Let’s Talk About Sex… Like Adults. Because the Universities Won’t.

“Do you crave hookups without hangouts? Do you want to come without commitment? Do you want desire without all the drama?”

That was the opening of the article, “Sex & the CT: Beginner’s Guide to Casual Sex,” recently posted on the University of Rochester’s student newspaper, Campus Times. The piece, which appears to have been written by a student at the university, goes on to present casual sex as a simple solution to students’ romantic and sexual lives, offering a striking window into how poorly colleges uphold a culture of moral sexual ethics.

By now, we’re accustomed to universities partnering with Planned Parenthood, holding racy, sex-themed events, and telling students to prioritize pleasure and “sexual exploration” over commitment, let alone marriage.

But this Campus Times article pushes the envelope with lies that ignore entirely the implications of sex, selling students an idea about sex that is destined to hurt them.

[RELATED: College Don’t Hurt Me]

The Claim

The article begins by undermining the emotional effect of sexual intimacy, reducing it to a merely transactional concept.

It guides students, 

Before clothes are ripped off tell your partner what you want out of this exchange. Are you looking to do romantic things outside of the sex? Do you want to have a friendly relationship but occasionally screw each other? Do you want them to act like they don’t know you in chemistry lab tomorrow?

The piece simultaneously advises against the burgeoning attachment that results from a sexual encounter. “Many people try to have casual sex without acknowledging if they are truly ready and end up heartbroken, confused, and feeling like a slut. You should never feel that way.”

It continues, “Your conscience should always be your number one priority — casual sex should not be something that makes you feel guilty.”

“You can tell the other person that you are absolutely not looking for a relationship, but your feelings may change after sleeping together for three nights in a row,” the op-ed warns. “You should not find yourself yearning for a text back, feeling nervous about the next hook-up, or leaving feeling more drained than satisfied.”

It further debases sexual intimacy, reducing students to insatiable, animal-like creatures, utterly devoid of self-control or depth beyond their sex drive. “Carry no shame in your game — human beings have needs,” the piece justifies. Instead of valuing sex as a powerful tool for bonding in committed relationships, this perspective strips away human dignity in favor of impulse and fleeting pleasure.

Drawing once again from its introduction, the piece asks, “Do you crave hookups without hangouts? Do you want to come without commitment? Do you want desire without all the drama?”

It flippantly provides a “solution:” “Casual sex,” the article reads, is “simply the thrill of having sexual partners without the pressure of a relationship. This way, you can worry about your next orgasm, and not your next argument.”

Through this, the article reveals a clear bias against committed relationships, portraying casual sex as the superior option by reducing relationships to little more than bickering, drama, and the burden of time and dedication. 

The piece also emphasizes the replaceability of these relationships: “At the end of the day, this is a college campus, and there are plenty of people on campus who are open to having casual sex. If your partner isn’t doing it for you, go out and find a new one!”

Staying true to the left’s well-loved moral relativity and “my body, my choice” trope, the article concludes, “It’s your own body and there’s no judgment here!”

[RELATED: Higher Ed Discovers the Joys of Sex]

The Science

The University of Rochester’s Campus Times article falsely represents the most meaningful act between a man and a woman as something temporary and trivial; in reality, “casual sex” is a paradoxical term. 

According to scientists—and we should trust the science, right?—sex can’t be “casual” because the brain and the body are inextricably linked. The Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) reported that the act of having sex generates “feel-good hormones in the body such as dopamine, endorphins, and oxytocin. These hormones activate the pleasure and reward centers of the brain, boosting a person’s mood, relieving stress and tension, and supporting feelings of love, trust, and intimacy.” 

In other words, the brain cannot distinguish between a casual encounter and a lifelong commitment; the emotional results are the same. 

Prolific neuroscientist and human anthropologist Dr. Helen Fischer echoes the sentiment. “[Oxytocin and vasopressin] are the basic bodily and brain systems for attachment,” she said in one interview. 

“Don’t have sex with somebody you don’t want to feel something for,” she urged listeners. “[T]he bottom line is, if you don’t want to get attached to somebody, it’s easier to not sleep with them … [b]ecause you might end up being attached to somebody who really does not fit into your life.” In fact, a yearly study conducted by her team consistently finds that 25-35 percent of one-night stands end in a long-term relationship.

Critics argue that because sex boosts “happy” hormones like dopamine and oxytocin, leading to improved mental health and lowered cortisol, casual sex may be positive and even beneficial. 

But research shows that this is not the case. These same chemicals drive pair-bonding, and casual sex can diminish their effect, undermining the brain’s natural capacity for lasting attachment, resulting in decreased mental health compared to their committed counterparts, studies found.  

The science is clear: casual sex is not conducive to human psychology, and telling students otherwise can hold severe psychological implications.

[RELATED: Campus Hook-Up Culture and Title IX Sex Police Meet Due Process]

Future Consequences

Articles like “Sex & the CT: beginner’s guide to casual sex” present impressionable young adults with an impossible task: To fight against their psychology to indulge in “casual” sexual encounters, meanwhile unknowingly jeopardizing current mental health and future long-term relationships.

The philosophy instilled by the behaviors endorsed in the article contradicts basic qualities vital to a healthy partnership, such as steadfast faithfulness and the continual giving of oneself.

Studies continue to prove that heterosexual, monogamous marriages produce the happiest individuals. 

A report by Brian J. Willoughby, Ph.D., a fellow at the Wheatley Institute and co-author of the report The Myth of Sexual Experience: Why Sexually Inexperienced Dating Couples Actually Go On to Have Stronger Marriages, found that sexually inexperienced dating couples are two to three times more likely to enjoy highly stable marriages. Willoughby explains that sexual exclusivity between spouses “provides an underappreciated foundation for the intimacies of marriage and helps couples create mutually satisfying relationships founded on emotional intimacy and healthy communication.”

Further studies show that the amount of premarital sexual partners increases divorce rates exponentially: “Divorce risk is strongest for survey respondents with nine or more premarital partners, followed by those with one through eight partners, and lowest for those with none, thus indicating three ‘tiers’ of divorce risk based on number of past partners,” one source said.

That such an article—openly promoting casual sex—can appear in a campus newspaper underscores how far university instruction on sexual health and relationships has drifted from any coherent moral or ethical framework.

Last month, Minding the Campus reported on a “Sex in the Dark” event at the University of Texas, part of a growing trend across American universities. Similar, and at times even more explicit, events such as “Sex on the Lawn” and “Kink Across Diverse Bodies” workshops have proliferated in higher education.

University-sponsored events of this nature represent not merely misplaced priorities but a broader moral and intellectual decline within academia. They reflect an institution-wide shift from the pursuit of virtue and wisdom to the celebration of unrestrained desire.

The data are clear: casual sex does not end when the encounter does. It is an inherently bonding act, biologically and psychologically oriented toward lifelong attachment. If universities took their role as stewards of moral and civic formation seriously—and shaped their sexual education to align with the realities of human intimacy—students might be less inclined to write articles that celebrate casual sex.

Visit our Minding the Science column for in-depth analysis on topics ranging from wokeism in STEM, scientific ethics, and research funding to climate science, scientific organizations, and much more.


Image by Pixel-Shot on Adobe; Asset ID#: 1657840973

Author

  • Claire Harrington

    Claire Harrington graduated from Liberty University with a degree in Political Science. She writes for Campus Reform, the College Fix, and Minding the Campus. Claire is passionate about truth and enjoys studying the intersections of politics, culture, and faith. 

    View all posts

6 thoughts on “Let’s Talk About Sex… Like Adults. Because the Universities Won’t.

  1. As one with a wee bit of experience in student affairs, beyond the fact that the U-R article is clearly written from a female perspective, the two things that leap out at me are child support and STIs.

    Women don’t have to worry about child support because they’re not going to be financially liable even if they decide to keep the child — and if they do, between whatever child support they get and their welfare benefits, they will wind up with the cash equivalent of more than they could earn working at WalMart or McDonalds. It’s men who get stuck with child support obligations, and these are a lot more onerous than the student loans…

    But the other thing being nonchalantly disregarded are STIs — Sexually Transmitted Infections (which some of us remember as “Venereal Disease”). While this is outside my field, student affairs includes the medical people and some of the things I have heard them nonchalantly mention are chilling. There are a lot of scary things out there and most of them aren’t curable, only treatable as chronic diseases.

    AIDS is no longer the worst — it is now treatable with antiretroviral therapy, an expensive cocktail of drugs that costs upwards of $54,000 a year, and those who wish to engage in the high-risk sexual practices that spread it now have PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis) which costs $24,000 a year. The health insurance companies are required to provide this free of charge, which is part of why our health insurance rates have gone up so much…

    All of that said, along with again mentioning Miriam Grossman’s Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student, I respectfully submit that this issue needs to be viewed from both a male as well as a female perspective.

    I have long felt that the Lord created men to protect women from harm — and created women to protect men from ourselves. It’s sophomorically simplistic to say that this is all about sex because it isn’t — although the traditional family unit is offensive to the socialist. We have had a half century of bitter feminists bashing men and have completely forgotten that men also look for things in a relationship. Things other than sex, just like women.

    But that would involve recognizing the legitimacy of the traditional husband/wife/children family and I’m not expecting to see the campus Marxists do that anytime soon…

    1. It won’t happen because there are no social conservatives (or even moderates) left in Student Affairs, but what’s really needed is help and advice on relationships.

      How do you ask a girl out on a date? How do you tell a boy you want him to ask you out on a date? That’s where most of these kids are at.

      The “hookup culture” has led to girls jumping in bed with random boys and hoping to build a relationship the next morning. That very rarely works. Freshman mixers do.

      1. I am thinking about this more. I just got off the phone with someone talking about the dating crisis.

      2. Jared, see https://sfstandard.com/2025/10/17/slutcon-flirt-girls-tech-bros/

        And https://www.insidehighered.com/news/student-success/life-after-college/2024/03/25/colleges-teach-students-proper-dining-career

        The panty raids of the 1950s were problematic then — people got hurt and stuff got broken — and would be exponentially more problematic today. But back then you had Deans of Men who understood what it had been to be a young heterosexual male — the student affairs people of today are either female or gay and don’t.

        The mere fact we have LUGgies (Lesbians Until Graduation) indicates how much modern academia emphasizes and rewards lesbian relationships over heterosexual ones. But the point I make to the feminists and the lesbians (and the lesbians sometimes understand it) is that at least 90% of the girls are going to be involved in relationships with boys — not all boys are nice people and far fewer will be the “right” boy for any particular girl.

        Hence shouldn’t we, as the quasi-parental figures, help the girls to find the “right” boys — and help the boys find the “right” girls?

        Academia used to do this — in the days of single sex dorms there were freshman mixers and such. Now we have coed dorms and women walking nearly naked to and from the showers to attract male attention. And no one has told them that walking into a boy’s room clad only in a towel is sending lots of non-verbal messages that they probably don’t want to be sending…

        Nor that wearing a miniskirt, without underwear, and passing out drunk on the floor is not going to end well….

        Now they are told the dual messages of “men are evil” and “the world should revolve around me” and neither boys nor girls are told to treat potential bedmates the way that they would want to be treated. Throw in a culture of conspicuous consumption and you have a lot of very shallow relationships which satisfy no one.

        Sexbots, which essentially are already here, are going to make things really interesting because not only can they be designed with the anatomically “perfect” body (however one wishes to define that) but they will be able to engage in sexual acrobatics beyond the abilities and endurance of any biological woman or man.

        Throw in AI and we very well may find ourselves in a “Bladerunner” society where the question will arise what it means to be human. And what it means to share a life with an actual human and not a computer programed to please you — although there probably are enough people of both sexes shallow enough to prefer that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *