October 25, 2004

THERE ARE NO HAPPY HOOKERS:

Committed couples have better sex (LISA FRYDMAN, October 25, 2004, Chicago Sun-Times)

What would Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda say? After years of being told that guilt-free hookups are OK, single women are now having second thoughts.

In a recent Oprah.com survey of nearly 3,000 American women on how they feel about casual sex, 80 percent of those polled said they regretted hooking up. Sex without strings attached has left many women feeling empty and, in some cases, "slutty."

The findings amazed Alexa Joy Sherman, co-author with Nicole Tocantins, of The Happy Hookup: A Single Girl's Guide to Casual Sex, who conducted the online poll.

"What was truly surprising about the poll was that so many women had strong regrets about hooking up," Sherman says.


Imagine? Treating yourself with contempt makes you contemptuous of yourself.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 25, 2004 10:42 AM
Comments

Of course women regret having sex "without strings attached". They are taught from birth to believe that having sex with a man entitles them to have him work for their benefit for the rest of his life. Those "strings" are tough for men to part with.

Posted by: Brandon at October 25, 2004 12:15 PM

OJ:

Whatever the truth of your assertion (I suspect rather more than less), it is very hard to imagine a self-selected survey yielding reliable information.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 25, 2004 12:30 PM

Brandon: On the contrary, women are taught a deep distrust of men that they will not stand by their family commitments. And it isn't just rhetorical teaching, they grow up with many examples of male behaviour that is not grown up and, dare I say, manly. Thats why so many women, when they are single, look to government to fill the man's role. Until they find a decent man, few believe men are capable or even willing to do so.

Posted by: Buttercup at October 25, 2004 12:58 PM

Buttercup,

And what is this "manly" behavior? To provide a lifetime of support to a women who is supposedly his equal - but does not support him? To devote all of his resources to children who will be taken from him if she desires to end the marriage for almost any reason? And what are her obligations to him in return? Why would he make such a one-sided committment?

Posted by: Brandon at October 25, 2004 1:34 PM

Brandon:

Find someone who won't leave. For the rest, yes.

Posted by: Peter B at October 25, 2004 1:54 PM

Peter B,

What does "for the rest, yes" mean?

Posted by: Brandon at October 25, 2004 2:09 PM

The rest of your questions.

Posted by: Peter B at October 25, 2004 2:23 PM

My last two questions were not answerable with a yes/no response.

And what are her obligations to him in return? Why would he make such a one-sided committment?

So I don't know what to make of your response.

Posted by: Brandon at October 25, 2004 2:29 PM

I took your questions to be a general objection to the uneveness or lack of apparent reciprocity, at least on financial issues. Your questions--complaints- make perfect sense in a childless marriage, but when the kiddies arrive, I think most women, even unconsciously, shift emotionally to the perspective that they take primary care of the children and the husband takes primary care of them, especially financially. What is wrong with that if both stick around?

Of course we are used to many modern qualifications and exceptions, which is fine up to a point, but the idea that women and men are interchangeable in families and that neither should be doing any more or less of 50% of every task without feeling hard done by is the source of an awful lot of confusion and dissension out there.

(Buttercup--get in here please)

Posted by: Peter B at October 25, 2004 2:48 PM

Perhaps these women regret their casual "hookups" because they came to realise that their casual treatment of their most intimate relationship proved that they placed no value on intimacy with themselves.
A very wise woman once told me that in every sexual act she believed she was giving part of herself to her partner. If that person did not value that gift, part of herself was lost. Her question to herself would always be: How many parts can I give away to be thrown away? What would be left of me and what would I become?"

Posted by: FastNed at October 25, 2004 3:43 PM

Peter:

Could not possibly agree with you more.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 25, 2004 3:53 PM

Peter B,

An admirable sentiment with which I am mostly in agreement, but a poor answer to my questions. Many men, maybe most men and especially young ones, don't really want a whole lot more than casual sex with women. So what do the women offer those men to make them want to "stick around?"

FastNed says they offer up "part of herself to her partner", but doesn't her partner offer the exact same part of himself? And if so, how does that constitute not valuing "that gift"? And if not so, why is the "part of herself" so much more valuable than the "part of himself"?

Posted by: Brandon at October 25, 2004 4:09 PM

"So what do the women offer those men to make them want to "stick around?"

If that is the question, they (the women) would be smart to kiss it off to experience and run away fast.

C'mon, Brandon, you don't really believe the man feels he is giving "a part of himself", do you? Next you will be telling me you think Mary Kay Letourneau really was guilty of rape.

Posted by: Peter B at October 25, 2004 4:36 PM

No, I don't really believe the man feels he is giving "a part of himself". That isn't my point. It is obvious that a woman thinks herself entitled to 'more than sex' from a man in exchange for sex with her. That is a fundamental inequality in expectations.

But when I ask what the man should expect in return, you advise the woman to run...fast. You don't even try to answer the question.

But it is an important question. This post's title is "Committed couples have better sex." So how do women get men to commit? That is merely a restatement my question, but perhaps in a more acceptable form. They can offer sex, but that apparently doesn't work out to well for them. So what do they offer? And is it something men value enough to make them want to commit?

Posted by: Brandon at October 25, 2004 5:02 PM

Brandon: Seems to me you've answered your own question, but get the details wrong. If the man only wants sex (which is in general nonsense, of course, but that's what pop culture seems to want you to believe), then giving him what he wants means that you indeed have little to offer. So you don't give him what he wants, until you get what you want (a long term commitment, i.e. marriage). I'm not sure why you seem to think this is unfair, or why you trivialize things like both getting a much more stable environment for their potential children...

Posted by: brian at October 25, 2004 5:16 PM

So men want sex (not only, but primarily) so if women don't give it to them, they'll offer a lifetime committment in exchange for it...but wait, it's not really a lifetime committment. Because if the women wants to end the committment - she can, without loss - with gain in fact, since she'll get half of the things 'they' buy (mostly with money he earns since most husbands earn more than their wives) and she'll likely get to keep any kids they have.

And you think this is not an unequal bargain?

Posted by: Brandon at October 25, 2004 5:30 PM

Jeez louise, Brandon, you are one bitter sounding dude. Since you're so down on the womenfolk, just follow this course of action--find a woman who is willing to have sex with you without any sort of formal commitment, then when you get bored with her, just leave. You'll owe her nothing, and odds are not one of your friends will say "Brandon, you're a pig, and I can't be friends with someone who treats women like that. Have a nice life."

Posted by: brian at October 25, 2004 5:46 PM

I wondered how long it would be before someone decided to psychoanalyze me. It took longer than I thought, but I was correct that it would happen before anyone attempted to answer my questions.

Posted by: Brandon at October 25, 2004 5:55 PM

So how do women get men to commit?

Food. Possibly laundry.

Happy now?

Posted by: Timothy at October 25, 2004 6:01 PM

We're conservatives. We believe in the wisdom of trite folk sayings: Women use sex to get intimacy; men use intimacy to get sex. The point of the article is that when women started using sex to get sex, the whole system collapsed.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 25, 2004 6:07 PM

I don't think that the problem is that women started using sex to get sex. These women are not unhappy that they failed to get sex, they didn't. They are unhappy because their sex didn't get them intimacy. That can only occur because the sex wasn't sufficient to get intimacy.

And Timothy probably thinks he's being flip, but his was at least a reasonable response. However, my guess is that most of the women surveyed by Sherman would scorn the notion that they should be responsible for the food and laundry. They'd probably think that a joint responsibility. And therein lies part of the problem. The bargin is unequal because sex is not enough to get men to commit and lots of American women will not offer enough to get men to commit.

Posted by: Brandon at October 25, 2004 6:40 PM

Brandon: I suspect you are being purposely obtuse. When women demanded intimacy before providing sex, men provided intimacy. Men then convinced women that sex was the whole point, so the woman stopped demanding intimacy, and just provided sex in return for sex. Of course men stopped providing intimacy.

General Motors uses Hummers to get money and men use money to get Hummers. If we could convince General Motors that the honor of providing us with Hummers was its own reward and General Motors starting providing Hummers for free, would you still insist on paying?

Posted by: David Cohen at October 25, 2004 6:50 PM

David:

Hummers and hummers for free--it's Schwarzenegger Heaven.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2004 7:33 PM

You guys all have dirty minds or have been reading too much evolutionary anthropology.

Do you not think that, after ten thousand odd years, men would have figured out that there are far less troublesome ways to secure sex and homecare? Do you think fathers traditionally celebrated their sons' marriages because they rejoiced that they could now fulfill those irksome biological urges to their hearts' content. How sexy do you think the average married sex life was when pregnancy often came with the honeymoon and there were many more to follow.

Of course happliy married couples enjoy "receiving" romance and services, but the underlying rationale is the outward-looking life. Self-focussed lives are very destructive. The wife looks outward to take care of the children and the husband to the wife.(That's why women can get away with nagging fiercely but men should never go beyond the occasional pathetic whine.)

The fact that so few young men or young women understand that today and that they worry more about being abandoned or whether they are going to get adequate "returns" for their heroic sacrifices is why we are in such a social mess.

Posted by: Peter B at October 25, 2004 7:37 PM

David,

Women have always demanded a lot more than intimacy in exchange for sex - try quiting your job, then offering intimacy to women and see how many are willing to offer you sex.

Peter B,
Nice speech.

Posted by: Brandon at October 25, 2004 8:14 PM

Peter: Horses for courses.

Brandon: Yes, women never go for the bad boy and are only interested in the stable predictable type.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 25, 2004 8:17 PM

Brandon:

You just need a pumice stone.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2004 8:33 PM

and more importantly, the will to pumice.

Posted by: pj at October 25, 2004 9:40 PM

Its been 25 years, I don't remember the point and the parole board turned down my application.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 25, 2004 10:27 PM

"Why would he make such a one-sided committment?"

So he can look in the mirror and see a man, not a predatory beast?

Posted by: Robert Duquette at October 26, 2004 12:25 AM

Brandon: You think in entirely monetary terms and don't place value on much else. Also, this very attitude is what drives women in the arms of the rad fems because you confirm our worst suspicions of men. Why should women believe men will stick around long term if all they want is sex? Why should we be saddled with the cost of child bearing(and there are emotional and physical costs that I don't see men bearing. I know because I have 3 and 1 on the way) when you might run off with the nearest babe? Why should a woman sacrifice her earning potential and body to providing children and a home for a man?

The questions go both ways. If all you want is sex and money is the most important thing to you, (after sex, of course) than your questions make sense. And women should, logically if money and support is all they want, ask for more support from government which has always shown more constancy than men, at least for the last generation. Maybe men have some better angels in their nature, but comments like yours make women doubt it.

And most men after divorce are quite content to let the woman raise the children herself. It always seems their big arguement is that they actually have to pay for the children they helped create, being a part of their lives a lot of times comes in a sorry second. But children were just a trap laid by those devious women, right?

I'd also say that a big part of your problem may be the women you are choosing as partners. Find some with values, you may be surprised that there is more to it than a simple money for sex transaction.

Posted by: Buttercup at October 26, 2004 7:03 AM

Buttercup -- Congratulations.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 26, 2004 10:13 AM

More psychoanalysis and unwarranted assumptions about my the status of personal life, along with insults. I give up.

Posted by: Brandon at October 26, 2004 12:32 PM

Mr. Cohen: Thank you. We are all very happy and excited.

Brandon: Wait, you insult my whole sex and paint us as nothing but a bunch of money grubbing golddiggers who contribute nothing and strive to hold children hostage for money and you say I'm insulting you? Your tone is bitter and angry and your words express such a deep distrust of women and a profound misunderstanding of what men and women bring to a relationship that it is very easy to assume what your nature is.

Of course, I understand that you may be doing nothing more than trying to be controversial and not believe what you say, but, regardless of your intentions, I don't think that you answer even one of the questions I asked about what women get from men in exchange.

Posted by: Buttercup at October 26, 2004 4:45 PM

Buttercup:

Congratulations!

Posted by: oj at October 26, 2004 4:52 PM

Brandon:

TKO

Buttercup:

All the very best. May he/she take after Mom.

Posted by: Peter B at October 26, 2004 6:54 PM

I guess in addition to agreeing wholeheartedly with Peter, I must now do the same with Buttercup.

Congratulations and all joy to you, Buttercup.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 26, 2004 9:38 PM

I agree with the TKO. I've never seen a strawman beaten so viciously.

Posted by: Brandon at October 26, 2004 10:29 PM

Brandon: Answer the questions.

Posted by: Buttercup at October 27, 2004 6:57 AM

Buttercup,

The questions aren't relevant to the discussion.

Why should women believe men will stick around long term if all they want is sex?

They shouldn't. But do you think the women in this survey are unhappy with hooking up because they're uncomfortable with the prospects that their men won't stick around?

Why should we be saddled with the cost of child bearing(and there are emotional and physical costs that I don't see men bearing. I know because I have 3 and 1 on the way) when you might run off with the nearest babe?

You shouldn't, and their are legal protections for you in that situation. I know they may be inadequate sometimes, but they exist. A man has virtually no recourse if his wife wants to take his children from him. But do you think the women in this survey are unhappy with hooking up because the men won't take care of their children?

Why should a woman sacrifice her earning potential and body to providing children and a home for a man?

For the same reasons a man should do sacrifice for a women. Like Peter B said above, they'll probably be happier. But do you think the women in this survey are unhappy with hooking up because they're being asked to sacrifice?

The women in this survey are unhappy with hooking up because the men won't commit to them in the first place. Not because the men weren't living up to their committments.

Look, just because I've tried to point out that there are valid reasons why men won't commit doesn't mean that I think there are no reasons they should. That would be stupid. And just because I'm describing the reservations a man faces doesn't mean that I believe that women have no reservations of their own. Conceding that point, I have say that your response of "well, men are bad too" doesn't invalidate any of my statements.

Posted by: Brandon at October 27, 2004 8:37 AM

Brandon:

Men shouldn't stick around. That they do is a function of culture and morality. As they deteriorate so does the nuclear family.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2004 8:43 AM

Brandon: You are attacking your own straw man or rather straw woman. Going back to your original statement you make a blanket generality about women that we feel that having sex entitles us to the fruits of the man's labor for a lifetime.

Well, I haven't heard of a divorce settlement in the last 20 years that grants alimony. Sure, if my working in the home by raising children and providing a home frees my husband up to build his business and make money, I do feel I'm entitled to something if he leaves. I've made a huge sacrifice on his behalf in spending the last 10 years not working on a career and contributing to ss and a 401k to ensure my retirement. (By the way, this does not discount the sacrifice he has made on my behalf, but my point is that you can't claim that this is a one way street.) Do you consider child support an unfair entitlement? The reasons the assets are divided is because both parties made contributions and sacrifices to create those assets.

And other than divorce, which means a marriage and some sacrifice on the woman's side, not just the man's, how are women extracting or even hoping to extract a lifetime of support from men by having sex with them? Gee, our plan is so devious: Get married, take on the challenge and responsibility of children, create a home and do that work in the hopes of ending up with 50%? How come no one told us that we could get 50% in a much easier way, by just having sex!

You say in your original statement that men have a tough time parting with "those strings." I'm assuming you mean money, if not please clarify. You ask later what is in it for men, but in your latest post you concede that both men and women should make those sacrifices because they are happier in a relationship. So maybe you have answered your own question.

Posted by: Buttercup at October 27, 2004 11:02 AM

OJ:

"Men shouldn't stick around" is just plain silly.

I was a bachelor for a long time before getting married, so I am well acquainted with both.

The reasons to stick around swamp those to do otherwise.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 27, 2004 11:39 AM

yes, they're moral, not reasonable.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2004 11:43 AM

Perhaps OJ is saying something closer to what I mean. Buttercup thinks that I'm saying "Men have to make sacrifices and women don't," when I'm really only saying "Men have to make sacrifices." And my point is that men don't want to make those sacrifices anymore and don't really have to. So the question I posed was, what would (cound?) women do to make men want to make those sacrifices?

Posted by: Brandon at October 27, 2004 1:31 PM

No, they are very much a product of reason--I am materially--in every parameter of my life--far better off in my marriage than out of it.

Reason has everything to do with it.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 27, 2004 3:23 PM

that's false as to monetary circumstances of course but you've also said you'd kill your wife as soon as she had a genuinely money draining illness.

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2004 3:51 PM

OJ:

Provide a quote, or an apology.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 27, 2004 4:28 PM

You made the charge; actually, you have now made two charges.

Back them up.

Or apologize.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 27, 2004 7:30 PM

You remember, the whole death pact with your wife if either of you becomes inconvenient....

http://www.brothersjudd.com/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=schiavo

Posted by: oj at October 28, 2004 12:28 AM

"you've also said you'd kill your wife as soon as she had a genuinely money draining illness."

"... you've said it dozens of times"

Back those statements up, or apologize.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 28, 2004 6:01 AM

OJ:

I'm not your research team. You come up with even one quoute, never mind dozens, to back up your charge, or apologize.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 28, 2004 7:14 AM

Jeff:

As I've made clear after many of those comments, I'm sorry, and think you will be, about your vow with your wife to murder one another in the event of disability or illness.

Posted by: oj at October 28, 2004 7:22 AM

"you've also said you'd kill your wife as soon as she had a genuinely money draining illness."

You allege I said that--find it.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 28, 2004 7:25 AM

Would you or would you not pull the plug?

Posted by: oj at October 28, 2004 7:33 AM

You attribute this to me: "you've also said you'd kill your wife as soon as she had a genuinely money draining illness."

And "... you've said it dozens of times"

Back these up, or be a man, admit your mistake and apologize.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 28, 2004 7:51 AM

Would you or would you not pull the plug? If you've changed your mind and would no longer euthanize her when she became inconvenient, and vice versa, I'll gladly apologize.

Posted by: oj at October 28, 2004 8:17 AM

Well, that was a pretty simple integrity check.

You failed.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 28, 2004 3:06 PM

OJ:

What you alleged I said bears no resemblance to what I actually said. "... as soon as she had a genuinely money draining illness" is a gross mischaracterization of my words.

I can understand the initial mistake, but when called on it you had but one option: apologize and correct.

Rather than that, you have engaged in quibbling, equivocating and continuting to bear false witness.

Is this the sort of example you set for your kids?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 28, 2004 4:10 PM

I reiterate, if you and the wife have reconsidered your plans to kill each other I'll happily apologize. But you've talked about it frequently enough that it seems fair game. I teach my kids that the weak should be defended, not hastened from the world as soon as they become burdensome.

Posted by: oj at October 28, 2004 5:58 PM

OJ:

Stop quibbling. This has nothing to do with what my wife and I have decided to do, and everything to do with your trustworthiness.

I reiterate, you grotesquely--and now knowingly-- mischaracterized what I have said on this subject.

Your failure to acknowledge that, or apologize for it, is what sets a lousy example. Your lack of integrity here is appalling.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 28, 2004 6:35 PM

Jeff:

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. It was my impression that your statements said that you planned to kill your wife if she became ill or disabled and vice versa. If that's not true my subsequent statement is indeed unjustified.

Posted by: oj at October 28, 2004 6:59 PM

This is what I wrote:

"My wife and I have discussed this in detail. She has explicitly, emphatically, directed me not to allow her to live in a hopeless PVS." [emphasis added]

Which is a far cry from what you attributed to me.

On a different note, this struck me as odd:

"... that's false as to monetary circumstances of course ..."

That statement just doesn't make economic sense. Money is a medium of exchange; I trade money for something I want more.

So when I say I am completely materially better off married, your use of money circumstances is simply odd. I want what marriage provides more than the additional money I would have (even presuming this to be true) if single.

I made the trade, and am materially better off for it. In money terms I am better off because I value what I got in exchange more than the money itself.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 28, 2004 9:02 PM

Trading the sick wife in seems to take materialism to an extreme.

Posted by: oj at October 28, 2004 10:28 PM

"Trading the sick wife in seems to take materialism to an extreme."

???????????????????????????

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 29, 2004 7:11 AM

Trading the sick wife in?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 29, 2004 9:51 AM
« PAKISTAN'S LEFT FLANK: | Main | DON'T WANT TO END UP A CARTOON: »