You can lead someone on in the 1950s via coy looks and conversation and holding hands, and then break their hearts, as well as you can now with coy looks and a well-bleached asshole. It's just science.
This is magnificent.
The second paragraph in the OP is exactly why there's so much sex in nursing homes. It's like living at a residential college, except you can drink legally, and you don't even have to pretend to care about the classes.
I just don't understand why you'd want a heavy-duty Serious Relationship in college. You're probably going to be somewhat peripatetic (or at least want the freedom to be) for the next few years, having to drag someone else around with you is not going to be easy (in fact, it's probably going to split up any relationship you're in). Furthermore, most people seem to go through a second round of intense maturation when they hit 25 or so. It's pretty easy to find yourself partnered up on the other side of that line with someone who just doesn't get you anymore, or vice versa.
Also, most guys are assholes, and whether you're schtupping them casually or registering at Williams Sonoma, that's not going to change. Better to leave it unserious and be able to cut them loose when they start jerking you around.
I'm enjoying the article, but surprised that no one involved in this research seems to have heard of women who are not straight. Isn't it somewhat hard to believe that sex with women didn't even come up as a potentially interesting comparison?
3
I just don't understand why you'd want a heavy-duty Serious Relationship in college. ...
And I don't understand why anyone would want to get addicted to heroin.
I don't understand why anyone would pay full retail price for the best in major name brands.
5: Well, I enumerated the reasons I'm confused by that course of action. Why don't you understand heroin addiction, James?
2: I can't tell how much of a joke this is. Nursing homes are mostly full of old women, many of whom are probably heterosexual. Assisted living facilities, on the other hand, may be a different story.
You can lead someone on in the 1950s via coy looks and conversation and holding hands, and then break their hearts, as well as you can now with coy looks and a well-bleached asshole. It's just science.
As I have often said, modern science has only invented new occasions for sin, not new kinds of sin.
I went to college five years before Hanna Rosin did, at a similar school (Ivy, to her Stanford). I don't think I heard the word "dating" once outside of scare quotes.
Shearer's right though. Fuck someone should write an article on the negative externalities of overly serious relationships in college (self-absorbed assholery while going on, inevitable crushing breakup with concomitant self-absorbed uselessness etc) and the need for some kind of regulatory response.
As always, post-punk solves relationship difficulties.
8: Not at all a joke. Maybe "nursing home" is the wrong word. "Retirement home"?
I long for the day when we don't judge people by the color of their assholes but by the content of their colon.
That's got to be a painful place for bleach. I don't even like generic toilet paper.
I don't even own a knowing what anal bleaching is for. For dark skin, or dark hair? I guess skin because as long as you're bleaching you're also waxing? Plus what's the point of a blond hairy asshole?
People get into relationships in college because yay! lots and lots of sex. If the sex is really good and you also have a good friendship going there is a serious risk of falling in love.
10 People spoke of going out, of being in a relationship, of boyfriends and girlfriends. The difference was that nobody spoke of going on dates. Even things that more or less were dates between two interested single people were framed as just two friends hanging out together. A much healthier attitude imo.
As long as we're talking about love, I may as well mention that Governor Appalachian Trail got engaged.
I imagine TFA have everything anyone needs to know about colons.
This is kind of a dumb article, in precisely the opposite way that the Caitlin Flanagan stuff is dumb. Flanagan portrays young women as pearl-clutching Victorian maidens, traumatized by casual sex. No doubt Rosin was annoyed by that, but her article (maybe in reaction?) goes too far in the opposite direction. She seems to want to portray young women as hardass frat boys chasing tail. Despite the obvious pageview potential of that tack, she can't quite stick with it as it's obviously silly. I couldn't believe she cited that sad 'Duke fuck list' from Karen Owen as some kind of positive example -- if you actually looked at that thing it was not a record of a happy person.
She keeps struggling with the evidence that the women she's talking to are actually are not big fans of the hookup culture. Sure, women very rationally prefer it to having the Caitlin Flanagans of the world actually police their romantic lives or pushing for some kind of neo-victorian revival (what would it even mean to 'get rid of' hookup culture?). It's easy to see how fucked up that would get. But that doesn't mean the status quo is all that great.
In the end Flanagan settles for some common sense, basically saying, hey, hookup culture is a side effect of the kind of freedom young people have, it's not all that damaging, and people grow out of it. But that doesn't mean it's good, or that women are as happy about it as men. This article is a victim of the journalistic need to be 'for' something or 'against' it, even when it's a phenomenon that's just too complicated for that.
As an aside -- I wonder about the easy acceptance of the idea that delaying marriage and childbirth is good for womens' careers. Is it really true that managing a baby at 35 when you're trying to make partner is better than managing a baby at 25 when you're in your second or third year of law school?
My advice to women trying to make partner is to get in on the ass-bleach class action lawsuits.
Is anyone else underwhelmed by the stats in the article? What's really different here from the 1970s? More anal? Fewer hurt feelings? Are attractive women pursuing unattractive guys this time?
Wake me up when twenty something women are going after overweight fifty something guys.
17: just so. In 1987, the year Rosin went to college, the word "dating" referred to predruidic rituals involving corsages. So what does it mean for her to say that the "hookup culture" is "replacing dating"? That her writing is utterly detached from ordinary observation of the world around her?
20 last -- IME the second child is the real problem. And it's not just a baby that makes it tough: do young associates still get sent to Omaha to look at warehouses full of documents for 4 weeks? That's a problem for the primary caregiver of a 3 year old.
Everybody wants to get send to Omaha.
I spent my undergraduate years trying persistently but ineffectively to get into a serious relationship, but in retrospect that was mostly because I didn't really understand what that meant.
I met Hannah Rosin once. She and her husband and their children were all doing a headstand yoga pose in an airport departure lounge. I recognized her husband (whom I know from way back) and said hello. They turned themselves upright and greeted me back. Then I found five dollars.
Wake me up when twenty something women are going after overweight fifty something guys.
Right. But if it's more than two years from now, count me out.
Then I found five dollars.
Plus a whole bunch of change, I presume.
Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
27: Seriously? Headstand pose in the middle of the airport?
As to the OP, one reason the article appealed to me was that I wish I had the sense, back in undergrad, that it was morally permissible/not totally immature to hook-up. My self-declared promiscuous phase (last semester of undergrad through second year of grad school) was far more emotionally healthy and fun than my years of serial monogamy (ages 12--yeah, I know--through 22).
FWIW, I'm pretty sure that people "dated" when I was in college in the early 90s. I didn't optimize my collegiate years in this dimension, but I don't think terminology was to blame.
I wish I had the sense, back in undergrad, that it was morally permissible/not totally immature to hook-up.
I feel basically the same way, and this is more or less what I meant in 26. Both hook-ups and relationships ended up being totally abstract concepts in my case, of course, but that was due to an idiosyncratic set of circumstances that wouldn't at all generalize to college students as a whole.
IME the second child is the real problem.
I think this is right. Unless you want Irish twins or an only child, having your first kid in your early-mid 20s* means being in charge of babies until you're nearly 30, which isn't exactly getting an early start on a high-flying career.
I'd say that, if you want to be seriously invested in your kid, you're off the career track until they're at least 2, and maybe 3. I'm not judging anyone's choices here, I'm just saying that the hard-charging, 60-hour workweek that is apparently de rigeur in some professions is incompatible with spending a lot of time with the little ones. By the time they're 2 or 3 or 4, they're much more like bigger children that you can be apart from without feeling like you're missing some foundational developmental stage.
* assuming that you've even found a suitable partner and are personally ready for parenting
The solution of course is to have your kids in your late teens.
Some thoughts on the article from someone I know--I think Phoebe's right to bring up the "window of opportunity" question (as in PGD's 20.last), and how the public perception of what having a serious relationship means can go very quickly from "liability" (in college, early career), to "valid lifestyle choice" (mid 20s), to "absolute necessity" (late 20s, 30s) for straight women who want to eventually marry and have children. Whereas for straight men, it's just "valid lifestyle choice" from high school till death.
(I'm not at all saying having such a relationship by one's early 30s really is necessary, and I don't think it is; Phoebe's talking about perceptions and felt social judgments, and I've heard her view echoed by other late 20s-mid 30s straight women of my acquaintance.)
35: Both hook-ups and relationships ended up being totally abstract concepts in my case, of course, but that was due to an idiosyncratic set of circumstances that wouldn't at all generalize to college students as a whole.
So teo's "fear of birds" is meant in the British slang sense?
I spent my undergraduate years trying persistently but ineffectively to get into a serious relationship, but in retrospect that was mostly because I didn't really understand what that meant.
Same here. Looking back I realized there were a few opportunities for hookups, but I had no conception that such a thing was possible, as opposed to the paradigm that advances from minor physical contact to major physical contact over the course of somewhere between three weeks and a year.
Also, of course people went on dates.
Hook-ups only became a possibility in my world view once I moved in with a friend--whose opinion I very much respected--whose social circle consisted largely of her former sorority* sisters and alumni of an affiliated frat.
*The Greek scene had terrified me previously, but it helped that I had met said friend in a feminist philosophy class.
I'm pretty sure my undergrad experience is identical to whatever anyone means by hook-up culture. I can imagine that my crowd only made out or gave blow jobs where modern youngsters now wink a bleached eye, but that's a matter of degree, not kind.
Sometimes people had boyfriends and girlfriends. I somehow don't believe that romantic youngsters no longer want a steady.
The fact that I somehow didn't drink coffee today now means that I've got a caffeine headache that is preventing me from falling asleep. LESSON LEARNED.
So teo's "fear of birds" is meant in the British slang sense?
Not just in that sense.
Anyway, I had a date just this afternoon that went quite well, although it's unlikely that things will go any further in the near future since she's moving overseas in a few days.
(Young) people like falling/being in love. There's a certain niceness to it. And of course there's the security of a semi-reliable someone who can be awesome or at least validate one's sense of self worth, something young people are generally not that great at doing for themselves yet.
Whereas for straight men, [having a serious relationship is] just "valid lifestyle choice" from high school till death.
Ha! trapnel is young.
where modern youngsters now wink a bleached eye
This almost made me spit out my water laughing.
Seriously, heebie is on fire with these anal bleaching jokes.
I, too, was going to go with "is on fire" in order to express my admiration for Heebie's wit, but worried that any talk of burning when discussing the human anus would unavoidably conjure up thoughts of hemorrhoids.
And it's not just a baby that makes it tough: do young associates still get sent to Omaha to look at warehouses full of documents for 4 weeks? That's a problem for the primary caregiver of a 3 year old.
I'm not sure when people are expected to be free from family responsibilities. Taking care of aging parents is a ton of work too. I'm not even doing basic caregiving, just planning out services and planning a move, and for the past 5 months I've been spending about 15 to 20 hours a week on that. The people who have their aging "nursing-home eligible" parents (That's a technical term for people who can make it outside of a nursing home if they get a lot of extra support but wouldn't otherwise be able to. Eligible for a nursing home but able to live safely in the community.) The people whose aging parents move in with them--even if they go off to the adult day health center every day--do a ton of work and can't just take off for Omaha for 4 weeks at a time. Ir's probably easier to arrange to have someone take your kid for two weeks than to get someone to watch someone with dementia. If you have 2 or 3 siblings in the area, it's conceivable that you could share the responsibility evenly, but I'm doubtful about this happening in practice. You do, however, have a shot at someone being willing to take over for a bit if you have local siblings.
The later that you have your kids the more likely that you'll have to juggle both of those things at the same time. gswift's kids will be in college before he deals with that much.
Doesn't this get at the larger not-solely gendered issue of overworking the proles middle-class worker in America? It's hard to have a family life and a career regardless of when you have kids, because families are incompatible with 100 hour work weeks. The wealthy can outsource childraising or other caregiving, but that comes at a psychological cost as well.
More likely the four weeks in Omaha has been outsourced to a company that scans everything, which can then be reviewed by platoons of otherwise unemployed law grads in windowless rooms for hourly wages. And soon enough, the latter will be in India. Law school is a bad enough idea as it is: parenting at the same time (I had a 2 year old when I started) is rare for a reason.
There's still trial, though, and one is at the mercy of travel gods and judges for how/when one gets sent somewhere.
I think I'm going to knock wood at least once an hour all day today that I've been spared the need to take care of my parents, so far.
57.1: I was thinking that's the way they did it, but I know better than to ask questions like that to lawyers. They give really long answers. My brother is apparently away from home half of the time now because of despositions. He assumes the other side is deliberately running up costs to fuck with them.
I hate depositions, and had forgotten about them. But yeah, you could easily have a few weeks with a lot of road time in a case with lots of witnesses. Until you get senior enough to send someone else to take them.
oop, gotta deal with the Culligan man.
This thread has drifted.
Quick! Someone explain the connection between depositions and hook-up culture!
61: When I was a young lawyer before documents could be scanned, I did those "weeks in Omaha" document reviews. There might be five or six twentysomething lawyers from various cities, stuck in a conference room doing something very boring all day, staying in downtown hotels, away form any spouses/significant others, enjoying expense account booze.
So, yeah, there was definitely a conection.
60, he said Culligan Man not Caligula Man.
I think I'm going to knock wood at least once an hour all day today that I've been spared the need to take care of my parents, so far.
If I understand correctly that'll reduce your risk of colon cancer, so you'll be helping out your daughter as well.
Depositions are all about the witness and files.
UPDATE:
Another magnet has appeared on the fridge. This one is a filigree silver butterfly. Neither of us put it there, but I have now moved the hand-drawn large-breasted naked fairy magnet next to it.
We are not especially spooked by this magnet. We've had two sets of AirBnB guests at the house ($700!), so there are likely explanations for the appearance of the magnet.
We've had no further sighting of deli meats.
For obvious reasons, deli meat goes with naked fairy magnets but not butterfly magnets.
I'm not sure when people are expected to be free from family responsibilities. ... Doesn't this get at the larger not-solely gendered issue of overworking the proles middle-class worker in America?
This is right and important, but I think the full story is still more complicated and hopeless, because while the (employed) professional classes and manager types are overworked, a huge segment of the population either can't get any work or can't get enough work, and these things aren't unrelated. This chart using NZ census data is interesting: about 55% of workers making NZ$100k or more, at the time ~USD$66k, were working 50+ hrs/wk; less than 20% of the NZ$30-35k bracket were at 50+ hrs. (And here's a chart for the US, but only married men/women, which is increasingly missing out on some of the biggest disparities.)
One might think this would provide the objective conditions for a cross-class, or cross-fortune, alliance, but it seems rather the opposite--the overworked 80 hr/wk professional is probably less likely to support the kinds of policies (steeply graduated marginal tax rates, decoupling work from health insurance & benefits) that would encourage broader but less intense employment. Part of this is probably about static-vs-dynamic effects: the policies required would immediately and dramatically hurt the well-off, and while the positive effects (more workers hired, less work, extra time for family & leisure) would be less immediately visible (and not as clearly due to the relevant policy changes). Part of that is the psychology of desert and resentment: when one works really hard, and is very stressed out, and sees folks not working at all or working much less, it may be easier to see them as freeloaders or lazy than as potential allies. (Not that I have any first-hand knowledge of any of this.)
And since higher-income Americans are the only ones who have any political voice whatsoever, that's how this gets framed.
Yeah, I've seen this cast as UMC/white-collar types [in the employment world that includes me] essentially 'scabbing', as they are occupying jobs that should/could be done by several people. Literally true, in my case, as I'm basically doing what should be two, or possibly three, people's jobs.* And I guess that's exactly the sort of phenomenon under discussion.
* not that I work extra long hours because .. fuck that. But I do two/three people's not particularly well due to not having enough time to do anything thoroughly.
not that I work extra long hours because .. fuck that.
Right on!
I'm getting a new junior person and maybe a graduate student because I see lots of potential for cross-fortune alliances making my life better.
When are these people going to STOP DIGGING?
[Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith (R)] said Monday at the Pennsylvania Press Club that although he condemns Akin's comment, he agrees with Akin that abortion should be banned without any exceptions, including for rape and incest victims. Pressed by a reporter on how he would handle a daughter or granddaughter becoming pregnant as a result of rape, Smith said he had already "lived something similar to that" in his family.
"She chose life, and I commend her for that," he said. "She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn't have to ... she chose the way I thought. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't rape."
When a reporter asked Smith to clarify what kind of situation was similar to becoming pregnant from rape, the candidate responded, "Having a baby out of wedlock."
He added, "Put yourself in a father's position. Yes, it is similar."
....
Smith, who is challenging incumbent Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) in the November election, told reporters that he does not agree with Akin's remark at all. "He should have never said anything like that," Smith said.
When a reporter asked Smith to clarify what kind of situation was similar to becoming pregnant from rape, the candidate responded, "Having a baby out of wedlock."
WOW.
I hope they don't stop digging. I still think we're seeing a series of unforced errors that started with opposing contraception and are the reason that the Republicans lose widely this fall.
Thank you for joining us from 1920, Mr. Smith.
At least he didn't say "she was carrying a colored man's baby". You know, progress.
If he's in favor of abortion rights not just for rape victims, but for all women with fathers, that's pretty good for a Republican.
Quick! Someone explain the connection between depositions and hook-up culture!
RTFA.
MARK SCOLFORO, ASSOCIATED PRESS: How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will? Do you have a way to explain that?
SMITH: I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn't have to.. she chose they way I thought. No don't get me wrong, it wasn't rape.
SCOLFORO: Similar how?
SMITH: Uh, having a baby out of wedlock.
SCOLFORO: That's similar to rape?
SMITH: No, no, no, but... put yourself in a father's situation, yes. It is similar.
My favorite part is definitely "No, no, no, but... yes."
Similar in that the father might have to walk a non-virgin down the aisle before handing her over to her new owner. Consensual, non-consensual, either way, he has to live with the knowledge that her white dress is a big fat lie.
Also, I am SO going to win my bet with Halford.
And of course, just like Akin, he's already aggressively backing off:
Asked again, the candidate backed off a second time, denying that he had drawn any correlation between rape and an unplanned pregnancy achieved by a consenting man and woman.
"No, I didn't not say that," Smith, 64, told the Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon crowd. "I said I went through a situation. It's very, very difficult. But do I condone rape? Absolutely not."
He then pivoted to his anti-abortion position, saying, "A life is a life and it needs protecting. Who's going to protect it? We have to. I believe life begins at conception. I'm not going to argue about the method of that conception....
Contacted by ABC News, campaign officials were adamant that Smith was only addressing the difficult decision that his family faced, and not the way his daughter became pregnant....
In a statement, communications director Megan Piwowar wrote: "Tom Smith is committed to protecting the sanctity of life and believes it begins at conception. While his answers to some of the questions he faced at the Pennsylvania Press club may have been less than artful, at no time did he draw the comparison that some have inferred. When questioned if he was drawing that comparison, Tom's answer was clear, 'no, no, no.'"
Sorry, Ms. Piwowar, but no--Tom's answer was a clear "no, no, no, but... yes."
What's interesting to me is that this all happened in the context of Smith trying to distance himself from Akin. It's like if you just keep these people talking about women and sex, they're inevitably going to say something stupid.
"nursing-home eligible" parents (That's a technical term for people who can make it outside of a nursing home if they get a lot of extra support but wouldn't otherwise be able to. Eligible for a nursing home but able to live safely in the community.)
Though I have aspirations for a first tier home, my long term goal is to make it to my safety home.
easier to arrange to have someone take your kid for two weeks
This one time, at bandcamp ...