Hooking Up: The Costly Price of Cheap Sex

I read a very surprising article in the Intercollegiate Review that I think you should check out. Entitled “Why Hooking Up is Letting You Down,” the article outlined the vast and deleterious consequences of hooking up: from disease to broken families to feelings of meaninglessness to self-destruction. And the article recommended, of all things, traditional morality as the cure for our generation’s sexual letdown. Put in simple terms: free love isn’t free, and cheap sex is costly.

It is interesting to note that the author attempts to reach his conclusions through evidence and reason, rather than a transcendental moral appeal. Though his conclusion is moral, and even religious, his premises are generally non-religious. After running the course of the (at least) five decade long sexual liberation, our generation has reached the point of sexual burn out:

This isn’t what my generation expected when it invented the sexual revolution. The game isn’t fun anymore. Even some of the diehard proponents of that enslaving liberation have begun to show signs of fatigue and confusion.

Sex, in and for itself, has proven to be meaningless. And why do we even wonder at it? The sexual revolutionaries told us that sex was just a natural function, an appetite that could be filled more easily with the value-meal hamburger of hooking up. And then we wonder why our McSexed culture can’t achieve intimacy, loyalty, faithfulness, and satisfaction. The conclusion to the article says it all:

We want to pick and choose among the elements of our sexual design, enjoying just the pieces that we want and not the others. Some people pick and choose one element, others pick and choose another, but they share the illusion that they can pick and choose. Sometimes such picking and choosing is called “having it all.” That is precisely what it isn’t. A more apt description would be refusing it all—insisting on having just a part—and in the end, not even getting that.

These meanings, purposes, and principles are the real reason for the commands and prohibitions contained in traditional sexual morality. Honor your parents. Care for your children. Save sex for marriage. Make marriage fruitful. Be faithful to your spouse.

Let the sexual revolution bury the sexual revolution. Having finished revolving, we arrive back where we started. What your mother—no, what your grandmother—no, what your great grandmother—told you was right all along. These are the natural laws of sex.

88 responses

      • Believe in it….Hell I bet he doesn’t even know the meaning of the word….as long as this country continues to condone this we will continue in our own death spiral…

      • Natural law refers to scientific basis, last time I checked, there is no scientific basis proving what “laws” regard to sex.
        Please, I think scientifically.

        • So to you, we are just carbon composite meat bags, slowly dying as we inevitably become worm food. How quaint. Besides, if morals mean nothing to you, then you could have someone murder your wife (assuming you’re married) and you would feel nothing. Since your emotions are after all just electrons firing. Too scientific for you?

          • Neither of our opinions mean squat! I operate in the empirical realm. Give me verifiable data, and we’ll talk.

          • No, emotions are not electrons firing, you’re wrong on that one, it is neurotransmitters and hormones, not electrons. Therefore your attempt to fight me on this argument has already taken a heavy blow. I am not married right now, but I have morals, I know what is morally right and wrong, I wouldn’t have lasted a year in the Army if I didn’t have a moral standing.

          • Morals need to have a basis on something. You aren’t born into this world without morals coming from a teacher, who was taught by someone else, and so on. You don’t just wake up and say, “Oh, this is actually right, and this is actually wrong!” And as Richard Dawkins has said that morals are constantly evolving as society dictates, how then would you perceive morals if pedophilia or bestiality became the norm? Would those not be against morals anymore? Homosexuality has long been portrayed as morally wrong in society, until the last century. If that can evolve in society, then there is much potential for the current wrongs to become acceptable. Wouldn’t you think so?

            As for the “electrons firing” statement, it wasn’t me trying to be smart. It was an example of sarcasm. Get over yourself.

          • The slavery you know of is not the same the Bible refers to in its laws, but rather an in-debited servitude. Like that of the Ancient Near East, the legal systems of the Israelites divided ‘slaves’ into different categories: “In determining who should benefit from their intervention, the legal systems drew two important distinctions: between debt and chattel slaves, and between native and foreign slaves. The authorities intervened first and foremost to protect the former category of each–citizens who had fallen on hard times and had been forced into slavery by debt or famine.

            Poverty, and more general lack of economic security, compelled some people to enter debt bondage. Furthermore, in the ancient Near East, wives and (non-adult) children were often viewed as property, and were sometimes sold into slavery by the husband/father for financial reasons. Evidence of this viewpoint is found in the Code of Hammurabi, which permits debtors to sell their wives and children into temporary slavery, lasting a maximum of three years. The Holiness Code also exhibits this, allowing foreign residents to sell their own children and families to Israelites, although no limitation is placed on the duration of such slavery.

            The earlier Covenant Code instructs that if a thief is caught after sunrise, and is unable to make restitution for the theft, then the thief should be enslaved. Children of a deceased debtor may be forced into slavery to pay off outstanding debts; similarly it is evident that debtors could be forced to sell their children into slavery to pay the creditors.

          • I bet you could play tennis without a net!!!

            As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

            Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.(Numbers 31:7-18)

            you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

          • Nowhere in the New Testament will you find a condemnation of slavery, nor an updating of the Mosaic slave code. Instead you have stuff like Ephesians 6 where slaves are told to be “obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling”; and Philemon, where Paul sends back a runaway slave to his Christian owner. Jesus does not raise a word against the practice

          • Again, the slavery they are referring to is an indebted servitude. Paul was telling him not to run from his debt and responsibility as a man to pay it off. Also, Jesus didn’t say not to have sex with animals either. Does that mean we should? (asking as a rhetorical, not literal).

          • In case you haven’t yet noticed Mr Bob is a troll, and will pick nits with you ’til the cows come home. He deliberately doesn’t distinguish the laws imposed by the Roman Empire ruling Israel at that time and those of more ancient Judaism under the Mosaic code alone. Nor does he recognize anything that differs from his narrative of things concerning the Bible; and goes by several different albeit similar names across Disqus sites. Up to you if you wish to keep banging your head against that brick wall.

          • as weird as it sounds, I like these debates with him, even if on his side is a broken record, and I continue to provide plenty of quotes, other atheists, and research to back myself up.

          • Okay, enjoy; far be if from me to interfere with your hobby. I just wasn’t sure you knew. He’s been around under several different names, and a few different avatars for quite a long time, but it’s always the same verbiage. 🙂

          • That’s what the year of Jubilee was about; any kind of indebtedness and land sold out of a family line, etc. so there was a limit. Most of those who sold themselves or family into slavery over indebtedness did so for a period of 7 years , but if it went longer, in the year of Jubilee they were freed and sold lands returned to the original family line, etc.

          • Which book is that? Which book do you get your “morality” from? I’d like to consult it, please, so I can understand your values. Perhaps I’ll like your “book” better than the one I consult.

          • Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol pot had their “Book of Morality” as well. Perhaps Mr. Bob can explain if and why their book was equal to my Book?

          • You should probably refrain form making any scientifically unsound comments from now on, it makes you look somewhat…uneducated.

          • It is more reasonable to believe there is an objective moral standard than to believe there is not, and it is more reasonable to believe than an objective moral standard cannot exist without God than to believe that it can.The question is not whether atheists can be good people, whether they can know moral standards and seek to live by them. Certainly they can. After all, they have been made in God’s image and have certain moral awareness or sensitivity as a result. The question is whether atheists can have a rational basis for claiming any conduct is objectively wrong, wrong in a sense independent of human opinion. They cannot. After all, in their view all of existence is necessarily the product of blind, purposeless, natural forces. How could such forces generate moral obligation?

            If blind, purposeless forces, such as wind or dripping water, created marks in sandstone that spelled “Do not eat grapes” there would be no obligation to abstain from eating grapes. Anyone who appealed to those marks to condemn those eating grapes would be ridiculed and taught that mankind is not obligated to obey the fortuities of nature. If the prohibition against slitting a baby’s throat is the product of the same mindless forces, it could be no more binding. Any contrary sense would be an illusion.

            Richard Dawkins often appeals to moral absolutes. In Nov 1995 he wrote in Scientific American: “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

            Tell me then thesepeopleiswear, if nothingness cannot create morals, how can you defend morals if you don’t believe in anything?

          • Why? When did they grow more morals than the society from which they draw their troops? I noticed a lot of articles in the UCMJ governing sexual conduct in the military, but that’s not the same as morals, and I didn’t notice that the guys at Ft Belvoir were any more moral than the ones in the surrounding civilian areas or other bases; ditto Fts Monmouth and DIx, and Hamilton. And it is electrons firing off that TRIGGER the release of those hormones and neurotransmitters in the first place

          • You are thinking of ions, not electrons. You might want to try again, and Biology AP? What a joke, I was a Biology major, nice try.

          • Right, because EEGs measure ions not electrical activity, which is the movement of electrons… And for a biology ‘major’ how did you not learn something about A&P?

          • You are aware that electrons are not Ions right? Ions are a charged atom or molecule, which is caused by electron cofniguration, but technically not caused by ions. Nice try Sandra.

    • Of course there are natural laws about sex; same as every other biological function among animals, and the laws of physics that run the universe at large. There are natural laws that govern when plants “procreate” as well as when animals do; it’s only we humans who have mucked that up by attaching all manner of emotional significance to the act.

      • The emotional significance of the sex act in relation to humans is what distinguishes us from other species. Unless you equate sexual intimacy with barnyard animals, I wouldn’t say we “mucked it up”. The emotion of love is what allows physical sexuality between two people to become a transcendent experience when the self merges with another, becoming one. Casual sex rarely, if ever, results in this type of complete intimacy. Even couples who love one another don’t always share this total joining which goes beyond the physical.

        • Um,no that’s NOT what sets us above the animals; that would be language and the ability to reason, and communicate, but these days the “sex act” IS equate to that of barnyard animals because of the “emotion” of love. Agape is NOT the same as Eros, and it’s the former we’re intended to share in the marriage relationship, which is the boundary set for human sexuality, between one man and one woman, by the “Manufacturer” according to His handbook, so yes, human thinking and hormonal responses did MUCK it up, and still are doing so. And it’s not the ’emotion” of love that allows physical sexuality; ANIMALS have been doing so just FINE without any love at all. That’s PURE HORMONES and INSTINCTS! Sexual intimacy develops FROM an intimate relationship on OTHER levels first. Next time you take the lesson, maybe don’t go to the new age guru? That guy fed you a load of stuff my Grandfather used to spread on his fields to make the crops grow better.

          • My, aren’t we condescending……..thanks, but “new age gurus” aren’t my thing. You’re reasoning,

            “…….these days the “sex act” IS equate to that of barnyard animals because of the “emotion” of love.

            makes absolutely no sense….sorry. Also, nowhere have I stated that “the emotion of love is what allows physical sexuality”. I was defining the difference between recreational sex where there is no real emotion involved between those involved and what can be a truly transcendent experience between two people with unconditional love and synchronicity. Sorry you don’t get it. Maybe one day you will experience what I’m referring to. Then you’ll get it.
            By the way, animals have their own language, are certainly able to communicate, as well as reason. They also feel emotion…….it’s just not a primary concern when mating. That a joke, just in case you feel the need to tutor me on the mating requirements of animals.

          • Animals respond with affection and bonding, which is not the same as the “emotion” of love, since their brains do NOT include such functions. And as I said Agape is what’s intended to be shared, NOT LUST, which is what drives “hook-ups” and animals, based on hormonal responses. But what passes for “love” in MOST situations among humans in EROS, which hormones and lust, not love; it may last for awhile but then it’s over and the divorce rate shows that very clearly! Animals communicate with body language and cries in a LIMITED way, they do not keep and transmit vast amounts of accumulated knowledge, and only learn, IF they’re lucky, by experiences they survive. Human behavior in general has so descended that it puts animals to shame these days. When you’ve celebrated your 50th or 60th anniversary with the same spouse, you can maybe lecture me about love…

          • Why so defensive? No one is lecturing you about love. Certainly you appear angry about anyone engaging in “lustful” sex, and that’s your opinion. It’s not for me to judge. I am posting my personal views, based on personal experience, of the ultimate merging of a man and woman to one being on ALL levels. Certainly the spiritual aspect is ultimately the most profound part of the experience. Not living in any body but my own, I cannot address what “passes for love” in MOST situations, nor can you, since neither of us knows the heart of those millions of strangers. Of course many relationships begin as physical attraction filled with lust and hormones. God planned it that way so we would procreate. It’s our driving force to do so. Otherwise we would all be sexually indifferent and would have died out as a race. That doesn’t mean there isn’t anything deeper in those relationships. Most human beings, excepting the narcissists and psychopaths, have an emotional need to bond with another human being on a deeper level. While I agree with you about the degeneration of human behavior, you seem to be (and correct me if I’m wrong) pissed off about sex in general. I can’t think of any other reason why you would feel I’m lecturing you about love. I am well aware of Agape/Eros. You seem to believe “love”, as you define it, excludes a joyous pleasure in sex with your partner. If that’s true, I’m sorry for you.

          • That wasn’t how your original post came across. I’m not defensive; I recognize that sex, in its proper context, can and should be a much deeper bonding than mere animal; but if you honestly look around you that’s not what’s happening. What ANGERS me is the cost to society as a whole, which comes in the form of babies that are then murdered at our expense, diseases spread that are then treated at our expense, and other health and societal issues that come of such behaviors unchecked and outside the bounds set for them. And that doesn’t even include the rampant perversions of that act. “Free love” isn’t “free” it’s very costly, and the structure of society as a whole suffers for it. It’s the lack of accountability, not the act, that angers me.

          • You hit the nail on the head in the last sentence. It’s not for me to judge someone if they think empty and impersonal sex is for them. Most people get over that as they mature and see what’s lacking. The real problem is lack of personal accountability for one’s actions. That permeates every aspect of our society today. And why wouldn’t it? We have an administration in control, at the moment, that is still, after 5 years, blaming the former administration for all mistakes and failures. It’s a perfect example of the kind of thinking people accept today. We have, and have had, for many years now, parents who spoiled their children, didn’t discipline them, everything they did was OK or was “the other guys” fault. Then you have the media whose standards in entertainment are at an all time low, and the sexualization of children, which has promoted sex at a younger and younger age. Most kids today have seen, or regularly view, porn on the internet and are pretty desensitized. When you team emotional immaturity with the attitude that their are no real personal consequences for what you do, this is what you get. We have boys today, they are certainly not young men, who are so lacking in empathy and so arrogant (not to mention stupid), they think it’s cool to video themselves gang raping a drug and semiconscious young woman for the world too see as evidence of their manhood, with no thought of consequences, often because if there are any, it’s a slap on the wrist. It’s pretty sick, but we didn’t get here by accident.

          • Precisely, and no, we didn’t get here by accident. It was by design; and God has allowed it, because it’s a kind of “weeding” process, if you will. It’s sorting out those who will from those who won’t be saved, in the end. Each has a free will choice, and this is showing what their wills are choosing. Whether they choose to believe it or deny it, their choices DO have consequences, as do yours and mine. And it’s apt to get worse before it gets better.

  1. AmeriKa has turned into Skankville – – – thanks to the women and the men.

    Not to worry though . . . the degenerate behaviors of liberals are covered under Ob*maScare .

      • Our single girls are basically all Obama Voters for Free Birth Control. Liberalism is a lot more than just the Democrat Party. It is Cultural Decline, including a lack of moral values. Just all the lies tells one that Liberalism is Evil, as Lies and Evil are mated and matched. Lies are both the Root and Fruit of Evil.

        The Family is the basic unit of any culture, and the depravity of Liberalism as promoted by our Culture (Hollywood, Music…), Obama Sycophants all, is all anti-Family. So we decline.

    • Would you care to share unstated reasons for making such a poorly thought out, unsupported general statement? Or are you just venting? Usually, when one person blurts out the hypocrite word in public discussion it is to stop discussing a topic that he/she is uncomfortable with or perhaps ill equipped to discuss. I suspect that the act of being a hypocrite cuts across all political and ethnic divides.

      • The Hypocrisy of the GOP’s “family values” as Republicans get caught in one sex scandal after another is actually funny

        • Mr. Bob, alias s4b, are you referring to Kennedy, Clinton, Weiner, and Roosevelt as your shining example for “family values”?

          • No, I’m referring to Larry Craig, Paul Babeau, Troy King, Robert Arango, Robert L. Traynam, Jim McCrery, Dan Gurley, George Rekers, Roy Ashburn, Bob Allen, Edward L. Schrock, Phil Hinkle, Richard Curtis, Jon Hinson, Glenn Murphy Jr., Robert Bauman, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Walter Jenkins & a number of other’s leading the anti-gay parade that are in fact closet homosexuals.

        • So did the patriarchs of the Bible, what is your point? If we were sinless we wouldn’t need a Savior. You have ObaMAO & his continual LIES, you can keep your plan/doctor, I will close Gitmo, I will end the wars, I will have the most transparent administration, blah, blah, blah, to keep you warm at night, we have God. We win.

      • He/she/it is a PAID TROLL. Flag its comments & if you must respond just tell it to crawl back to media matters & pick up its $20.

    • Uh, conservatives don’t have a license on hypocrisy. It’s pretty widespread among all political affiliations. A few notable examples: those who preach that I should not be able to own a gun for self-defense, but travel with armed guards. Or congress passing obamacare and then exempting themselves and their staffers from it. Or obama telling people not to waste their own money on vacations, so we can pay for his. Or his oversized wife telling others how to eat. I could go on but I’m about to throw up.

  2. Michael, I appreciate very much your sentiments in this article. Perhaps now you could have an influence upon the owner(s) of this and related sites to get rid of the sexually provocative ads. Since they’ve gone for the “bucks,” I now have to be concerned about forwarding these blogs to others. What a shame and poor witness of allegedly Christian men to allow these kinds of ads (I’ve also witnessed an ad which claims Mormonism is Christian). May God have mercy on them for selling their souls so cheaply and for being a stumbling block to the young:

    “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.” (Luke 17:2)

    Please pass this on to whomever it concerns.

    • And what makes you think that “Mormons” arent Christians??

      Their TRUE NAME: The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints

      Have you ever attended or even talked to a member of their church??? TRY IT BEFORE PUTTING THEM DOWN!!!!

        • Magic Underwear – and – demonic doctrine – they almost always BUT – BUT BUT BUT – Where’s your authority, does truth change, etc – these things are imperative to even begin a trek not to mention loving truth & equity… if a man won’t have those two – he’ll have death for sure.

      • The rank and file member probably are sincere in what they believe; but the basis of that particular group is not what they’ve been told, and what the hierarchy believe is closer akin to what upper level Freemasons, Rosicrucians and a few other such cultic groups believe. The name doesn’t make it Christian; it’s what is or isn’t taught and believed by the members that does, or in this case doesn’t.

      • Clearly Mormonism is a cult. What does the Bible have to say about it? It comes down to one simple thing, “What do you do with Christ?”. In Mormonism, Christ is not Savior, He is not God and Man both wholly and inseparable. If you are a “Christian” by definition, you are following Christ as your Savior. The bible tells us that there will be many imposters and that indeed there already were imposters at the time of the early church. The bible also informs us that If anyone teaches anything other than Christ risen as our savior, then those teachers are imposters.

  3. In looking at this post, I feel like I have been tele-ported back to London, England, and I am looking at a propaganda sheet from the war department telling me to save myself from the ravages of VD so I can get slaughtered on the beaches of Normandy as a Virgin, thereby serving as a pure blood offering to the gods of War.

    Was Madonna, Tina Turner and Myley Cyrus, just a figment of my imagination?

    Is this guy Minkoff like 98 years old with zip Testosterone? A Monk? Is he nuts?
    Hasen’t he heard of DSB?

      • No not at all. I am 67 years old. The poster was intriguing, as it is obviously a WW2 Propaganda Skit. You see the sailor, soldier etc in the corner right?

        This country has been so far over the falls with its lack of any kind of restraint on the part of the film industry, television, and other media that I do not quite get the push this late in the game, I mean they actually drop F’s on some of these talk shows like its OK or cool to do it. The morons cannot express themselves without using filthy language, I guess.

        Yes, morality and the old values would really be welcome in this day and age where divorce is at around 60%, and most people have kids BEFORE they get married.

        I agree with the guy, I just haven’t seen this type of admonition in a very long time. I guess its …….Refreshing! and I hope some kids listen.

          • No but you shouldn’t be able to hold a gun to my head to pay for the consequences of your choices. And expressing an admonition of what is blindingly obvious and observable is not “controlling,” unless your adolescent idea of “controlling” is my refusing to clean up your mess or support the active promotion (as in schools) of your irresponsible and harmful behavior. Don’t you want to distinguish and elevate yourself from animals? After all,we were given the unique “gift” of the knowledge to distinguish good from evil. Why have it? I mean if that ability is an evolutionary step forward, and I know you believe in evolution as a religion, so why deny evolution?

        • Hi Bob. A few months ago some guy was bragging that he had put several women in a family way. Of course he also said that several of the women he dated were lesbians, (Probably turned after dating hi). That was some guy that called himself Malibu Bob! Or was it Bob? Hard to keep track as you seem to change your screen name once a month.

    • No, none of the above. His point is that those behaviors come with a PRICE tag attached, both physically and emotionally, and we’re seeing that coming DUE now.

  4. Sex without real romantic love is worthless, doesn’t last, and ultimately since you are treating a sexual partner like a piece of meat that squeezes you it is short lived in meaning and even in intensity. If you treat women solely as cheap sex objects you will also very likely treat a woman who really loves you with the same shallowness and contempt. Is it ant wonder half of marriages end in divorce in about 4 years, the same amount of time until the hormone glow takes to dissipate. Very very sad indeed, but people get exactly what they sow.

    • Well said Ray. My dad passed away about a month ago at 94, and he was happy to die, because he was going to be with my Mom again, who he has missed every day since she died 18 years ago, and they were married for 56 years. That’s where you get “They don’t make relationships like that anymore” Randy Travis’ “For Ever and Ever Amen” is one of my favorites.

  5. If liberals just admitted they were clueless about sex, maybe they could learn about how it actually works. Admission is the first step… and so many of them are so far away from the first step.

  6. People have been taught that free love is true freedom. It is not. There are many problems in our society because of the irresponsible idiots who make unwanted babies and spread diseases. Sex with anyone and everyone is not freedom. It is a lifestyle of enslavement.

  7. Whatever the topic, whatever the circumstance, it
    boils down to one immutable law of God: you will always reap what you sow!

Leave a Reply