Casual Hookups to Formal Dates: Refining the Boundaries of the Sexual Double Standard

Hooking up, a popular type of sexual behavior among college students, has become a pathway to dating relationships. Based on open-ended narratives written by 273 undergraduates, we analyze how students interpreted a vignette describing a heterosexual hookup followed by a sexless first date. In contrast to the sexual script which holds that women want relationships more than sex and men care about sex more than relationships, students generally accorded women sexual agency and desire in the hookup and validated men\u27s post-hookup relationship interest. However, in explaining the sexless date, students typically reasoned the woman was being chaste and withholding sex to redeem her reputation whereas they often characterized the man\u27s abstinence in terms of a pity date. The findings underscore the tenacity of gendered sexual scripts around heterosexual dates and hookups but also reveal fissures and contradictions that suggest some changes to the sexual double standard

It\u27s Like Being In Church and Being On a Field Trip: The Date Versus Party Situation In College Students\u27 Accounts of Hooking Up

This article examines the importance of setting as a factor shaping college students\u27 dating and sexual behavior using a Goffmanian framework to explore how U.S. students interpret a vignette describing a casual heterosexual encounter at a party followed by a sexless dinner date. Rather than simply follow generalized cultural scripts, students indicate that college heterosexual encounters are guided by standardized patterns of behaviors based on the distinct settings and roles associated with each situation. Students view sexual behavior as appropriate to being a partygoer but unsuitable to being on a date. As such, hooking up with a stranger at a party can be more appropriate than having sex with the same person on a first date

Why aqueous alteration in asteroids was isochemical: high porosity≠high permeability

Carbonaceous chondrite meteorites are the most compositionally primitive rocks in the solar system, but the most chemically pristine (CI1 and CM2 chondrites) have experienced pervasive aqueous alteration, apparently within asteroid parent bodies. Unfractionated soluble elements suggest very limited flow of liquid water, indicting a closed-system at scales large than 100's μm, consistent with data from oxygen isotopes, and meteorite petrography. However, numerical studies persistently predict large-scale (10's km) water transport in model asteroids, either in convecting cells, or via ‘exhalation’ flow — an open-system at scales up to 10's km. These models have tended to use permeabilites in the range 10− 13 to 10− 11 m2. We show that the permeability of plausible chondritic starting materials lies in the range 10− 19 to 10− 17 m2 (0.1–10 μD): around six orders-of-magnitude lower than previously assumed. This low permeability is largely a result of the extreme fine grain-size of primitive chondritic materials. Applying these permeability estimates in numerical models, we predict very limited liquid water flow (distances of 100's µm at most), even in a high porosity, water-saturated asteroid, with a high thermal gradient, over millions of years. Isochemical alteration, with flow over minimal lengthscales, is not a special circumstance. It is inevitable, once we consider the fundamental material properties of these rocks. To achieve large-scale flow it would require average matrix grain sizes in primitive materials of 10's–100's μm — orders of magnitude larger than observed. Finally, in addition to reconciling numerical modelling with meteorite data, our work explains several other features of these enigmatic rocks, most particularly, why the most chemically primitive meteorites are also the most altered

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline