New study: college students drink more before casual sex than relationship sex

Sex events measured against intimacy level (for women only)
Sex events measured against intimacy level (for women only)

It turns out that college students use MORE alcohol and drugs when they have sex with strangers, and LESS alcohol and drugs when they have sex with people they are in a relationship with.

This study was reported by the far-left Psychology Today.

Excerpt:

A recent study published in the Journal of Sex Research sheds some light on these questions. A research team headed by Jennifer Walsh analyzed alcohol use in almost 500 casual and 1400 romantic sexual intercourse events that happened to 300 college women on a monthly basis over a period of 12 months. Alcohol use was not very common during romantic sex: 20% of romantic encounters involved some drinking and only 5% involved heavy drinking (defined as four or more drinks). Hookups, on the other hand, were a different story: Women drank during 53% of their hookups, and drank heavily during 38% of all hookups.

But not all hookups are created equal. There was an almost perfect linear relationship between drinking and partner closeness: The less known the partner, the more likely women drank before sex, and the more likely they drank a lot. Look at the graph I created based on their data. When the casual partner was an ex-boyfriend, for example, only 30% of hookups involved drinking and 17% heavy drinking. When the partner was a random stranger, however, 89% of hookups involved drinking and 63% involved four or more drinks!

The writer explains why this happens:

Alcohol also provides an excuse to those who need one. In a world that encourages hooking up but also judges those (especially women) who engage in it too much, many seem to need it. You’re a slut if you hook up with people just because you want to: Good girls don’t actively want to hook up, and being sober means taking full responsibility for your actions. But if you can blame it on the alcohol, you’re absolved of guilt. You can still be a good girl who just happened to make a mistake.

This study agrees with a study I blogged about before from the University of Virginia, which explained that college students drink before hook-ups in order to be able to explain to their friends why it wasn’t their fault:

A Rutgers University student commented, “If you’re drinking a lot it’s easier to hook up with someone… [and] drugs, it’s kind of like a bonding thing… and then if you hook up with them and you don’t want to speak to them again, you can always blame it on the drinking or the drugs.”

Other women observed that being drunk gives a woman license to act sexually interested in public in ways that would not be tolerated if she were sober. For instance, a University of Michigan student said, “Girls are actually allowed to be a lot more sexual when they are drunk…”

A University of Chicago junior observed, “One of my best friends… sometimes that’s her goal when we go out. Like she wants to get drunk so I guess she doesn’t have to feel guilty about [hooking up].”

Now, the first thing I thought of when I saw this article in Psychology Today was: “I wonder what criteria these college students are using in order to decide which strangers they have sex with”. And then I realized. For perfect strangers, it would have to be something obvious, like physical appearance. A study found that it takes a woman 3 minutes to decide if she likes a man or not. Whatever assessment is being made in that 3 minutes surely isn’t adequate for long-term plans for marriage, children and church attendance.

Don’t judge me, it wasn’t my fault

It reminds me of something I read a while back in a Theodore Dalrymple book. Theodore Dalrymple is the famous psychiatrist who writes books about culture in the UK. One of his books about the complete lack of personal responsibility among criminals is actually posted online.

In the chapter “Tough Love“, he talks about the nurses he works with:

All the more surprising is it to me, therefore, that the nurses perceive things differently. They do not see a man’s violence in his face, his gestures, his deportment, and his bodily adornments, even though they have the same experience of the patients as I. They hear the same stories, they see the same signs, but they do not make the same judgments. What’s more, they seem never to learn; for experience—like chance, in the famous dictum of Louis Pasteur—favors only the mind prepared. And when I guess at a glance that a man is an inveterate wife beater (I use the term “wife” loosely), they are appalled at the harshness of my judgment, even when it proves right once more.

This is not a matter of merely theoretical interest to the nurses, for many of them in their private lives have themselves been the compliant victims of violent men. For example, the lover of one of the senior nurses, an attractive and lively young woman, recently held her at gunpoint and threatened her with death, after having repeatedly blacked her eye during the previous months. I met him once when he came looking for her in the hospital: he was just the kind of ferocious young egotist to whom I would give a wide berth in the broadest daylight.

Why are the nurses so reluctant to come to the most inescapable of conclusions? Their training tells them, quite rightly, that it is their duty to care for everyone without regard for personal merit or deserts; but for them, there is no difference between suspending judgment for certain restricted purposes and making no judgment at all in any circumstances whatsoever. It is as if they were more afraid of passing an adverse verdict on someone than of getting a punch in the face—a likely enough consequence, incidentally, of their failure of discernment. Since it is scarcely possible to recognize a wife beater without inwardly condemning him, it is safer not to recognize him as one in the first place.

This failure of recognition is almost universal among my violently abused women patients, but its function for them is somewhat different from what it is for the nurses. The nurses need to retain a certain positive regard for their patients in order to do their job. But for the abused women, the failure to perceive in advance the violence of their chosen men serves to absolve them of all responsibility for whatever happens thereafter, allowing them to think of themselves as victims alone rather than the victims and accomplices they are. Moreover, it licenses them to obey their impulses and whims, allowing them to suppose that sexual attractiveness is the measure of all things and that prudence in the selection of a male companion is neither possible nor desirable.

Often, their imprudence would be laughable, were it not tragic: many times in my ward I’ve watched liaisons form between an abused female patient and an abusing male patient within half an hour of their striking up an acquaintance. By now, I can often predict the formation of such a liaison—and predict that it will as certainly end in violence as that the sun will rise tomorrow.

At first, of course, my female patients deny that the violence of their men was foreseeable. But when I ask them whether they think I would have recognized it in advance, the great majority—nine out of ten—reply, yes, of course. And when asked how they think I would have done so, they enumerate precisely the factors that would have led me to that conclusion. So their blindness is willful.

If Dalrymple’s observations about female patients and nurses can be applied more broadly, then it explains why women initiate 70% of divorces. Women who don’t want to be “forced” to be self-controlled and responsible with their choices will want an easy way to get out of it. According to Dalrymple’s experience, it’s not that women don’t know that bad boys are lousy at marriage and fatherhood. They know it, but they choose to blind themselves to it, because it’s just too much self-denial to have to be serious about making responsible choices with men and sex and marriage.

Right now, we are $20 trillion in debt, half of that thanks to Barack Obama’s administration. I believe that the majority of this debt was accrued because people wanted to do what felt good to them in the moment, and then pass off the costs of their “unpredictable” mistakes onto their neighbors. The truth is that these costs will be paid by generations of young people not yet born. People shouldn’t talk about how much they care about children, if their voting will force all the children of tomorrow into slavery.

One last piece of advice to men. My best friend Dina told me to always evaluate women based on their past choices, not based on the picture of themselves that they paint with words. Wise advice.

9 thoughts on “New study: college students drink more before casual sex than relationship sex”

  1. It doesn’t surprise me! And I think you’re onto something, with the whole societal attitude of “I’m entitled to do whatever I want consequence free” and not having to care who it affects, like one’s children and family. The hook up culture is just another example of that. “I can have sex whenever and with whomever I want and shouldn’t care who it affects…” like future children in the picture. Same with divorce. So many divorced parents don’t put their kids first, only themselves and what’s convenient for them, then hire “therapists” to brainwash the kids to not feel what they’re entitled to feel. The whole thing is disgusting! Of course, colleges are too afraid now to advocate for more modest behavior due to the radical feminist movement and PC culture of “do whatever you want”.
    https://aladyofreason.wordpress.com/

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I think they want to toss out lack of consequence as a way to entice people over to a non Christian lifestyle. A promise of all the fun you want and no bad things will happen to you.

    Then they make fun of religious people for thinking before we act and judge us, because we judge those that do stuff with no regard to consequences.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. They don’t Beleive history, math or economics have anything to teach. Socialism and unstoppable govt spending will work this time.

        Apparently hyperinflation is way to boring to mention. Yes we can print money to get our of govt debt but it will destroy the economy and the investment of all people on the process making our money worth less.

        There is no free lunch

        Like

  3. This wouldn’t surprise anyone whose spent even five minutes with college aged young adults. The great overarching goal of feminism and the like is to let women be as selfish and rebellious as they please at the expense of everyone else. That’s why there’s all this nonsense about ‘consent’ on university/ college campuses` It’s not about stopping rape (a taser or a handgun does that) it’s about letting young women have sex with their alpha and if some poor beta tries to ask her out or she has drunken sex with someone and she regrets it later she can call it rape and ruin some else’s life just because she’s thinks that she can.

    Nothing has really changed since the Garden of Eden in my view. A woman’s first sin was rebellion, she took the fruit of her own free will even though it was made clear that she shouldn’t. A man’s first sin was accepting and ignoring that rebellion instead of opposing it. Sums up modern society and the church, really.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It’s funny but I noticed there was not even one like on this post on the blog’s Facebook page. I don’t think anyone is willing to tell young women about their drinking and their intentional delaying of marriage to play the field with bad boys. This is like the most pressing problem we have, and responsible for abortion, the growth of government. The divorce epidemic, etc. Someone has to have the courage to tell women NO.

      Like

  4. Coincidentally, I was reading a post last night on something else, a pretty worldly non-Christian who had had many notches under his belt, who had some interesting insights (I’ll put them in a bit of a different order).

    He observed that as a man, every time he slept with a woman first, he has never been rejected asking her out afterward. However, if he asked out women without sleeping with them first, he had a significantly higher chance of being rejected.

    He also observed that it was far easier for him to drop women (“dump them”) than vice versa, once they had had sex. Furthermore, usually the women were more devastated when they were dumped after sex than if he were dumped by the woman.

    He also mentioned that the longer he got to know a woman (maybe “more emotional vest in their relationship”), the less likely she was to reject him when he asked her out romantically.

    [In addition, correlating the “So their blindness is willful” statement with what I know: I do think there is some degree of cognitive dissonance going on, like, “I slept with him, therefore, I must like him/I must want to have a relationship” kind of justification.]

    If I put the drinking, casual sex, and what I’ve just said together:

    Drinking and casual sex shift the power of the relationship even more to men. Men then hold the keys to whether or not there is going to be a relationship.

    Conversely, women just hand over their power by diminishing their judgment (drinking) and engaging in casual sex.

    We also know that men and women have the propensity to tolerate even bad qualities or a bad relationship because of sex — that’s “sex fog.”

    For women, the application, in my humble opinion, is pretty clear: if you want the greatest power of choice, women should develop their discernment, NOT engage in drinking or casual sex or even sex before marriage. If one is trying to find the best horse to saddle, one would do well to figure out the horse before handing over the money.

    For men, there is a parallel. Our narrative is the same as above (developing discernment, not engaging in sex before marriage and thus rendering our judgment to be questionable because of sex fog). Moreover, if one is a high quality man, it is wise to carefully choose a high quality woman — a wife with whom one is sharing his power [and in a Christian mindset: one with whom you are covenanting before God to die to yourself and to serve until one of you passes].

    Men, let’s pretend for a second you are the son of a king, a prince. Or maybe you have in your bank account some large, 8-digit inheritance. Or maybe you can pretend you are Elon Musk.

    Sure, there are a lot of women who would love to be with Elon Musk. Maybe they think that they will take half (or more) upon divorce, if it doesn’t work out. There are lots of women who are thus attracted to Elon’s wealth (or power or both). How would you develop the right discernment to find women who want to be with you for the right reasons?

    Christian men: you are a prince. You’re a son of the Most High God, the Great Heavenly King. You must represent your Father and His interests and His kingdom.

    (And your friend Dina is wise, “to always evaluate women based on their past choices, not based on the picture of themselves that they paint with words.”)

    I’m sorry, ladies. There are a lot of low quality women. And I wouldn’t want to share my power and everything that I have with a low quality woman.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s