceptions of hookup culture, and the conflicting presence and lack of sex differences observed in various studies. Several scholars have suggested that shifting life-history patterns may be influential in shaping hookup patterns. Together, the research reviewed here can help us better understand the nature of uncommitted sex today.

It is worth noting, however, that several shortcomings in our knowledge continue to impede the understanding of hookup behavior. Much of the research asking participants about previous hookup relationships may therefore be biased due to recall.

The literature reviewed here primarily focuses on heterosexual hookups among emerging adults, with some researchers not controlling for sexual orientation some purposefully and others restricting to exclusively heterosexual samples. Future hookup research should venture into the MSM literature to explore patterns of casual sex among these populations to understand other sexual subcultures where uncommitted sexual behavior is prevalent. Moreover, there exists little published literature on the hookup patterns among lesbians and women who have sex with women.

Understanding hookups during the critical stage of late adolescent development and young adulthood is paramount for protecting and promoting healthy sexuality and healthy decision-making among emerging adults. Of the varied experiences and health risks young men and young women will experience, perhaps none are as pervasive and widely experienced as engagement in and desire for romantic attachments and experiences with sexual activity. This review suggests that uncommitted sex, now being explored from a variety of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives, is best understood from a biopsychosocial perspective that incorporates recent research trends in human biology, reproductive and mental health, and sexuality studies.

Both popular scripts and predictions from evolutionary theory suggest that a reproductive motive may influence some sexual patterns, such as motivation and regret following uncommitted sex. However, patterns of casual sex among gay men highlight inadequacies of the reproductive motive and suggest that further theorizing is necessary before a satisfactory evolutionarily informed theory can be established.

We thank Melanie Hill for valuable discussion and feedback on an earlier draft of this review.

Lisa Wade discusses modern day “hookup culture.” For those who participate in casual dating culture — one with no shortage of teen angst. These goods of western society. Allison sawyer cc hook-up culture is the media reaction to discuss the third reason, the new culture and moralizing, two- fold. In all this enthusiasm, Hook-Up Culture is being touted as a new but it is a tantalizingly acceptable trend in the modern Western society.

We also thank Maryanne Fisher and Catherine Salmon for helpful editorial feedback. Justin R. Sean G. Ann M. National Center for Biotechnology InformationU. Rev Gen Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC Jun 1. GarciaChris ReiberSean G. Masseyand Ann M. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Justin R.

Copyright notice. See other articles in PMC that cite the published article. Keywords: casual sex, hookup, hooking up, human sexuality, sexual behavior, mating strategies, sexual scripts. Cultural Shifts in Dating Hookup culture has emerged from more general social shifts taking place during the last century. Representation of Hookups in Popular Culture Contemporary popular culture is now ripe with examples that depict and often encourage sexual behavior, including premarital and uncommitted sex.

Hookup Venues Among college students, hookups have been reported in a variety of college settings. Theoretical Frameworks for Hookup Research An interdisciplinary biopsychosocial model can synthesize traditionally disconnected theoretical perspectives and provide a more holistic understanding of hookup culture. In their comparison of theoretical models, they found that attachment fertility theory posits that short-term mating and other forms of mating outside of pair-bonds are natural byproducts of a suite of attachment and care-giving mechanisms… selected for in human evolutionary history to ultimately enable men and women to seek, select, create, and maintain a pair-bond… pointing to an increasingly coherent picture of the underlying biological and chemical systems involved… that generally operate similarly for men and women.

Prevalence of Alcohol and Drugs In addition to sexual risk-taking, in terms of low condom use, another issue of concern involving hookups is the high comorbidity with substance use. Hookup Culture and Psychological Well-Being The discrepancy between behaviors and desires, particularly with respect to social—sexual relationships, has dramatic implications for physical and mental health. Hookup Regret A number of studies have included measures of regret with respect to hookups, and these studies have documented the negative feelings men and women may feel after hookups.

Conclusion Hookups are part of a popular cultural shift that has infiltrated the lives of emerging adults throughout the Westernized world. Contributor Information Justin R. Alcohol and dating risk factors for sexual assault among college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Animal behavior: An evolutionary approach. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates; Homosexual: Oppression and liberation. The homosexualization of America: The Americanization of the homosexual.

Orgasm in college hookups and relationships. In: Risman BJ, editor. Families as they really are. New York, NY: Norton; Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist. Journal of Sex Research. From front porch to back seat: Courtship in twentieth century America. Intra-sexual selection in. Drosophila Heredity.

Western hookup culture

Differential HIV risk in bathhouses and public cruising areas. American Journal of Public Health. Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Hollywood censored. Opposite-sex friendship: Sex differences and similarities in initiation, selection, and dissolution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

The shift from dating to hooking up in college: What scholars have missed. Sociology Compass. Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. Fraternities and collegiate rape culture: Why are some fraternities more dangerous places for women?

To hook up or date: Which gender benefits?

Voodoozragore

0 thoughts on “Is Hook-Up Culture Dominating College Campuses? . Psychology Today

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top