Damn. I had like a five page expose on why "Hook up culture" isn't real and the locked thread eated it.
Very quick version - Hook up culture isn't a real thing.
What's actually happening is that no-fault divorce (California, 1970, last state adopted it NY in 2010) allowed women to leave abusive relationships for the first time.
Women gaining the right to be financial independent(Equal credit opportunity act, 1974) - have checking accounts, hold credit cards, take out loans - granted women a great deal of economic freedom.
Roe happened in 1973
Single women gained the right to contraception in 1972.
So very suddenly women could leave abusive husbands, handle their own money, get abortions, and control their pregnancies.
HUGE FUCKING CHANGES. Unprecedented in history. All these things had happened at various times and places (except the Pill), but for the purposes of this post this is the first time they had all been legal together at the same time. Women now have an unheard of amount of legal, economic, and sexual agency.
So this doesn't produce huge changes right away. Young women in their 20s in 1970 go through pretty much the same pattern as their parents. But their children, women coming of age in the 80s and 90s, are the first generation to grow up with these freedoms, which means they're the first generation to have to figure out what to do with them.
The result was, very broadly - More sex, more single parents, more living alone, more delaying marriage, more education, and more labor involvement (for middle class white women. Minority and poor women always worked). As the kids of the women of the 80s grew up (me!) and came of age in the late 90s and early 00s we continued the trend - Women, at least in urban cities, could have relatively shame-free casual sex, they had jobs previously bared to women, they had (a few) more partners than their parents, they could marry later and have kids later. And then the zoomers, who came on line post-Millenials, have taken those trends further - more sex, later marriage, more labor force participation, yadda yadda you know you're living it.
So when people talk about hookup culture htey overwhelmingly focus on this idea that young people are having lots of unsatisfying casual sex, can't find fulfilling relationships, and are marrying and having kids much later than usual. And all the articles talking about it throw their hands up on confusion about why this is happening. they blame it on phones. They blame it on tinder and grindr and snapchat and tiktok. They blame it on feminists. they blame it on feminists a lot. They're really dead-set on blaming third-wave and sex-positive feminism for tricking women in to thinking it's okay to have sex when they want with who they want and that's why they're unhappy now. They're promulgating the idea that actually women want deep, meaningful relationships and men are using hookup culture to pressure young women in to having unsatisfying, exploitative, no strings attached sexual encounters.
What they're not doing is talking about what's actually changed between when hooking up started in 1993 and where we are thirty years later in 2022.
The 90s were a time of relative economic prosperity. You could still afford a decent house and all the other crap you needed on one middle class income. Being poor still sucked, but there was a relatively large cohort that could have a house, a family, go on occasional vacations, and send their kids to college on one income. Then NAFTA happened and fucking annihilated America's unprecedented working class prosperity. All of America's industry and manufacturing was dismantled and shipped overseas. Huge swathes of the US became economically post-apocalyptic. The .com bubble in '99 caused some problems for people up in the middle class, but that whole lifestyle came to an abrupt, violent end in 2007-2008. The Financial Crisis happened. Millions upon millions of people were financially ruined. Banks just outright, illegally, literally theft theft stole millions of people's houses with no consequences. Millions more lost their houses when they couldn't pay their mortgages. It was a massive disaster. I imagine even some of the younger zoomers remember how fucked up things suddenly got.
So now, suddenly, there were a ton of people who had just graduated college who couldn't get the same well paying jobs their parents had, and thanks to Joe "Harm Reduction" Biden they were saddled with college debt they couldn't discharge. Everybody lower on the economic ladder was just fucked (You know what I should have mentioned NAFTA I'm going to go back and do that). So all the middle class jobs were fucked, all the working class jobs were fucked, everyone was fucked. No one had money.
So what happened? Millenials started living at home longer than their parents. They started having more and more roommates than their parents. They couldn't afford to buy houses until later in life, if at all. They couldn't afford to have children later in life.
Meanwhile the financial crisis was scouring society of what un-alienated community remained in America. Vast numbers of communities were annihilated by poverty and economic insecurity. Established communities fractured as people had to move away for economic reasons. The bars, venues, and coffee shops those people loved all folded. Some were replaced by soulless corporate pod-people versions like Starbucks. Many just weren't replaced at all.
So all these Millenials were living with their parents or a dozen roommates. Which meant they had little or no privacy at home, which meant they had a harder time bringing their hookup or date or sweetie home with them. Which meant, overall, less dating, fewer dates, and more hookups that didn't require as much time or privacy. The communities and third places Millenials and their parents had used to meet people were diminishing. That meant it was harder to find partners, which meant less dating, fewer dates, fewer hookups.
Tinder, Grindr (especially Grindr), and other social media helped for a little while, but everyone quickly learned that online dating fucking sucked, so they didn't do much to stem the overall tide of alienation.
And all this has just continued to build for the last fifteen years - More precarity, less entertainment as higher costs, less privacy, more expensive housing, education, and medicine, shittier jobs that took up more and more and more time, buying houses later in life turned in to never buying houses, rents increased obscenely further shattering communities, you know all this, you're living through it.
For the zoomers coming of age in the 20s, what this meant was unprecedented economic stress, unprecedented social alienation and isolation that made it hard to meet people, economic and social problems that interfered with dating, and the total disruption of what had been markers of maturing and becoming an adult pre-2007.
Now Zoomers have all the same problems previous generations had - rape culture, terrible sex education, shitty dating culture, immature understanding of relationships, poor communication skills, alcoholism, all kinds of relationship problems.
But they're having them mixed with all this other social, political, and economic bullshit - rising fascism, anti-feminist backlash, climate despair, doomerism, covid.
So what's happening is people who don't have a good perspective to see all the massive upheavals over the last thirty years are seeing Zoomers having trouble with maintaining stable relationships and having unsatisfying hookups and facing sexual violence and the nuclear proliferation of pornography, and they're saying "Ahah! Hookup culture is the problem! if we just end or change or refute hookup culture things will be good again!"
And this takes a lot of forms - People blame porn, not recognizing or acknowledging that sexual violence and rape culture existed long before the proliferation of internet porn. Likewise, people being bad at sex, demanding, unconcerned about their partner, manipulative, and abusive have existed long before internet porn. Internet porn may have exacerbated this to some degree, but it seems unlikely to me, especially when other potential causes like the erupting of reactionary anti-feminism from "Dark Enlightenment" losers or Andrew Tate
People blame casual sex, with fascists claiming that women are being oppressed by the immorality of casual sex and that they only think they're empowered when men are really using them for cheap gratification, and the solution is to reject feminism and embrace traditional gender roles (sexual and economic slavery).
Resurgent sex-negative second wave feminists, which I have learned to my infinite regret still exist for some awful reason, likewise say that third wave and sex-positive feminism deceived women, and that actually learning about your sexuality, masturbating without shame, and hooking up without being socially shunned was a dirty trick by the patriarchy and actually you need to... do... some second wave radfem bullshit I honestly don't understand those people at all.
But none of this is going to solve the problem, first because the problem isn't a new problem. Dating and relationships have always been really hard. The perception that dating was "easier" in the past is actually a misunderstanding. In the past huge forces of social violence forced people in to relationships and then kept them legally and economically trapped there with no escape. Conservatives love to hammer on increasing divorce rates as some kind of evidence of social dissipation when really divorce rates have shot up because women can now get rid of their abusive husbands without having to poison them. People have collectively chosen to forget that dating only a small number of people before marriage was often because you would suffer huge social or even physical violence if you were perceived to be a "slut".
Speak for yourself. Casual sex is highly satisfying.
Yeah, but internet porn is right there. It's everywhere, it's free, and it's nothing like the human race has ever had access to before. It literally rewires the reward pathways of your brain if you watch too much of it. HUGE FUCKING CHANGES. Unprecedented in history.
You're saying that nutjob Ross Perot was right? He was laughed out of the election with his "giant sucking sound" meme and his endless charts and graphs. And why should Americans get to hog prosperity for themselves when Mexico, China and other countries were hurting bad?
lmao NAFTA was not about sharing American prosperity with other countries, it was about sending them shit jobs with shit pay and shit working conditions making treats for American corporations to sell in the imperial core.
Well, I didn't say that, but since you asked; I don't have an article I can give you right away, but read up on the Free Movement of Capital, and how "Free Trade" uses the Free Movement of Capital combined with restrictions on the movement of labor to pursue maximum exploitation of labor, break the power of labor movements, and drive down wages all across the world. NAFTA did no favors for anyone. The whole point of it was to break US Labor's back and move production to countries were workers had no power and little chance of successfully organizing for better wages and conditions. The situation in China has improved dramatically because the CPC inflicts a degree of discipline on capital to protect labor, but even in China there are limits on labor power. And international capital is already turning away from China as rising wages and standards of living in China have cut in to profit margins. I don't know how dramatic it, but capital has been moving some production out of China chasing the absolute minimum wages and maximal exploitaton.
Haiti is probably a good example of a place that has been completely fucked by Free Trade. Haiti has nothing even resembling labor protections and any domestic attempts to improve wages and conditions by even the tiniest margins are crushed by the US. All the fast fashion now made in Haiti used to be made by immigrant communities in New York City and Los Angeles and other US garment hubs, but with the advent of Free Trade capital was suddenly able to rip all that industry out and send it to places where they paid almost nothing in wages and there were no unions to push back against their abuses. This happened to a lot of US industries that produced goods for the domestic markets and provided decent wages to workers across the working class.
The Neoliberals will tell you this is all good because something something without sweatshops they wouldn't have any work and "Why do you hate the global poor" but the truth is that any benefits for the working class anywhere were purely incidental, and capital has worked diligently to keep those benefits to the absolute minimum necessary. What really happened is that Capital was able to use Free Trade to break labor movements all over the world.
A related term is Flight of Capital or Capital Flight. Capital Flight is when Capital, threatened by labor power or regulation, threatens to pick up all it's infrastructure and property and ship it to another jurisdiction with weaker or no labor protections and lower wages. In the US there's a constant race to the bottom involving a number of states to "Attract investment" by gutting civil society, imposing austerity, disciplining labor, and keeping wages suppressed. I'm sure something similar happens in other countries.
It's a direct material reason why international solidarity between labor movements is essential. As long as Capital can just pick up their factories and offices and move them to another part of the world in search of the lowest wages and weakest labor protection they'll always have a doomsday weapon against labor organization. The only ways to stop it are, in order of severity, trade restrictions, internationally coordinated labor action, or global revolution.
This is what drove the Anti-Globalization movement in the 80s and 90s, which kind of died in the aftermath of the Battle of Seattle in '99.
As a side not, since we live in hell: Fascists have coopted some of the language of anti-Globalization by introducing "Globalism" as a dog whistle for Jews. I never heard "Globalism" before '16. If people were talking about the anti-Globalization movement they talked about Globalization. But somehow the Fash managed to capture the language and now even mainstream media is using "Globalism" like they don't know it's an anti-Semitic dog whistle.
Well that globalization lifted China out of poverty and into the first rank of nations. I saw it myself, entire factories were moving lock, stock and barrel to China. People I knew who were starving students, a few years later they picked me up in Range Rovers and Audis.
It did. That's good. And it only happened because the Communist Party of China was in control of the country. In other places NAFTA and Globalization generally did nothing except break the back of labor.
Ross Perot was right about hookup culture
every anti-porn evangelist seems to think it was invented sometime in the 80s or some shit, every single horny person in a reasonably literate society has had good access to pornographic art & literature for at least the past 5 centuries. and for most of that period prostitution was both legal & exceedingly common.
"oh lawd the humanity of the modern man watching a skinflick on his phone what would his grandpappy think? People just weren't meant to have so much on-demand sex in their lives!"
Grandpappy flipping through an album of nudes on his way to the brothel he patronized for 30 years :biden-troll:
Nah. Porn goes back to the dawn of recorded history, at least. Plus prostitution has been a fairly wide-spread profession in most places at most times, so it's not like access to transactional sex, for men at least, is a new phenomena.
i wanted to situate it in the printing press (which i probably should've said, lol) which formalized and disseminated pornography in a more familiar way to modern eyes. the earlier oral transmission, informal dissemination and such is all quite fascinating but a bit less concrete. i can say with certainty that an 18th century peasant (even if they couldn't read!) could acquire and own something we'd recognize explicitly as porn, but its murkier as we go back further in time.
and i definitely didn't mean to imply prostitution was new, just that its proscription is relatively recent---but just bringing it up opens many cans of worms i didn't want to dive into just yet :owl-wink:
Mass market porn goes back at least as far as wood-block printing. Japan was mass producing porn at least a thousand years ago, and it's entirely possible it went further back and we just don't have evidence of it.
Skin photos are hardly like internet porn. It has all the negatives of everything made today: deliberately designed to lead you on, leave you hungry for more no matter how much you consume, and like anything designed to be addictive, people get addicted to it. It's like comparing a beer to fentanyl.
you sound like pulp fiction manufacturers when the TV show started killing their business :miyazaki-laugh:
film is not magic. its just a medium, no more or less worthy/effective than any other. it hasn't even replaced older forms of pornography! the medium is not the problem.
problem masturbation, sexual unsatisfaction, atomization are the nested issues actually at hand but addressing those requires feminism, racial & economic justice which aren't so easy to address as malding over porn.
but go off im sure this issue is the only one exactly agreeing with patriarchal right-wingers on is fine
Yeah. There are legitimate criticisms of porn, especially around the treatment of labor in the industry. But there's also a lot of moral panic that sounds exactly like the moral panics around, in reverse order, video games (cause violence), rap music (causes sex, violence, drug use, crime, single mothers), movies (natch), radio (natch), dancing (same panic. associated with prostitution, often scurriously, accused of dishonoring women, etc), novels (there was a huge moral panic around novels; they were accused of giving women unseemly ideas), theater (traditionally associated with prostitution), and god knows what else. Iranian authorities talk about women having their hair uncovered with the same tone and seriousness that some people in the west talk about internet porn. There's a direct line from white people accusing Jazz music of causing promiscuity and drug use through to the same accusations around Rock, Rap, and other genres which never really entirely stopped.
Oh god I forgot the moral panic over women wearing trousers. That was a great time. And the many, many, many moral panics in Christian history around masturbation. It's incredible how many cults, quack medical products, breakfast cereals, pamphlets, self-inflicted torture devices, and Mormons there are devoted to being extremely, extremely histrionically concerned about masturbation, and they use the same language as anti-porn people. Which isn't surprising because Mormons and Catholics are overwhelmingly where most of the money and literature for anti-porn activity comes from.
Oh, and there's a lot of racism. In the US particularly accusing black men of being, at various times, dangerously sex crazed and prone to assaulting white women. Or accusing black women of seducing white men. Lots of that to a greater or lesser degree mostly post-reconstruction. Other ethnicities have been stereotyped as having inherently immoral sexual nature, too. Prots and Catholics even got in to it at some points, with Protestants accusing Catholics of being dissolute sex havers.
God, I think there have even been moral panics about food that was supposed to make people promiscuous and do immoral sex things.
Yeah it has. I haven't seen a magazine, VHS tape, VCD or DVD in ages. It's not right wing to say that today's internet porn is like crack cocaine. Even the sex workers of ages past only did the old in-and-out...not the freaky weird shit that the internet pushes on you. You need more and more extreme to get off, and there's always something more out there. Rule 34 only came about less than 20 years ago.
Just assume every link in this is NSFW. It's links to various ancient depictions of sex and eroticism, mostly from Wikipedia.
Having grown up during the crack epidemic, the moral panic about crack cocaine had almost nothing to do with it's actual harmful effects and everything to do with the Right using racism to fire up and motivate their base.
I have seen brothel menus from the 20th century, 19th century, 1st century, and I assure you this is not true. People have always done all kinds of things in bed. There's nothing new under the sun. All the BDSM stuff has been around since at least the 18th century in it's current form ie leather, riding crops, etc. There are many jokes, diatribes, and diss tracks from the past describing what we would probably consider BDSM practices. Accusing men of being submissive partners has been a thing in some places for thousands of years, suggesting that at least some dudes were actually subbing.
Every kind of oral, anal, vaginal, innercourse, outercourse, and digital sex you can imagine is depicted in ancient art somewhere. Go read up on Moche drinking vessels. People used to drink Mate out of pornographic cups. Like in 150ad. And they depict an impressive variety of sex acts. Anal is pretty well known as having been used since time out of mind for birth control.
Here's a NSFW wiki article on a 3,000 year old erotic... uh.. idk, comic? blue book? Tijuana bible? drawn on Papyrus in Ancient Egypt. Dude's pretty athletic for a chubby middle-aged guy. His penis is depicted as about four feet long so there's a good chance that this was satire, but wanking to humorous comics isn't anything new.
The Kama Sutra famously goes back to like 400bc and you can't even do most of the stuff in there unless you're very fit and flexible. There are a lot of famous temple carvings of people doing sex positions that involve, like... multiple assistants just to hold everyone in the correct position.
There's the famous brothel in Pompeii that was preserved with what was probably a visual menu painted on the wall.
There have been many different kinds of sex workers down through the millennia, ranging from slaves to professionals like ancient greek Hetaera. Various kinds of temple and sacred prostitution were a thing in Ancient Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Geisha are famous in Japan but there were actually a couple of classes of professional sex workers, with Geisha being the trained professional entertainers who were hired for many other forms of entertainment beyond just sex. There's kind of a notorious thing going back at least to the Renaissance where European actresses were often sex workers. And the Renaissance era city states had a lot of famous professional Courtesans.
God, what else. Japanese Shunga porn prints go back at least 1000 years and as far as I know were pretty cheap and widely available. They carved them in to wood blocks so that many copies could be easily printed.
Apparently the ancient Greeks believed that ancient Babylonian men were in to water sports. I have no idea that it's true or if it was just Greeks shit-talking.
There are a ton of surviving ancient Hellenic Greek black-figure pottery depicting all kinds of sex acts involving men, women, groups, and at least one item that appears to be a several foot long double ended dildo.
We have dildos from literally every period from 2022 back to, I think, 35,000 bc. (NSFW) This article isn't great but it has some photo examples of 2,000 year old dildos, as well as a fucking machine from the 1870s. Here's an article, again NSFW, depicting various ancient dildos from the ice age up to relatively recently. Hilarious archeologists have spent like 200 years making up all sorts of ridiculous explanations for why they keep finding smooth, realistically shaped erect stone penises, some with explicitly sexual carvings. They'll think up anything to avoid calling them dildos.
Islam has a long, long history for erotic and pornographic art. You'd never get them to admit it, but sexual morality in Islam has varied wildly over time and in different places. There's plenty of Islamic art from India and Persia and part of the Middle East depicting various kind of sex, including homosexual sex.
And of god, smut. There is so much smut in history. Novels, poems, pamphlets. The Bible famous contains the Song of Solomon. It's really funny watching Christians go red in the face trying to tell you that this obviously erotic song is actually about mankind's love for god or some bullshit. It's not. It's smut.
Sufi's and various Christians both wrote a lot of erotic poetry that is allegedly about their love for god but often reads like something from /r/Sluttyconfessions.
There have been centuries of efforts all over the place to ban the writing and distribution of erotic poetry, books, and pamphlets. It was one of the major moral objections to the advent of novels.
There are reams and reams of personal love letters from throughout history that are explicitly pornographic. Go read James Joyce's famous letters to his wife. He was a bit before internet porn.
Here's a NSFW Wiki article with a brief overview of the history of visual erotica
Oh, and if you look up pornographic post cards and pictures from the late 19th century you'll see almost everything you see in porn today; sex toys, BDSM, homosexuality, anal sex, oral sex.
The idea that sex was invented in 1961 and no one had ever fucked before then except missionary through a hole in a sheet is just puritanical American nonsense. People have always been freaks in bed and we have evidence of that from the literal Ice Age 10,000 years ago.
Oh, shit, I forgot to mention that, like... half of all renaissance art is pictures of naked ladies. Often the models were prostitutes hired by the artists, or in other cases the wife or mistress of the person commissioning the painting. like seriously the amount of "Fine art" that is literally, obviously porn is hilarious.
Oh, thought of another thing; Various kinds of ritual asceticism, self flagellation, and so forth has existed forever. And frankly... At least some of those people are getting off on it.
those are all just ways of transporting film. skinflick is a skinflick whether its on a dvd or streamed or projected in a theater. magazines conveyed erotic still images & lurid text which people also still make and distribute. Videoporn has only supplanted its antecedents if you consider the book to be replaced by the television.
this slippery slope stuff always seems to me more confession than argument, inasmuch as the internet can show you many new things it can't force you to be into more "extreme" stuff--yall just find that hot; other people also see it and do not like it. its a shame people feel stigma and guilt for enjoying or expressing their sexuality in novel ways they learned from the internet, but im far more concerned about removing their stigma and shame (and providing education where necessary) than trying to prevent them from ever exploring themselves.
I've seen pornographic films going back to the 1930s. There's a lot of familiar content. One of the biggest structural differences is that a lot of the industry has given up on having a framing story. "Gonzo" porn pioneered that idea, what, back in the 90s I guess? Prior to that there was often at least an attempt to have some kind of narrative beyond just showing people fucking. Gonzo took over a lot of the market, probably because it was a lot easier to shoot; You don't need sets, you don't need scripts, you don't need much in the way of staff. A lot of modern porn more closely resembles home made porn and stag films; Just sex without any real attempt at context beyond that.
the separation between porn and mainstream film is extremely thin. technical personnel and even performers cross between them all the time. so this broad outline also traces the direction of the mainstream too. formalism & imitation of the stage in its infancy up to digital cameras' portability & fidelity influencing artistic choices. fucking hell they're probably using drones in porn now.
but where's the 'gonzo' cheap non-scripted SFW film? its called reality TV