Quantcast
Utah

Study challenges 'hookup culture' view of college life

Comments

Return To Article
  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 8:43 p.m.

    Redshirt with another red herring.

    What do all those issues have to do with college student hookup culture?

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 4:35 p.m.

    Redshirt wrote:

    "...things were better in the past..."

    Balanced budget, national debt, college education, violent crime, income equality, civil rights, oil, jobs, etc.

    How are any of those topics relevant to sexual activity among college students?

    Redshirt with yet another red herring...

  • G L W8 SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 14, 2013 10:05 p.m.

    Dragline: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Every generation thought it was smart enough to solve the world's problems, and so far, none have succeeded. If the younger generation can, more power to them. But history proves to be cyclical. 20-40-60 years from now, you're likely to find the young generation echoing your same sentiments.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 14, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    To "redshirt007" but things were better in the past.

    In the 1950's we not only had a balanced budget, but the national debt was getting smaller.

    In the past we had more people obtaining college degrees.

    In the past we had more people getting married before they had children.

    In the past violent crime was lower.

    In the past we had greater income equality.

    In the past civil rights movements were about actual constitutional rights, not perceived rights.

    In the past the US produced enough oil to take care of itself.

    In the past there were not jobs that American's wouldn't do.

    In the past everybody knew their neighbors.

    In the past parents raised their own children, and didn't outsource that responsibility.

    In the past sub-prime loans were very rare.

    Seems like when you look at it, things were really better in the past. Why not return to those values and principals?

  • Rick2009 MESA, AZ
    Aug. 13, 2013 11:22 p.m.

    I really feel that this report is bogus. Look where th report comes from and realize they are from a very very liberal area. It's like the Kinsey reports back in the late forties early fifties, once the data was evaluated it was realized what a shame it was. People believe what they want to and reports usually produce want the payors want reported. Something tells me it is BOGUS reporting.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Aug. 13, 2013 9:08 p.m.

    All that reckless abandon during WW2 and then their children had the sexual revolution (t-party age now)

    It goes along with being a conservative belief that the past was better. Psychologists just call it rosy recollection that our brains tend to dump unpleasant memories faster than good ones.

    Once you realize that the world doesn't have to get worse, you can plan a better future.

  • Michael Matthews Omaha, NE
    Aug. 13, 2013 5:08 p.m.

    @ Whose Life

    So you are saying that Slavery, torture, racism, poor treatment of women is not as bad as abortion, which is killing an unborn child?

    I'm not saying we haven't made progress in many ways. In many ways, we live in the best of times the earth has every seen. I agree.

    But in others' ways we've allowed sophisticated arguments to justify what should only be done in extreme cases. There are times that life should be taken... but I believe we've gone way past those times in our decision to allow tens of thousands of deaths a year.

  • The Caravan Moves On Enid, OK
    Aug. 13, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    The article said there was no statistical difference in those that considered themselves sexually active. However, the article also said this:

    Article quote: "Of those who reported being sexually active, Monto said that modern young adults were MORE likely to report having a sexual relationship with a casual date or someone he or she picked up (44.4 percent compared to 34.5 percent in 1988-96) or with a friend (68.6 percent, compared to 55.7 percent). They were LESS apt to have a spouse or regular sexual partner (77.1 percent to 84.5 percent in the earlier-era group)." (capitalization added for emphasis)

    And yet the study authors concluded there was no statistical increase in sexual conduct?

    Does. Not. Compute.

    If those sexually active in the comparison timeframe were the amount of "X" and the amount of young adults currently sexually active was also "X", if there were increases in the number of sexual encounters (which the study reported above) then there is MORE sexual activity occuring. You can't use "statistics" to infer anything else, no matter what posters like "A Scientist" and "Hutterite" say. Period.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 13, 2013 3:38 p.m.

    To "The Scientist" but, if you have a 10 point difference, that is not statistically significant, that would only show that your sample size is insufficient or that your data collection methods are highly questionable.

    So, either there is more casual sex going on at college campuses or else this study is flawed and was designed to calm public outrage.

  • angelrich Rigby, ID
    Aug. 13, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    Interesting that the study considered marriage and regular sexual partners the same. The moral standard taught in the Judeo-Christian (and and other religions) culture is chastity before marriage then complete fidelity after marriage. Psychologically, marriage and regular sexual partners are not the same. They do not have the same level of commitment, and cohabitation produces more domestic violence, abuse, poverty, and children growing up without both biological parents than marriage relationships. Many people see their regular sexual partner as hooking up/transitory sexual relationship.
    Marriage is a full commitment that implies permanence and exclusivity. It produces better economic outcomes, longer lives, and more satisfaction in life than cohabitation or singlehood. So I would argue that this study is inherently flawed, because unless a couple has made the psychological journey that marriage requires, they have not overtly chosen a permanent commitment. So with less people choosing marriage and more people not expecting marriage from a sexual relationship, how does this study show the current college students are not living in a "hooking-up" culture?

    (references: Dr. W. Brad Wilcox and the article in the Harvard Law journal: What is Marriage: Man, Woman a defense.)

  • fredsgirl1 usa, MA
    Aug. 13, 2013 1:22 p.m.

    What is the prime directive for all living entities on earth: to replace themselves and perpetuate their species.

    Males are more sexually active because the design for them is to spread their seed as far and wide as possible to ensure diversification of the gene pool. Females are receptive to that plan and ensure that those offspring will be nurtured and raised to adulthood.

    Mix all that with the lack of control of younger humans, then and you have reality. This is nothing new. It happened in my youth some 68 years ago, and back beyond, and as long as they married before the child was born no one thought anything about it. Now young people do not have to get pregnant, thank goodness, and procreation can take a back seat until they are ready. If you want to end this kind of behavior you will have to change the programming of the human brain. And I wish you Good Luck doing that.

  • Kralon HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA
    Aug. 13, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    Isn't it a little obvious that most of the people involved with making movies about college students have not actually attended college, or even worse, are just after a quick buck?

  • Dragline Oream, UT
    Aug. 13, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    Disparaging comments and half-truths about the Millennial generation have been part of the older generation's talking points for awhile now. The truth is that this generation has more on the ball than the Silent generation or Baby Boomers ever were. The tirades against the younger generations --without morals, sex fiends, lazy, without social skills, etc--are simply untrue--they are at equal levels or appreciably better than the older generations.

    When the Silent generation and the Baby Boomers have gone on the their just rewards, I have every confidence that the GenX'ers and Millennials will overcome the cultural wars, racism, sexism, gay discrimination, and wars for profit hoisted on them by my generation and my father's.

    Try to hold on 'til then youngsters. The world is your oyster.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Aug. 13, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    Redshirt1701 wrote:

    "To 'A Scientist' how can you say that there is no difference when the study itself shows that there was an increase in pre-marital sex? Re-read the last paragraph of the story. The study's conclusions don't match their data. They found that there for casual sex, there was a jump over 10 points in the number of people reporting on casual sex."

    How? First, because I understand statistical significance, just as the researchers do. And second, I am not arrogant enough to think I can second guess professional researchers when they have been immersed in their data and I have only seen poorly reported second- or third-hand summaries.

    I also know that, if they are wrong, a team of peers will likely catch it, or another team of researchers will challenge their findings.

    And finally, I do not have a religious filter on my outlook that tells me the world is a horrible, no good, dirty rotten place in dire need of a Second Coming and a thorough purging of all the heathen. My daily experience tells me things are not as bad as believers make them out to be.

    Any more questions?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 13, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    To "A Scientist" how can you say that there is no difference when the study itself shows that there was an increase in pre-marital sex? Re-read the last paragraph of the story. The study's conclusions don't match their data. They found that there for casual sex, there was a jump over 10 points in the number of people reporting on casual sex.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Aug. 13, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    Eastern Girl,

    No, I would say your comment is not supported by the article.

    One of the researchers concluded:

    "For the most part, they found sexual behavior has been "relatively consistent" for a quarter century."

    In other words, my comment is spot on.

  • jenkers Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 13, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    Tim, the reporting is accurate. The overall is not changing, but among those who are sexually active (not all are), the trend is to more casual sexual interactions.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 13, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    The sky, it seems, is not falling,and popular media do not always reflect or influence reality. Yes, sex occurs in college. Among consenting adults. But it's not nearly as rampant as the prudish want to believe.

  • Whos Life RU Living? Ogden, UT
    Aug. 13, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    At 1.96 Standard Deviations,
    “Yes, morals are worse today than in the past.”

    You really believe that?
    Have we not progressed from these much more severe acts?
    Slavery, torture, racism, poor treatment of women, I could go on and on.
    If a person thinks pornography and abortion issues are worse than the ones that I just listed, that is sad.

    Here is the real irony; the Bible endorses these severe acts.

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    Aug. 13, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    A Scientist:

    Yes, morals are worse today than in the past. This study and article covers a small sliver of what can be considered a loss of morality. For example, it is safe to say the following of today compared to the past few decades:

    - Pornography is much more tolerated, prevalent, accessible and consumed
    - Abortions are much more common and public sentiment is more tolerant

    Both pornography and abortion (with few exceptions like rape/incent victims and helath of the mother) are inherently evil. Abortion is like unto murder and pornography is poison and very destructive. A society that becomes tolerant of these things is certainly a good sign that morality is in decline.

    This study also confirms what was bad in the bad STILL is bad and is not getting better. However, some things have also gotten worse as Time Behrend indicated:

    "[...] modern young adults were more likely to report having a sexual relationship with a casual date or someone he or she picked up (44.4 percent compared to 34.5 percent in 1988-96) or with a friend (68.6 percent, compared to 55.7 percent)."

  • Befuddled WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 13, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    Very wise of the church (LDS) to allow missions at 19 before they are influenced by the corporation of "college life." I would argue with comment above, "The Sky is Falling" on our society as a whole!

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Aug. 13, 2013 6:13 a.m.

    Wait, this can't be right. The religious folks are always telling us that the dramatic rise in secularization and unbelief constitutes a loss of morality in society!?

    But this study says the moral sky is not falling afterall.

    Imagine that.

  • TimBehrend Auckland NZ, 00
    Aug. 13, 2013 5:26 a.m.

    "Of those who reported being sexually active, Monto said that modern young adults were more likely to report having a sexual relationship with a casual date or someone he or she picked up (44.4 percent compared to 34.5 percent in 1988-96) or with a friend (68.6 percent, compared to 55.7 percent). They were less apt to have a spouse or regular sexual partner (77.1 percent to 84.5 percent in the earlier-era group)."

    I don't understand. 44.5% is one third more than 34.5%; 68.6% is more than twenty percent more than 55.7%. How are these numbers not indicative of significant change? One third more, one fifth more... in any other context i think we would consider them significant. Unemployment is one third higher now than it was in 1990 sounds very significant. The wealth gap between the top five percent and the rest of the population represents a gain of 21% in the past 25 years. Once again, very significant. Why are they labelled meaningless here?