I'm not sure I entirely agree with the 'pluralistic ignorance' theory. From my experience, hooking up seems to be a natural act after two people have been drinking and are attracted to one another. It's actually a really efficient way to figure out if you're into someone. You get a little drunk, hang out and socialize for a while, and then make out (or possibly more). Inhibitions are lowered, which means you tend to display a few more layers of your personality than normal, allowing people to 'get to know' each other quickly. Of course this could also lead to disaster, but the good news is that there are many more people out there to experiment with.
People out of college hook up also, so this seems to be the new way people get to know each other and decide if they want a relationship. It certainly is not unique to the under 21 crowd.
"It has ... been named a reason for the illusionary popular support that kept the communist regime in the Soviet Union, as many opposed the regime but assumed that others were supporters of it. Thus, most people were afraid to voice their opposition"
In my experience, hooking up and dating aren't mutually exclusive -- hooking up is the new dating. Both of the serious relationships I've been in started as "hooking up", progressed to steady "fuck buddies", then eventually developed into a holding-hands-in-public relationship.
Right. I forgot that the only 'real' way to get into a lasting relationship is to delve deep into our past and brush the dust off of the practice of arranged marriages. Maybe we should go back to the 'good ole days' where if a girl got pregnant in highschool we stoned her to death, or at least made it so that the guy was a hero and she would spend the rest of her life as a pariah...
[ note: I say this from a USA-centric perspective, not hating on cultures that still practice this in a respectful manner. By 'this,' I mean 'arranged marriage,' not 'stoning to death.' ]
I think that you should review your own opinions with 'false dichotomy' in mind. You seem to have some very harsh judgements that you feel the need to toss around loosely. I'm almost of the mind that you're just a troll and that you're making these comments in an attempt to have some long, deep, argumentative discussion thread.
Rather than making short and harsh comments, you could frame them in a less accusatory fashion that doesn't look like you are just making the comment to hate on people and pass judgement (on large swaths of -- essentially -- faceless people, no less) in a public manner to satisfy some sort of inner urge.
If you really feel that relationships that start out based on sex always end up in failure, you could have framed that comment in a much better light that would have spawned actual discussion.
I don't mean to be hating on the people. I hate the culture of casual sex. The culture is disgusting. The people are mostly not disgusting, just misguided. I don't mean to imply that they're morally depraved people for participating in something stupid; I've certainly done my share of idiotic and embarrassing things and don't consider myself immoral for it.
Really, though, I don't care what people do, as long as it's not in my face and doesn't affect me. I'm five years out of college, so I don't really care that much. I think it's a shame what a farce college has become for most American students, but that problem comes from a lot of factors, most of which have nothing to do with sex.
There's nothing immoral about sex (for any sane definition of morality). You sound rather angry, and like you have some deep seated hangup about your own sexuality. I'd really suggest looking into seeing a professional therapist.
Sorry, let me define my terms. By "fuck buddy", I mean a girl whom I am neither monogamous with nor emotionally anchored to. We find each other fun, and love fooling around, but we are not in "a relationship" -- among other things, no public affection, and definitely no "I love you".
And some people wouldn't date a woman who isn't Catholic/Jewish/Hindu/whatever. You're within your rights to choose whom you date, but it doesn't really reflect anything about the people you're refusing as much as about yourself. How is your personal unwillingness to date such women interesting or relevant?
And some people wouldn't date a woman who isn't Catholic/Jewish/Hindu/whatever. You're within your rights to choose whom you date, but it doesn't really reflect anything about the people you're refusing as much as about yourself.
I didn't say it does.
Having a one-night-stand is stupid. Does it make someone a whore who should be ostracized? No. Is it a behavior that, in my estimation, a rational person would be ashamed of? Yes. Is it worse than the worst or stupidest thing I've done? Probably not.
So you would never date someone that slept with someone else? 'Fuck buddy' doesn't imply that it's a one-way street and that one of them is essentially a 'blow-up doll' for the other one to use just to get off.
I suspect that the primary source of the confusion here is the word "was". pw0ncakes likely means that he wouldn't date someone who was currently someone else's fuck buddy. pyre is taking it to mean that he wouldn't date someone who had ever been someone else's fuck buddy.
Or I'm way off, in which case, on with your argument :)
The definition of the term 'fuck buddy' probably varies from person to person, so how exactly do you feel you can determine whether someone that you're dating/looking to date was someone else's 'fuck buddy?'
The issue of pluralistic ignorance doesn't address the relatively large changes that relatively small changes in gender imbalance can have on norms. For more on this, see Tim Harford's The Logic of Life and in particular his chapter on "The Marriage Supermarket."
In any event, I wrote an essay about modern sexual culture in response to "The New Dating Game" in the Weekly Standard: http://jseliger.com/2010/05/05/the-weekly-standard-on-the-ne... . Birth control and contraceptive availability has lowered the cost of sex for women; there are more women than men on college campuses; men as a group have a higher preference for hooking up than women; people tend to feel like others have been pre-selected on college campuses, as Kathleen Bogle argues in her book Hooking Up, which is a sociological study on the issue. Taken together, these technological and social trends lead toward hooking up.
Pluralistic ignorance might play a small part but is hardly the dominant factor. And the study relies on the notoriously unreliable self-reporting feature: people might report they want a relationship, until it's late, and they've been drinking, and they spy an attractive stranger, and so on. Dan Ariely talks about the difference between our "cold" selves and "hot" selves in the chapter "The Influence of Arousal" from Predictably Irrational, which is another recommended book.
Their explanation that college students are conformists or that it's rationalized because "everyone else is doing it" seems strange.
I always assumed it was much simpler than that: although you'd prefer to be in a relationship with someone you are absolutely crazy about, this isn't always possible. So in the absence of that people like to drink and hookup. Hardly newsworthy.
Because suburban isolation, widespread tolerance of social alcohol dependence, a crass consumer culture, and widening wealth inequalities (leading to social class anxiety) have bred a generation of social retards who can't muster up the courage to do things properly.
[Edit: As acerbic and judgmental as this comment sounds, I admit freely that I was one of those social retards at ages 17-20, although I didn't hook up-- little interest and even less ability.]
People out of college hook up also, so this seems to be the new way people get to know each other and decide if they want a relationship. It certainly is not unique to the under 21 crowd.