The professors among you should now admire my restraint for not starting this post "UrbanDictionary defines 'hooking up' as...".

Obviously #3. Granted, these days, oral sex is the baseline of generation awesome, but I think maximal uncertainty is allowed.

I think "making out sloppily in the booth at the club between 12 and 1" counts, as does "having sex three times, and having breakfast together."

I like the concept- it allows me to share information with my friends without being vulgar.

I thought it meant that they commented on each other's blogs.

I think there's a book out about this called Hook-Ups and and Hooking Hookers Who Hook Them or something like that.

Is that what they call it these days?

I'm fine with commenting on your blog, ogged, but you commenting on mine would just be gross.

Since the dawn of time, humankind has wondered what composes 'hooking up.'

---

My sense is that it varies regionally. (2) would be how I would use it. Interesting, though, when one person says 'hooked up' meaning (2) and someone else assumes (1).

(3) is a candyass compromise.

5 to 4.

God, I'm hung over.

I take it to mean 3 with a strong probability of 1, but, as an old fogey, I object to the term altogether. "X and Y pitched some woo" was good enough in my day.

"pitched some woo" s/b "got it on"

I returned from the wilds of China to hear everyone using this term, and was often confused. When I sought clarification, I generally got ambiguous answers. I think the definition I settled upon was that it meant something like "they ended up together at the end the night", which is closest to Becks' option (3).

M/M/, get back to those classifieds!

Yes, dear.

Back in my day, when Eisenhower was president, (3) was how we used it, but I know people who mean (1), and I've been assuming that the trend is toward (1).

Note, Becks, that the ambiguity, like the participants, goes down, because there's imprecision in what it is to have sex, fool around, and so on.

In the UK it generally has no sexual connotations at all. I could say to a friend "let's hook up next time we're in London" and there'd be no confusion.

Probably one of the US meanings will invade, soon.

the ambiguity, like the participants, goes down, because there's imprecision in what it is to have sex

Actually, I think this is wrong. You don't call it "hooking up" because you just can't decide what to call it. You call it "hooking up" either because you don't know precisely what happened, or because you're trying to be ambiguous (unless you hold to meaning 1 or 2, in which case you're killing strategic ambiguity for the rest of us).

Agree with Labs about what it meant back then. Like Labs, I also assumed GA had slutted up the definition, which is all to the good.

I could say to a friend "let's hook up next time we're in London" and there'd be no confusion.

Here too; depends on context.

I wouldn't use "hook up" to mean "meet up" when talking with a female friend.

17: See, I figure that if you meant to imply "we had sex" by the phrase "hooking up", you wouldn't want the phrase to be ambiguous between getting laid and fooling around. So it's either (1) or (2), but with (3) only showing up because no one's sure whether the other person means (1) or (2)

There's a philosophy of language problem lurking in here somewhere, I'm sure of it. Grice away!

But do people normally use "hook up" to describe what they've done, or what someone else has done; the latter, typically, no?

To describe what they've done, ime.

If you want the understanding of anyone entirely dependent on mass media for the definition, it means something like "A and B, who knew each other slightly, found 30 minutes in their busy day to have sex before they went on to more important things".

Indiscreet bastards.

It's sort of discreet, to the extent that hooking up pretty much covers everything short of intercourse.

If Bob told me that he hooked up with Josie last night, I might later tell Jane that I had heard Bob and Josie hooked up, but might speculate as to whether that involved PIV or just some sloppy tongue. But that's just with Jane. With Judy I'd leave it totally ambiguous and let her wrestle with the uncertainty, because she (I think) hooked up with Bob last week but he was total cad about it and I don't want her to dwell. Actually probably shouldn't have told Judy but, spilt milk.

It's even more discreet when it includes intercourse.

Huh. If someone else told me that they had hooked up, I would take it as (3), because I know that there's a good deal of uncertainty w/r/t what "hooking up" entails. However! I would only use it myself for (2); I'm a big fan of telling stories that go on and on for a while, and finish with "and then we had sex."

17: actually, old shoe, I suspect you're right, but I couldn't think of a way to combine noting the ambiguity of all the disambiguations of "hooking up"-- the "it's x all the way down" point-- with an allusion to oral sex.

Also, I think we need to clarify option (2), because "fooled around" is ambiguous. I do not think that "hooking up" can be used to describe, say, a couple minutes of kissing or something. There has to be at least what the old fogeys would refer to as "heavy petting."

Labs, I just emailed you, and could use a response.

old fogeys would refer to as "heavy petting."

Awesome. Questions about heavy petting were SOP in worthiness interviews when I was a Mormon lad.

What's a worthiness interview?

I was so confused in middle school as to what, exactly, was meant by heavy petting. It sounded so exotic, until someone was like "yo, third base, dude."

What's a worthiness interview?

There's different levels of the priesthood you get ordained to beginning when you're 12

12- Deacon
14- Teacher
16 -Priest

And so on and so forth. Each time involves an interview with your bishop to make sure you're worthy. He asks you all kinds of fun questions like "do you masturbate", "have you been engaging in heavy petting", etc.

Ogged, you persian slipper, I replied.

Thanks, gaylord.

Will masturbating keep you from being a deacon?

I have tended to take it to mean (1), but I understand that it is ambiguous.

"being" s/b "boning"

3! but amongst most of my friends i seem to be one of the few who holds this opinion - most seem to agree with the first.

To generate more confusion, somebody should invent a really bizarre and memorable sexual act and call it "hooking up."

Something involving knitting.

Wait, are we using sex to mean the mommy and daddy dance, or the "in for a penny, in for a pound" BitchPhD definition?

You're in the clear as long as you don't get spunk on B.

Will masturbating keep you from being a deacon?

You know, I'm not sure. I've never known anyone to do anything but lie. Which is bizarre, because surely the bishop knows we were all lying.

Does the bishop know when you are sleeping? When you're awake? Does he know if you've been bad or good?

So keep your hands off your monkey for goodness sake.

The wife's reaction to "I'm hooked up with [female friend] yesterday" suggests that whatever it means, I shouldn't be doing it.

How many languages did she use to threaten to castrate you, SEK?

The universal language, love withheld.

Seventeen. Sixteen for the (hypothetical) offense, one for my stellar grammar.

Another connotation, IME, of the phrase "hook up" is that the people involved are not dating or otherwise romantically involved, but they do, of course, have the option to lease.

(Also: I say #3 for all its attendant ambiguity wonderfulness.)

47.-- Wait, you people just lied?!?

55: Because she is a woman of principle and integrity, JM renounced her faith rather than stop masturbating.

45 demonstrates why the only possible correct answer is #3.

I'd go for (3). And then harangue them for talking like an American.

The "in for a penny, in for a pound" link was a good sex thread, what I read of it. The phrase "non-penetrative sex" exists for a reason, surely? Reminded me of a recent conversation I had about whether, if having to make a choice for the rest of one's life, one would choose PIV sex (or PIA would have to be included too I think) but nothing else, OR everything else.

The universal language, love withheld.

Your mom knows that language. She only speaks it to you, of course.

How old are X and Y? The older they are, the more likely #1 is meant. The younger, the more likely #2 is meant. College or just after, #3.

There was a time where "hooking up" meant absolutely doing the deed. I recall times where one might "nearly hook up" in fact. However, since about 1995 (in the mid-Atlantic region anyway) the definition of "hooking up" began expanding to include almost all ancillary sexual activity. So, I'd say you are definitely 100% right in your contention, with nearly a decade of going tradition backing you up.

Those who contend otherwise are simply nostalgic for the phantoms of lost lexicons.

Anyway, hasn't ogged already chided me for re-bringing this subject up?

I don't really understand ogged's complaint in the post linked in the comment to which you've linked. Surely, per Yglesias, it's determinative that all the social statistics indicate that kids are less at risk today for any number of ills than they were when we were growing up.

I vote for (3).

56.--Exactly!

Here's a good argument for (3): it maximizes our chances to assert truly claims such as "wow, there were a lot of hookups that weekend."

(3), definitely. That definition allows people to talk about the event without have to get into sometimes-awkward detail about who put what where.

I use it to mean even less than (3) -- becoming a couple (transiently or not) without any implication of physical activities at all. That is, they could be involved, but the term doesn't specify.

"X and Y hooked up", what do you take that to mean?
Me, well to me it might mean:
X=B
and
Y>I

It's so not fair to post that anonymously.

Definitely #3. We need a term that encompasses ambiguity, otherwise we can't gossip about our friends without knowing all of the details.

I agree with 70. 69 should have been posted by "Grover Cleveland".

Actually, I'm lying/joking. Dead Presidents are only for revealing information about oneself. 69 should have been post under someone's real handle, or not at all.

Also:

does "Y>I" mean that Y is someone better than Anon, or that Y is a group of people including Anon?

Does "Anon" really stand for anonymous? I think I've seen that pseud here a few times previously, and I had always assumed it was the same person.

75: I'm not sure, but I think it's pronounced A-En-Oh-En.

74: At the rate I'm going, probably the latter.

What is your going rate, B?

without have to get into sometimes-awkward detail about who put what where

Or without the person you're talking to having to picture the who put what where.

No, no, picturing it is most of the fun of this kind of conversation.

I once lobbied for a strict adherence to definition #1, precisely because I had hooked up with a woman with whom I nonetheless did not want it to be thought that I had sex. This is known as sophistry. Clearly it's an inherently ambiguous term -- though I would ideally like to preserve it for #2, using the more direct (though still subtle) "I totally fucked her" for #1.

But what about third- or second-personal reports, Adam? Do you want to be constrained to "he/she/you totally fucked him/her/you"?

I assume "they/we totally fucked" would be fine.

Like you mean coming from the lips of a neocon surveying the wreckage that is Iraq, the scales falling from his eyes as he murmers, "Oh man, we totally fucked up..."

Or coming from the lips of the rest of us, "Oh man, we're totally fucked..."

"to fuck up" is a separate verb from "to fuck." Also, the difference between active and passive voice is clear and decisive.

True.

78: More than the last time.

What of "I'll hook you up..."

And hookers! What about them?

84 "we totally fucked up" s/b "it's the biggest cock-up ever and we're all completely fucked."

At least, in a perfect world.

"to fuck up" is a separate verb from "to fuck."

Relevant.

And hookers! What about them?

Teo's getting desperate.

It happens. I figure if I keep commenting like this the English Courtesan will show up again.

Um, you're not really making much progress on that "keep commenting like this" plan, teo.

I decided I didn't actually want her to show up again.

I prefer details. Language like "hooking up" can't be used in my presence without me badgering for descriptive narrations of the event. Two people closing a door behind them at a party could mean anything from crying about a sad memory to ravenous against-the-wall fucking. I'd rather know which it is.

What if the person you're talking to knows nothing more than that the two people closed a door behind them?

Then they are obliged to confabulate.

3 is usage-correct. The trouble is that there needs to be a lower-limit on what constitutes a hookup -- as in a set of minimal requirements to seperate a hookup from a makeout. I propose the difference is oral sex. In a hookup there's oral sex; a makeout is up-to-oral-sex.

What about making out with through-the-clothes groping? I would not consider that hooking up unless it was behind closed doors, and that sort of thing tends to go on in the open. Maybe hooking up must include a) a closed door and b) something involving clothing removal/circumvention.

I think it's inarguable that any encounter where someone has an orgasm constitutes a hookup, oral sex or no, so maybe the minimum requirement for hookup is either orgasm or oral sex (with or without orgasm).

"Through-the-clothes groping" is immaterial.

that sort of thing tends to go on in the open

I must not be going to the right parties.

Leblanc, you're right. Oral sex-slash-organism is a clear-cut hookup. We agree. But should some furtive sex act -- the uncompleted genital stroke, for instance; or the sloppy tit-grab -- beneath that level count as a hookup? I say no: that's a makeout.

organism s/b orgasm. obviously.

But what of the artful tit-grab?

105: I guess it depends on what you mean by "uncompleted." If the stroke itself is incomplete, then yes, that is makeout territory. However, if by uncompleted you merely mean "not resulting in orgasm," then, depending on the extent of the stroking, it could reside in hookup territory. I say one minute of genital contact is the hookup floor function.

I don't know. I think if we're talking non-penetrative genital contact that doesn't result in orgasm, you've made out and not hooked up.

Only killer tomatoes are more feared than the sex-slash-organism.

Then we disagree. I revise my earlier stance; and I think, like many standards we might wish to establish, an intent model is a good one. I say that genital contact that a reasonable person would believe to be directed toward producing orgasm is a hookup rather than a makeout.

So a hookup is a matter of intent, rather than results? If that's the case, then I've fucked like a million girls.

You people, and particularly Spac, are all sluts.

Even me?

Mutual intent, spack. Fantasies don't count.

114: If Spack is reading leblanc's intent formulation correctly, especially you.

I don't think he is, though. See 115.

No, no, objective reading of intent, not subjective intent. That's what that "reasonable person" bit is all about, y'all.

And "mutual intent," well, if reciprocity of intent is required to make a thing come in being, no one's ever getting anywhere.

if reciprocity of intent is required to make a thing come in being, no one's ever getting anywhere

You really think so?

Reciprocity of intent doesn't need to be initially present, but it does need to develop at some point, I'd say.

Reciprocity of intent leads to consent leads to sex, right? At least, that's the way I rumble.

That was my impression. I don't know quite what leblanc means, though.

Leblanc is a rapist!

"a" s/b "the"

or, "teh"

"Through-the-clothes groping" is immaterial.

On the contrary, it could be any number of materials.

Silk, cotton-poly, teflon...

...an iridescent film shot through with spider webs of mucoid stuff in a curious shade of magenta...

I've fucked like a million girls

I'd heard that you throw like a girl, Spackerman, but you also fuck like a girl? Interesting.

Does he also cum like a girl?

Spackerman clearly needs a t-shirt. (Scroll down.)

(3), definitely. Pissed me the hell off because of the imprecision, but I've grown accustomed to it by now. Mind, "having a conversation with" is apparently a euphemism for oral sex in some circles, so who the fuck knows?