On July 12, The New York Times published an article entitled "Sex on Campus: She Can Play That Game, Too," that has since catalyzed a veritable maelstrom of interest regarding hook-up culture, particularly at Ivy League institutions. The responses to the piece have varied tremendously,from shock to condemnation to rejection of the idea of casual sex or "hooking up" in college. The one response that seems to be underrepresented, however, is that of indifference.
When I first came across "Sex on Campus," I was relatively unsurprised. No light bulbs went off, no major epiphanies were reached. If anything, I felt as though the students interviewed at the University of Pennsylvania echoed thoughts and attitudes that many of my peers and I held about relationships in college. Initially, I was bothered by the idea of "meaningless" relationships, or intimacy that was purely physical, but gradually, my concerns began to dissipate, especially as I was exposed to increasingly diverse backgrounds and thought processes. The "norm" is an inherent variable, and a large part of my collegiate education derived from exposing myself to views that, upon first glance, seemed incongruent with mine.
Ultimately, my acceptance of my friends' and peers' choices in terms of their personal lives stemmed from trust. I believe them to be, for the majority of the time, intelligent, responsible, sentient human beings, both as young men and young women. Accordingly, I trusted them to be capable of making their own choices that would, at the end of the night, remain choices with which they could be happy the following morning. Not all relationships should or do end in marriage proposals, and I quickly came to realize that the absence of a future did not necessarily preclude a satisfying present. And while I may not have been one to partake in such relationships, I had absolutely no moral latitude to pass judgment. I suppose my question is, who cares? Why the focus on the sex lives of Ivy League students? Are we, as supposedly elite students at elite institutions, held to a different standard in which sex is nonexistent, save in committed long-term engagements? Is it really so strange that we, as young adults, sometimes have carnal desires that lead to late-night (or midday, whichever floats your fancy) trysts? What is it about our Ivy League label that has made us a national case study, and moreover, are we really so different from students at any other college or university? I find it enormously difficult to believe that we are. To say that we are held to a different standard is almost laughable, for what standard is there that dictates how much sex is deemed appropriate?
In one of the more interesting responses to the initial piece, titled "What Everyone's Getting Wrong About the Ivy League Hookup Culture" in Time Magazine, the author purports that the apparently rampant hookup culture exists only in a small minority of college students, and that "the sex lives of most of today's college students may not be all that different from those of their parents or grandparents at the same age." What has changed, however, is the focus and the attitude towards an activity that, realistically, is as natural as it is age-old.
The term "hooking up," which carries an implicitly negative connotation, has branded itself as the major difference between our generation and that of our parents and grandparents. For the most part, it comes as no surprise that mom and dad had boyfriends and girlfriends who were not mom or dad. The same holds true for our generation. But today, rather than acknowledging the fact that not all relationships carry the same weight, it seems that we are chastised or, at the very least, scrutinized for having the audacity to be a little less than serious in personal pursuits. In an environment in which we are constantly surrounded by eligible individuals, why is the idea of a casual encounter between two people a cause for such a stir?
The obsession with hookup culture has magnified a surprisingly antiquated and unnecessary view on intimacy in relationships. Certainly, there may be dangers associated with casual sex, and it isn't for everyone. But I also fail to see the need to justify or even address a "phenomenon" that seems to be part of human nature, and one that is here to stay.
