Senior Conrad Murphy argues that having sex outside of a committed relationship can have some negative consequences.
“Sex is an extremely wonderful and powerful gift given to humanity but it is powerful, both biologically and psychologically. That’s why it hurts so much when you break up with someone you have been especially close with.”
Commentary from the opinions editors, op-ed columnists and The Hatchet's Editorial Board
Director of the GW Institute for Nanotechnology Michael Keidar spent the last three years developing a cancer cell-killing medical device that he said could revolutionize the disease’s treatment worldwide.
The problem with growing up is that there is always someone telling us we are not old enough. And yet, you would think that as young adults, we would finally be over it.
What’s not to love about graduation season? It is filled with senior send-offs, family get-togethers and free food.
GWids are the equivalent of students’ social security numbers on campus.
Transfer students do not enroll at GW for the Mount Vernon Campus experience. They come here to take advantage of city life in Foggy Bottom.
As camera flashes flickered over a sea of tassels, two Columbian College of Arts and Science professors urged graduates to cast their fears aside and forge fresh paths to success.
I never understood why people refer to cities as if they were human until I left Sevilla, Spain. My feelings toward leaving my newfound home are so complex, it's as if I am leaving the love of my life.
Vol. 109
An Independent Student Newspaper
Serving The George Washington University Community Since 1904
This guy is living in the past – anyone who does not have sex in this day and age merely because they think casual sex is harmful is only doing it because they can’t find anyone to get in bed with. Anyone with any kind of brain would rather have sex and a relationship and deal with the heartbreak that ensues rather than abstain completely – that’s what being a human is all about and that’s what makes sex so powerful and fun. I feel sorry for Samuel Murphy
Great article! Today sexual promiscuity is called a different type of dating. People feel like having sex is normal at younger and younger ages. Thanks for reminding everyone that sex shouldn’t be as nonchalant as a hug. It’s a big deal and should be treated as a serious matter.
Why are fraternities and sororities lumped into this sentence for promoting sex as a normal part of a healthy relationship? This is completely unnecessary and insinuates that we actively promote sex which is not true at all.
The fact that this article illustrated the consequences for women who sleep around, rather than men, is mere chance, I’m sure.
Sorry, I just love when the decision to not have sex is presented as some groundbreaking, radical, countercultural argument, when in reality, judging women for their sexual decisions is incredibly commonplace and has been for centuries.
Apart from that unpleasant element, I think choosing not to have sex is a legitimate, fine choice. Just don’t judge others who don’t espouse that belief.
The CDC study quoted in the article seems to me to be bogus. 80% of women with no sexual partners before their wedding night go on to have a successful marriage? Firstly, this is surely quite a small sample to begin with. Secondly, those who choose to remain a virgin until marriage are also likely to hold strong religious convictions, such as divorce being unacceptable. They might not be divorced, but that does not mean they are in a successful marriage.
In addition, there is one activity which leads to the creation of oxytocin, masturbation. Does this increase your likelihood of a failed marriage?
That should have said: In addition, there is one activity which leads to the creation of oxytocin that the author omitted from his article, masturbation.
This is probably some typical right wing evangelist who probably believes that Darwin was wrong about evolution as well. This Victorian way of thinking, and that is what it is, is only a negative way of thinking. People have a right to have sex with whoever they want so long as its consensual and its not for this kid or even his parents to tell us otherwise. Go back to the 19th century where you belong
“When you look at sex on a purely scientific level…it is meant to be between two people in a married relationship.”
Since when is marriage a scientific fact?
Ello Guvnah!
The article stated:
“Studies have shown that as the number of sexual partners increase, the levels of oxytocin decrease”
Please show me the scientific abstracts to confirm this claim.
Oxytocin has multiple functions, including bonding. Are all the functions (water balance, breastfeeding, immune, ejaculation, stress response, etc. now diminished?
Speaking of bonding does a mother who has many children no longer capable of bonding (oxytocin) with her subsequent children?
Can a promiscuous person not fall in love with their dog due to a damaged oxytocin system?
Does a person with allergies eventually use up all their mucus?
I am happily married, believe in the power of monogamy. No argument there.
Yet you present no science, not even junk science, to back up your claim. Why – Because it’s complete physiological nonsense.
This article saddens me. The premise of helping people make wiser choices is sound, but the science is bogus. Oxytocin is not in fixed supply, or capable of being “depleted” by more than one lover. (Oxytocin also bonds mothers and infants, yet mothers can bond with all of their children.) The danger of broken relationships is that they increase defensiveness over time. “Love” gets tangled up with “fear” at a subconscious level. Marriage, however, does little to prevent this unfortunate association, because it is built right into humanity’s mating program. Biology wants us to have more than one partner. For more, see: http://www.reuniting.info/download/The%20Hidden%20Factor%20in%20Relationship%20Disharmony.swf
I am interested in reading the studies/reports you cited in your op-ed. Would you please provide the sources? Oftentimes the methods of data collection and sample size influence the report and how it should be interpreted. Without more substantial evidence, I feel this is an overly simplified perspective.
This is an abomination to scientists everywhere. The author has obviously never read a scientific journal in his entire life and has never been to a biology course. If he had, he would have heard of a man named Charles Darwin whose evolutionary theory states that SCIENCE WANTS YOU TO HAVE SEX WITH AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. Its called procreation and its how humans have evolved over the last few millennia. Your argument could not be weaker from a scientific point of view. If you want to talk about the morality of sex before marriage, that is one thing, but to say that “science” says you should only have sex when you’re married is preposterous. Read a book and get back to me.
This article is judgmental and frankly, full of nonsense. Having sex with 5 people before marriage, even in the context of a long term relationship, gives you a 30% chance of a happy marriage? Right. Amen to the other points brought up already, such as women being able to bond to all of their children, the masturbation argument, and the fact that people who are opposed to premarital sex also tend to be opposed to divorce. This doesn’t mean their marriages are better. I’d like to see the “study” you cited…is there a reason why you didn’t link it in your essay? And frankly studies are constantly being published with agendas and incorrect implications based on their sample sizes or unrepresentative data. Alleged “scientific evidence” always seems to accompany oppressive arguments. Don’t have sex if you don’t want to, but don’t be so judgmental of others who choose to. Your Victorian-style judgment of others’ life choices needs some enlightenment. I found this article to be very ignorant and completely offensive.
And I second what Katharine said about the blatant sexism of solely highlighting negative “consequences” for women choosing to have sex outside of marriage.
Not Falling for It:
With as many people as possible? That’s debatable. A man and a woman in a monogamous relationship would have a better chance of caring for the child, and allowing the child to develop fully.
Woman stand a better chance with one partner as the risk of pregnancy is higher for them than it is for males.
This is dumb. Some people don’t have sex because of their own reasons. I don’t need science to tell me that’s “OK.” I especially don’t need a DUDE to tell me that.
Science? Don’t you mean religion?
Yes, sex is a bonding experience and important. But ESPECIALLY in this current day, people can make their own choices. OF COURSE IT IS OK NOT TO HAVE SEX…but it is ALSO OK to HAVE sex. You wanna give a good article, give me some real reasons that aren’t based only on your religion. Especially considering the majority of your audience.
What is the point of a ‘forum’ if the author doesn’t respond to our reasonable questions?
I’m appalled at the false logic and unnecessary extremism in this piece.
For instance, the author argues: Oxytocin is a chemical which bonds two people together after sex. The chemical depletes with more than 1 partner. Therefore, people should have sex only after marriage.
False logic! How is marriage even included in this rhetorical enthymeme? Shouldn’t the author’s conclusion actually be, “Therefore, people should have less sexual partners, preferably only 1.” This would leave the individual’s choice in the matter in tact and be logically sound. The concept of marriage is antiquated. The author should really just be pushing for 1 sexual partner.
But I don’t agree with the author’s conclusion for another reason. Let’s take his logic further. This oxytocin is also supposedly released when a mother gives birth to a child. So under the author’s logic, the mother should only have 1 child because the levels of the chemical would deplete when she gave birth to later children, and hence, her bond would be weaker with them.
Is there any parent out there who believes this is true?
-Suzanne
LL.M. Candidate at the Law School
Despite the controversy caused by the oxytocin research in this article, I find myself in total agreement with Murphy. Just to let you know, “Annoyed Student”, I’m left-wing, and I still agree. I agree on a non religious basis as well. I am saving myself for the man I marry, and I have no second thoughts about it. As “Britt” put it, “sex shouldn’t be as nonchalant as a hug”.
The term “saving [oneself]” is so outdated. It implies that premarital sex devalues the person involved. Haven’t we gotten past judging a woman’s value based on her virginity? Judging by Conrad’s emphasis on why WOMEN shouldn’t have too many sexual partners with no analogous discussion for men, I guess not.
my wife is haitian and we live in tel aviv israel. she asked me would i go see that her family was ok. on august 21 2010 i just came back from 2 weeks in haiti and i drove all of port au prince, the capital, all of the surrounding cities and all i saw was total devistation and people at the airport still starving to death. i send $100 a month to her mother for food for the family because they have children and have never seen any food or help from anyone. and during my visit i saw that all the us did was hand out a little food and fix a crack in the runway. there are warehouses piled high around the airport with tons of food only being given to government efficials while other people are hungry. there is no cleanup or construction going on anywhere. the entire airport is falling down. when i left i had to check into the airline in warehouse 2 miles away and be driven by the airline in a van to the airplane. this is 7 months after the us goverment lied and said they repaired the airport. my quistion is were is all the billions of dollars in aid? are they waiting for everybody to die?