SCREENINGROOM

Reader Feedback on "Sex-Crazed Co-Eds!"

mZRZ79 hgfqzckikejo, [url=http://vpxixyctquql.com/]vpxixyctquql[/url], [link=http://zaqngzrtesmk.com/]zaqngzrtesmk[/link], http://uebnfzpmjznb.com/
--lnou
09/24

Um, sleeping around is not feminism. I think you get that in 101.
--rh
08/18

Forgive me, but nothing has really changed over the years. I turn 40 this year (which means I graduated about 20 years back). Sure girls did not flash their sexual exploitations then like they do now, but "same shit different day". Being a male with four older sisters (educated, attractive, intelligent, athletic and sexually active) gave me a clear insight into what attractive popular girls do - whatever they want. They were just smarter back then. They knew no self respecting man would place much respect on a woman that held sex in such low regard (fuck'em sure - date no). Maybe that approach is rooted in insecurity - who knows for sure. I do know that as men age and look for long term commitments, women with spotted sexual histories are not looked on with much admiration (what chick can't get laid???). The pornification of this generation (by male dominated media) has lead women of this generation to bend over without enough thought to the consequences. As a young guy, I was pretty lucky, smart, attractive enough and well funded. I could bed down most any women I pursued. "Fat nights", "most women in a 24 hour period" etc. were games we and my friends played (and our undoubtably still being played on these girls today). I stopped playing those games because I could not remove myself emotionally, but many of my friends played on. In my opionion, the emotional baggage of these choices are yet to rear their ugly heads. When the sexual power changes hands (the sun shines on a woman but a short time) there has to be more there to sustain mental well being.
--MA
06/19

This article seems to perpetrate the idea that you can either have a relationship of quickie no strings sex. When I was in college it seemed like most sex was not so either/or but more of a mix between the two. I'm not sure that the argument made in this article is that different from the old Madonna/Whore stuff of my parents generation. Why is it so hard to get that sometimes girls just want to get laid and sometimes they want relationships - and they are allowed to want and have both.
--BJC
05/12

This article makes a lot of great points, but I want to add that the appeal of no-strings-attached sex isn't always a choice based on practical aspects like lack of time, career, school etc. A lot of times it is an emotional choice based on the fear of getting hurt. And I don't mean this in a condescending sense that "young women need to be protected." It goes both ways. College age people have often never had a real relationship or they have had one--that broke their heart. Many men and women at that stage of life are looking for something that isn't threatening emotionally: aka stupid frat boys or sorostitutes that have zero potential for long-term entanglements. I know I was scared of a real emotional connection at that age. So I think subdude has a great point about "nice boys" getting the shaft, but intelligent, nice, interesting young women aren't any better off. Twenty year old guys just want a dumb blonde with big tits. I think it just takes a few years for young adults to gain some confidence and be willing to take an emotional risk and get involved with people they might have real connection with. The whole issue is a lot more complicated than promiscuous girl=slut vs. promiscuous girl=empowered.
--Jen
05/12

Jeez, man, I'm all for having plenty of sex with whomever you want, but the way you paint it, two things happen: (1) I get the distinct impression of a young woman who, despite her protests, isn't really having much fun at all ("frequent and unsatisfying sex with goateed liberal arts majors who cared more about finding themselves on Kerouacian road trips than locating the clitoris"); and (2) it makes you sound thoroughly, lamentably, completely self-centered and shallow ("Hooking up with someone on a Saturday night didn't require us to follow up with brunch on Sunday, which worked out well, because we had a lot of homework to finish before The O.C. came on."). Is the point of this article *really* meant to be "Hooray, now self-involved college girls can have rough, mediocre, emotionless sex with comparably self-involved boys"?
--R.A.
05/11

Am I missing something here? Did I not read this article closely enough? Seems to me that what's offensive about "Sarah"'s story isn't that she's having sex but that she and her peers seem to enjoy being labeled "ho's". There's nothing wrong with sex; there IS something wrong with young women and men creating a merry and flippant social context around the word "WHORE". The n-word is still the n-word even if it ends in an A...
--ecv
05/11

This is a wonderful article! The author articulates so much of what I think about this issue. I'm tired of being made to feel by (mostly older) feminists that somehow I and my generation (college students and recent grads) are somehow totally letting down our elders by doing what college BOYS have been doing for ages--shagging left and right without guilt. It's deeply insulting to me that these women seem to subscribe to the very notions about gender roles and stereotypes (women need protection, girls can't have hookups and be emotionally ok like boys can, etc) they should be out to abolish. Much applause!
--LC
05/10

AMEN!
--ADM
05/10

I really appreciate that you point out that not everyone is involved in this hookup culture, that there are people who are focused, not on the weekend's hookup, but on their career, friends, activities, or just abstiaining for moral reasons. However, it is incredibly hard to be one of those people. As a young person in a culture where orgasms are so quickly and easily exchanged, people are being programmed to expect it right away. In my sphere of experience, there are very few guys, nice, rotten, or otherwise, who are interested in someone who won't give it up right away. Although I am not a member of the abstinance only/ no sex before marriage camp, I personally won't have sex outside of a relationship. And while the sentiment for a while has been "why should i marry someone I am not sexually compatable with?" in my circle it is evolveing to "why should I date someone I am not sexually compatable with?" This makes it hard for someone trying to keep their body count relatively low to even get a date. I realize that this may not be true everywhere, but where I live it is becoming the norm. The ultimate kick in the face however, is that these same guys, the ones who are more interested in something easy and painless, are the ones who form a guard around myself, and others like me, to make sure that we remain how we are. Because although they won't ever be interested, and neither will anyone they know, someone probably will be interested in us, and won't we be glad then that we saved ourselves? Just is case?
--kr
05/10

in an unrelated note, how hard would it be to run a search and replace that would change /n into , you know so that one could use paragraphs in these comments?
--jg
05/10

Two gripes: 1. The idea of freedom and spontaneous action as embodied in GGW or the oh-so-Paris-Hilton "Tennis Hos" party is kind of like giving yourself the freedom to ingest huge quantities of sugar. It might taste sweet going down, but it's going to have some repercussions. Also, lacking in this concept of freedom is creativity. I do think that people should be adventurous in their sex lives, but maybe that adventurousness can be carried out in more meaningful ways. An example? I don't know... have a long-term four way with another couple or something. 2. New moral standards don't change the laws of probability, and STDs still suck. Even simple and exceedingly common things like chlamydia, HPV, herpes can carry a long sentence of shame, potentially pain, and further complications. The more partners you have, the more risk. You have to have some heuristic for selecting and limiting partners. And you need communication and honesty above all else with those partners.
--WL
05/10

"My friends and I often put nice boys and romantic love on the back burner, because they demanded the time we had already alloted to theses and volunteer programs." Figures. So you're the one (kidding). This to me is the real story with the Girls Gone Wild culture--the fact that banal, self-identified "feminists" can think of nothing better to do with sexual freedom than fuck the most uninteresting, unintelligent frat boy. In other words, this is the freedom to be just as vacuous as men. Bitter? You bet, 1) because it seems like a meager use of freedoms obtained through long struggle and 2) because it actively provides disincentive to be a "nice boy." For my own part, I'm convinced that unless I get a six pack or sixty-grand in the next year and get rid of 60 IQ points, that I'm invisible to women. Being a well-rounded, well-traveled, well-spoken, and respectful guy is apparently for pussies who don't get any pussy. If you want to look for a cause for America's waxing anti-intellectualism, I think that women, specifically of the GGW ilk, bear some responsibility. "Liberated" women consistently choose oafs, as though they're programmed to fulfill a Homer Simpson-Archie Bunker-Ralph Cramden-Fred Flinstone-that guy from King of Queens vision of domesticity. I think that this is in no small way part of the greater phenomenon in America that shames men for speaking during class and leads to ever declining rates of attendance in college for males. The dynamic is even more pernicious in the case of black men (like me) who, in popular culture, represent an apex of masculinity and thus anti-intellectualism. Having a brain and being a nice guy are doubly problematic when you're a black male, especially as you are basically invisible in hook up culture (being neither a baller, thug, or dope slinger, or even a wannabe). Basically, my point is that now women too are helping to cement the notion that nice guy=fag/eunuch, not by hooking up, but by doing so injudiciously. Congrats! You've come a long way baby. Whether or not all fucking should be seen having ethical, political, and social consequences I don't know (though my constructivist leanings make me think so). However, the collective fucking of a million retard frat boys and the collective fucking over of a million nice guys, certainly does have consequences. Since pussy is a commodity (like it or not), this "exchange" makes being a dickhole into a commodity, while simultaneously devaluing intellectual sensitivity. Wonderful! With all this you might just find that the nice guys become resentful after being stuck on the back burner, as you put it. Fancy that. Send complaints to subdude86@hotmail.com
--jg
05/10

send feedback on "Sex-Crazed Co-Eds!"

back to "Sex-Crazed Co-Eds!"