I Got The Hook-Up

While I probably don't read The New York Times in as much detail as I should, I do make a point to look at nytimes.com at least once a day. If nothing else, I glance at the headlines to make sure I'm at the very least aware of the latest financial crisis or genocide. Also, if I have an extra second I like to look at the list of the ten most e-mailed stories. These are rarely the most important things in the paper, but I like to get a sense of what people think are the stories worth sending to their friends and then mentally mock those people.

As an aside, who actually sends stories via the website? I simply just copy and paste a URL if I want to pass it along. It seems a lot easier. Is it possible I'm just smarter than everyone else? Discuss.

Usually the most sent stories include a number of frivolous features that Times' readers find cute. The one about the 12-year-old food critic comes to mind. In addition to the fluff, there are typically a number of Op-Eds listed among the most e-mailed stories. Say what you want about the Times' op-ed page—it's too liberal, Maureen Dowd is annoying, etc—but it's got clout. And even if you're an arch-conservative, you probably read the page and your opinions are formed, or at least informed, by what you see there. And because of the page's prestige, I can safely assume that there are hundreds of writers who would love to get a crack writing along side Krugman, Kristof and Kristol. (Hmm, maybe KKK isn't the best alliteration.) Because of this prestige, I have to say I was appalled by Sunday's third most e-mailed story, which I came across while casually surfing the web during the Giants' second consecutive whupping at the hands of an NFC East foe.

The column (which moved up to No. 2 on the most e-mailed list as of Monday afternoon) was called "The Demise Of Dating" and it was written by some guy named Charles M. Blow. And yes, I will resist the urge to make an obvious joke that equates the quality of the column with the writer's last name.

Blow begins his piece by writing: "The paradigm has shifted. Dating is dated. Hooking up is here to stay. (For those over 30 years old: hooking up is a casual sexual encounter with no expectation of future emotional commitment. Think of it as a one-night stand with someone you know.)"

Maybe I'm just sensitive because I'm getting close to the age of 30, but who under the age of 60 doesn't know (or can't figure out) what "hooking up" means? Also, you can hook up with someone you don't really know, so he even got the definition wrong. This was an awful attempt to be funny, but I would have forgiven it had the rest of the piece been interesting or informative. It wasn't.

Blow goes on to cite one study that says sex is down, and then another that says sex with strangers is down, but sex with friends is up. The rest of his research relies on calling up some psychologist from from La Salle University who wrote a book about hooking up on college campuses. Apparently dating has changed since Blow was a lad, and while people once dated a while before having sex, they now "hook up" for a while before deciding if they want to date.

Even if there is truth to this trend, isn't this something we've seen before? I'm not old enough to remember, but my understanding was that during the 1960s and 1970s, when people weren't having orgies, they were taking on a new partner every other night and experimenting with various sexual techniques and positions while high on a variety of mind-expanding drugs. OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but casual sex before dating is not a new phenomenon. Anyone my age knows this, and people old enough to remember the 60s and 70s know this, so I can't figure out who the hell were the people who found this story so compelling that they said to themselves, "Wow, my friend [insert name] would really find this enlightening!"

Considering the column's popularity, I guess it's hard to quibble with the Times decision to run it. But on an elite op-ed page, this seemed like a poor use of space. It was basically some guy bemoaning the fact that dating isn't the same as when he was young. Next up: His column about when pitchers used to throw complete games.

I had never seen Blow's byline before, so I decided to check out his bio. Turns out he is the "visual Op-Ed columnist." I have no idea what that means, and there was certainly nothing visual about this column. On the plus side, if this is what the Times deems worthy of its Op-Ed page, that should give hope to the hundreds of writers trying to get a piece in there.