THE TIM BLOG

The following blog is an awesome re-blog from a guy I follow……..Squashed.

He is a very smart guy and the following blog is interesting and worth a read!

squashed:

Rachel Hills linked to an NPR story about dating, sex, and hooking up.

The story (which is an intersting read) argues that the increasingly popular (and theoretically committment-free) hookup has largely supplanted dating among single twenty-somethings. The hookup is supposed to be a about self-indulgent fun. Dating, presumably, would focus on a relationship and eventually marriage.

Rachel (correctly and insightfully) points out that none of this is particularly new. (Follow the link to her full comments, which are, as always, worth reading). The generational trappings have changed, but whether the year is 2009, 1969, or 1925, you have a lot of boys and girls seeking pleasure in eachother’s company, and frequently doing things that would shock their parents. This is nothing new—and it certainly needn’t induce a moral panic. The sexual mores have changed in the last century, but otherwise things are more or less the same.

And yet…

But I like a bit of moral panic, so let me offer a contrasting view to Rachel’s. I think that opportunity cost of a self-centered hookup culture (or forty years ago, dating culture) is intimacy and a chance at meaningful relationships.

(In full disclosure, I’ve never been very high on hedonism. Even my youthful fantasies tended toward staying up all night talking philosophy.That Star Trek “go where no man has gone before” mandate that has caused so many problems for so many people did not manifest itself in me sexually—though I certainly wanted to be remembered. The trail of carnage, while different in form, was not particularly diminished in severity. The hookup always struck me as an inferior and rather pointless bond. When reading my thoughts on the matter, bear in mind that I may be defective.)

Yet despite the purportedly casual nature of the hookup, it isn’t an emotional get out of jail free card. The promise of intimacy without emotional consequence is frequently a lie. All sorts of neurochemical things go on during sex, and I worry that anybody who can fully shrug that all off has lost touch with some critical bit of human vulnerability. People inadvertently bond physically and emotionally. Do you think ripping those bonds apart won’t hurt?

At least, that’s what I want to believe, because the alternative seems a lot worse. Have we successfully removed intimacy from sex? Is a hookup simply consequence-free physical exchange that makes two people feel good for a night before they get on with their unaltered lives and forget eachother? Is the human connection gone? Are we comfortable being so forgettable? If we’re merely looking for pleasure in convenient packages, have we considered heroin?

But beyond this, I think the casual hookup screws with our expectations. Since there is no expectation of commitment, the whole exercise becomes self-serving. People become objectified because we are primarily interested in them as objects. Do we care what they think so long as we get what we want? Perhaps to a limited extent—but isn’t caring sort of discouraged when hooking up? What’s been accomplished? Are we proud of ourselves? (Maybe.) Have we soothed an ego in need of affirmation? (Probably—though basing our self-worth on whose willing to have casual sex with us is itself a psychological red flag). Has anything gotten lost in the process?

Is love too old fashioned a word? Is it too moralistic to hope that the bedrock of our relationships is what we can give, not what we can take away? The camping motto, leave only footprints, take only memories, works well enough for the wilderness, but I want more out of a relationship.

Courtship?

Some more conservative, generally-religious subcultures have rejected the hooking-up and dating culture entirely. They offer a “courtship” model instead. The basic form at first looks almost avant garde in its rigid adherence to antiquated forms. The man asks the girl’s father for permission to court his daughter. The whole relationship becomes a community affair. I would normally laud a movement that hearkens back to a more arbitrary and frankly Victorian ethic as a brilliant counter-cultural move. It’s like a declaration that we’ve found the contemporary norm lacking and, longing for some sort of structure, we’ve affected an earlier era, as imperfect as it may be. Except that it’s not really countercultural. Its proponents don’t seem to realize that there’s anything weird about it or that maybe some of the Victorian mores were left behind for a reason.

The courting couple endeavors to discern whether or not they should get married. There’s something appealing in a form that deliberately looks toward the future rather than getting lost in the present. But it leads to some creepily high pressure situations. You met somebody a few weeks ago and suddenly you’re trying to decide whether you should get married? Perhaps you should try to decide whether you enjoy eachother’s company first. And what happens when the answer is, “No. Getting married is a bad plan. We’re just not compatible.” Theoretically, such a clear answer should mark a successful courtship. Afterall, you’ve mutually arrived at a decision that could save you a lot of heartbreak. Now you can be friends. No regrets. Except … it doesn’t generally go down so smoothly.

And focusing exclusively on the serious business of choosing a life-partner is sort of a buzz kill. While the hookup model focuses on the hedonistic present, categorically denying any thought of the future, the courtship model denies the legitimacy of immediate desire to look exclusively at the future. While the immediate desires  of the young and in love can be tempered, categorical denial tends not to go so smoothly. Falling in love is exciting because it is wild and unpredictable. It makes you do stupid things. A couple can try to follow a rigid set of rules to keep things orderly and under control. But love isn’t a rational thing, and it’s a mistake to pretend it should be. A deliberate, intentional, and purposeful approach to romance is like a deliberate, intentional, and purposeful approach to winter shopping cart racing. It’s a thrill. Enjoy it.

Perhaps the biggest issue with this courtship model is that it tends to sublimate the individual to standard expectations. It insists that there is a specific, correct way for a relationship to proceed. In a way, it becomes the twisted mirror image of the model it is reacting to. Just as the hookup forbids emotional attachment, the courtship model insists you not be swept away by the moment. Despite our best efforts, we form emotional attachments. We get swept away. The rigid, formulaic approach fails. By trying to protect ourselves from the emotional consequences of love, we miss the point.

So what, then?

I don’t know. If I had any answers on how to handle relationships, I would write a book and retire young. (Incidentally, if you want to give me a contract to write on the topic, I’ll make up some answers. Nobody will notice the difference. Relationships don’t obey books. My book is tentatively titled I Kicked Joshua Harris in the Teeth.) I do know that we shouldn’t expect our relationships to be simple or predictable. Getting to know somebody in a meaningful way requires a lot of vulnerability. That isn’t a bad thing. Love is a messy business.