Download One of the most prominent features of the current

One of the most prominent features of the current college campus environment is the
casual sex practice of the hookup. This behavioral pattern has come to be known as “hooking
up”, defined as a “sexual encounter between two people who are brief acquaintances or
strangers, usually lasting only one night without the expectation of developing a relationship
(Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000). Although casual sex is by no means a new phenomenon,
within recent years, the “hook up culture” has become increasingly prevalent on college
campuses across the country. This topic is sensitive and at times unclear because involvement is
personal and cluttered with peer pressures and social expectations. There is little confirmation
about how this culture of casual sex has developed and to what extent it may be crumbling the
foundation of romantic and meaningful relationships, but there is substantial evidence suggesting
what factors that influence one’s involvement in these brief and “casual” sexual interactions.
Paul, Grazian, and Penhollow describe the frequency of “hooking-up” on college
campuses and the general desires and social pressures prevalent within the “hook-up” culture.
According to Paul, 85% of college students have participated in at least one “hook-up” during
their college experience. Of these students, 48% had one hook-up not involving sexual
intercourse (what, if any, type of sexual activity was unknown, just that it did not involve
intercourse), 30% had experienced at least one hook-up that included sexual intercourse, and
22% had never experienced a hook-up. Of these incidences, 49% were declared as “planned”
although this may mean that the participant desired and pursued a sexual interaction, but may not
have planned who it was going to be with (2002, p. 636). There was a gender difference noted,
as indicated by Paul. He found nearly one-half of the men (48%) and one-third of the women
(33%) reporting having engaged in sexual intercourse during a hook-up. Penhollow also noted
this trend, as she found 64% of men in a university sample have ever “hooked up” while only
47% of women have ever “hooked-up” (Penhollow et al.)
Within social groups, there is peer pressure and coercion that encourages the competition
and cooperation within the “hook-up” culture. The prevalence and expected actions make
individuals believe that “hooking-up” is a normative behavior and therefore within social
structures, members, especially males, are encouraged to participate in order to receive social
status or to fulfill their goals and expectations for that night (Paul, 2002, 656). The rituals that
are implicitly agreed upon as normal behavior reinforce myths of masculine expectations and
demonstrate male dominance. They also “boost confidence in one’s performance of masculinity
and heterosexual power” (Grazian, 2007, p. 224). These perceived results make it seem as
though students within a college environment are comfortable and accepting of casual sex, but a
study by Lambert suggests otherwise. Lambert found that both men and women overestimate
the comfort of the opposite sex with the act of casual sex and most people believed that others
were more comfortable with “hooking up” than they were themselves (2002, p. 132). Pluralistic
ignorance, as it is called, occurs when, within a group of individuals, each person believes his or
her private attitudes, beliefs, or judgment are discrepant from the norm displayed by the public
behaviors of others. Although the majority of students are uncomfortable with “one-night stand”
interactions, many students make sexual decisions based on the perceived values and
expectations of their peers and friends and with this mindset, it may be difficult to avoid this
behavior in certain situations and still fit in.
The extent to which religiosity affects the “hook-up” culture has been debated many
researchers. Religiosity is a term used to refer to various aspects of religious activity, dedication,
and belief. Glock indicated that religiosity involved five different dimensions: experiential
(feeling), ritualistic (religious behavior, as worship attendance), ideological (beliefs), intellectual
(knowledge), and consequential (effects in the secular world). When judging the impact religion
has on the “hook up” culture, it is important to be consistent in the manner in which religiosity is
measured. Burdette suggests that “more frequent religious attendance reduced the odds of casual
physical encounters” while the same was not necessarily true according to more subjective
measures of religiosity such as self-proclaimed affiliation. Burdette‘s study found through
methods that examine attendance of religious ceremonies, that with each additional “increment
of attendance there is a reduction in the odds of hooking up by 26% (2009, p. 544). This
shocking correlation appears inarguable, yet it is not always this clear and straight-forward.
Penhollow and her colleagues illustrate the seemingly absent relationship between religious
feelings, or “spirituality” as it is also termed, and participation and the hook-up culture.
Although an individual may perceive themselves as possessing some sort of spiritual feelings, it
is usually their religious attendance, a more direct indicator of their religiosity, which determines
their level of participation in the hook-up culture. Jean Hughes Raber noted that in today’s age,
many children are forced by their parents to attend Mass until they attend college, in which at
this point religious attendance becomes their own matter (Raber). Students forced to attend
weekly Masses prior to college were usually those who reported high spirituality but low
religious attendance during their college experience (Raber). In reality, these students often feel
a sense of spirituality simply because they attended Mass at a young age even though they did so
unwillingly and no longer choose to attend under their own power (Raber).
Results from a study from a Midwestern University found that “religious values
overwhelmingly shaped [student’s] sexual behavior” (Davidson et. al. 2008, p. 211). This notion
was echoed by many other projects such as the studies by Fehring, Poulson, and Burdette
respectively that found that “there was an inverse relationship between religiosity and sexual
permissiveness” (Fehring, 1998, p.235). Penhollow noted similar results: “When the data were
analyzed separately by gender, it was found the relationship between religious attendance and
having ever hooked up existed for both males (p=.0017) and females (p=.0027) (Penhollow et
al).” Penhollow further adds, “Those who attended religious services more often reported a
lower frequency of inclusion of intercourse as part of their hooking up experience” (Penhollow et
al.).
Along with the studies that supported the inverse relationship between religion and
“hooking up,” many others have found varying and puzzling results. At a college in the
southwestern United States, 80% of students “strongly agreed” with the statement “I believe God
operates in my daily life” yet religiosity at this school did not affect their behavioral tendencies
toward sex (Poulson, 2008, p. 539). This seems illogical on the surface and brings into question
the other influences that impact the complexity of this topic. Poulson suggests that “for many
students there may be a difficult choice between fitting into the college community and the
church community” (2008, p.539). When a student is in this type of dilemma, many may choose
to maintain their religious ties emotionally and spiritually while altering their actions according
to what is deemed appropriate and normal for their social situation rather than what complies
with their religious morals and values.
Another variable that may contribute to this phenomenon is the differentiation between
the strictness and severities of different religions and practices. A great distinction was found
between certain groups of Catholic and Protestant students. The overarching theme among all
religious groups is that the more conservative and strictly religious the student was, the less
sexually permissive they tended to be. The difference was found between religiously affiliated
schools. In SWRU, which is a school with Protestant ties, students were significantly more
sexual conservative and fewer of those students “approved of premarital sex at any level: casual,
occasional, regular, or “serious dating” than those at a non-denominational school (Davidson,
2008, p. 212). In contrast to this fact, women that attended a Catholic college were four times
more likely to “hook up” than students who attend a secular school (Burdette, 2009, p.546). The
ubiquity of the social dynamics on the campuses of Catholic universities fosters an even more
wide spread and prominent hook-up culture (Burdette et al.).
This puzzling fact pulls the question of religious dedication into consideration.
Those at
the strict Protestant school were more likely to have been raised by strictly religious homes, with
the morals and values of their religion instilled in them. In contrast, there is evidence that the
Catholic schools tested attract students with a wide range of religious affiliations and degrees of
dedication to their religion. This is evident from the high occurrence of “hook ups” among some
students at the Catholic school compared to others at that school such as one male student who
said “my dedication to the Christian value of abstinence motivates me to abstain from sexual
activity. The next time I engage in such activity, I want to be with the person I will share the rest
of my life with” (Fehring, 1998, p. 236). It is not proven if religious affiliation has a strong
influence over “hooking up” but it appears to have more to do with the intensity of commitment
to one’s respective religion.
Donna Freitas conducted an in-depth study at Boston University on the relationship
between religiosity and the hook-up culture. She then published her findings in the well
acclaimed novel, Sex and the Soul. Freitas begins her book, itself a discussion of religion and
sex at American universities, by characterizing the dominant religious atmosphere at Roman
Catholic, Protestant, and secular schools. Her findings are interesting, to say the least. She begins
by noting that fewer and fewer of America's high school students (as low as 47% (10)) are
retaining the religion in which they were raised and, once in college, abandoning it in favor of a
loose, amorphous “spirituality” unbound by particular religious beliefs or tradition. For the
duration of the book, she refers to this demographic as the “spiritual but not religious” (16) and
defines their “spirituality,” in the words of one of her interviewees, thus:
Spirituality is to me an understanding of the universe and where you fit into it. It is
a way of understanding the way things work without having all the answers and
still being able to feel like you can have faith in some things. Religion on the other
hand is something where you are told a specific doctrine that you either adhere to
or believe in... spirituality is not necessarily (but can be) composed of these types
of regulations. It is much more open and more of a feeling than a structured belief
system (40-41).
While only seven out of Freitas' thirty-six evangelical Protestant interviewees fell into this
“spiritual but not religious” category, over half of their counterparts at secular schools answered
this way, as did thirteen of the thirty-one Catholic interviewees (38). While the newfound
freedoms of college life might give one the opportunity to distance oneself from organized
religion at a secular school, the unusual religious apathy at Catholic schools remains to be
explained. Why is it that more and more Catholic students, born and raised in one of the most
ancient religious traditions on Earth, are abandoning their faith at institutions founded by that
very same tradition? The answers provided by Freitas are as interesting as they are unexpected.
For one, the “Catholic” philosophy of these schools is often so subtle that it is hardly visible to
the outside observer except through external signs: one of Freitas' Catholic interviewees said of
his school, “without the monks running around, you wouldn't know it's a Catholic college” (43).
With rare exception, Catholic schools are similar to secular schools in that they promote an
environment where student diversity and exploration is encouraged, hinting to potential
applicants that “'anything is possible' at [these] institutions” (68-69). This applies to religious and
spiritual “searching” as well. The result is a spiritual laissez-faire, wherein students are nearly as
likely to reject Catholicism as empirically dubious (54) or “a chore (56)” as embrace it. The
writer tellingly recalls: “Finding a devout Catholic at a Catholic school was no easy task (48).”
The spiritual atmosphere at American evangelical schools, according to Freitas, could hardly be
more different. Whereas religious faith is uncommon or neglected at secular and Catholic
colleges, it is central to the very philosophy of evangelical schools: “At these institutions, faith is
neither ignored nor suppressed. In fact, at these schools, faith is everything. It is the bedrock on
which both the curriculum and the social life are built, and where religion is not only powerful, it
is public” (62). In fact, over 81% of Freitas' evangelical interviewees chose their schools so that
they might be educated and strengthened as Christians, while only 55% of her Catholic subjects
listed their school's religious affiliation as a major factor in their application process (66). In
stark contrast to the freedom and exploration endorsed by secular and Catholic schools,
evangelical schools create “a culture forged by a shared identity, mission, and values of its own,
each forming a sense of itself as something special and set apart from the broader culture” (67).
The cultural exceptionalism of evangelical schools creates and perpetuates a unique religious
environment, where students learn through their friends, the faculty and curriculum not only the
academic skills they will need for the future, but “how to live a good Christian life” (68). The
implications of this philosophy on the sexual ethics of evangelical students, as will be discussed
shortly, are profound.
Freitas' exploration of the hookup culture at “spiritual” schools (i.e. secular and Catholic
schools where individual, irreligious spirituality is the norm) is both revealing and somewhat
disconcerting. 85.1% of her public school survey respondents reported having experienced “oral,
anal, and/or vaginal sex” in college, as did 79.2% of private secular respondents and a startling
73.1% of Catholic school respondents (162). The statistics indicate not only that sexual behavior
is or has been practiced by a majority of students at these schools, but that there is little
difference between the participation rates of students at Catholic and secular institutions. What
accounts for these trends? Freitas argues that the beliefs of “spiritual” students, those have left
religion to pursue an “amorphous spirituality,” have a direct impact on their attitudes toward sex
on campus- or, perhaps more appropriately, that the sex has an impact on their beliefs. According
to Freitas, the “spiritual” student views sex as “a personal choice that each individual must face
without reference to religion, a decision [one] must face without the help of the man with the
plan [i.e. God]” (20). Those who subscribe to this convenient view of sex divorce God (if they
believe in him) from the act of sex itself, and in so doing negate any religiously motivated
criticism or guilt that results from the hookup experience. The sexual ethics of Freitas' Catholic
school respondents, many of whom fit the “spiritual but not religious” category, are similarly
noncommittal:
I have occasionally met young people who practice “Catholic orthodoxy” when it
comes to sex, but I didn't interview a single college student who fit this description.
The average Catholic student I interviewed was either clueless about Catholicism's
teachings about sex or didn't care. Whatever Catholic sexual ethics these students
have acquired, they acquired by osmosis (199).
Thus secular and Catholic schools, which each engender a similar spiritual milieu, in turn tend to
propagate similar sexual ethics and attitudes about hooking up. Freitas' summation of the
similarity between the two school systems might be concerning to Catholic school administrators
and faculty:
As far as attitudes about how sex and religion go together (or don't), students at
Catholic colleges share with their nonreligious private and public school peers the
conviction that faith is faith and sex is sex and never the twain shall meet; the idea
of allowing religious beliefs to affect one's sex life is silly if not laughable (172).
The end result is that “spiritual” students at these schools are left without a comprehensive
system of sexual ethics to “make it up as [they] go along (202).”
Once again, evangelical schools stand in stark contrast to the prevailing liberalism of
secular and Catholic schools, especially with respect to sex. Only 35.3% of Freitas' evangelical
school respondents reported having “oral, anal and/or vaginal sex” at school (162), less than half
of the proportion reported by Catholic respondents. This apparent predisposition to chastity is
readily explained by the religious beliefs so dearly held at these institutions. Following
“biblical” sexual standards, most female evangelical students “save themselves for marriage,”
i.e. refrain from sex (and most other forms of intimate physical contact (76)) until their wedding
day. Many of these students advertise their chastity by taking a public vow or wearing a “purity
ring” until their engagement (76). This rigorous ethic does not only apply to women, as men,
too, are expected to “'put lust to death (80)'” and remain chaste until marriage. The consequences
of “obeying the flesh” and disregarding these mores are, to evangelical students, very real and
very frightening: not only do they fear being ostracized and rejected by their religious
community (86), but many feel they are “betraying God” himself (121) by transgressing his
divinely ordained sexual laws (158). Needless to say, the resulting sexual atmosphere at tightknit evangelical schools is strictly conservative, and usually there is no “hookup culture” to
speak of here. Nonetheless, sex is frequently discussed on evangelical campuses, where students
and faculty are not afraid to deal with it in terms of their faith: “For these students, sex is never a
personal decision. It is never simply a private matter, even for those who don't make their sexual
histories public... It's not anyone's personal, private right to decide what kind of sex is right and
what kind is wrong. That is God's job (158).” While students at “spiritual” schools tend to
curiously separate religion and sex into two incompatible spheres, evangelical students are able
to see one through the “lens” of the other. They are able to understand sex as a wonderful gift
from God, but one which comes with its own set of rules and guidelines. In short they, and only
they, are able to “marry sex and the soul (213).”
Literature regarding the correlation between race and the hook-up is quite sparse, but
several studies have found varied results. These results have indicated a possible link between
racial identity and sex. In a study on the effect of race and religion in relation to sexual attitudes
and behaviors, Davidson found that “blacks have more permissive attitudes toward pre-marital
sex than whites” (2008, p. 212). He found that more African American students had partaken in
pre-marital sex, and that they have the highest number of sex partners over their lifespan (2008,
p. 214). These distinctions concern pre-marital sex as a whole, but one would expect that the
more comfortable and permissive attitudes toward sex among African American students would
remain consistent with college hook ups. It is likely that an individual’s level of ethnic pride and
cultural belonging directly affect their choice to engage in the hook-up culture. Ethnicities that
characteristically promote individualism and more egotistical ideas, such as Caucasians and
African-Americans, do not guard against casual sexual encounters to the degree that other
ethnicities, such as Asian Americans, do (Owens et al.).