Hakim on hookup culture and casual sex

This is why I only have ranked sex

It sounds like a conclusion that is not easily backed by research. "Psychologically destructive" is incredibly vague, as is "the effect is cumulative" (it is confusing to even guess at what this is supposed to mean - that with each new partner, your mental health gets worse? there are absolutely people who have had many casual partners and are doing fine, and implying each new casual one makes it worse sounds vaguely patriarchal).
A lot of it most likely comes down to how a person views the sex and what they're doing it for. For example, if they're using it to achieve some fleeting sense of conquest or avoid confronting attachment issues, that's obviously going to be a strain on them. But that does not cover how everyone is going to see it.
- I did some reading in the meantime since I saw this post, and I'm surprised that there is alot of truth in what he is saying.
  His argument still has a patriarchal and prudist tinge to it.
  Edit: Why the downvotes? This is kinda reactionary.
  
  FWIW, I was not one who downvoted you. However, I am doubtful of the claim that there's truth in what he's saying. Not because of any suspicion toward you, but because I have trouble believing there's a clear way to frame "casual sex -> negative outcomes" in the first place, much less draw more than shaky causal links. At the offset, it would be a difficult thing to observe and study beyond (limited usefulness) self-reporting. And there are problems sometimes with psych studies that are like "we studied a few tens of college students" and it turns out it's highly relative to that region and age group they studied.
  On top of that, there is reason to be doubtful in general about positions that try to make scientific the taboo of sleeping around, considering the already-existing stigma it often has (is it coming from a null hypothesis place where it's trying to prove that there is no special link between casual sex and negative outcomes, or is it trying to use science to reinforce the taboo).
  And as someone else pointed out, since you didn't say where you did your reading, I can't check for myself and apply these doubts to the same sources. I suppose I could do my own web searches, but I might not find the same sources and might overly focus on ones that reinforce my doubts rather than giving a fair look to the contrary.
  
  You did some reading... But you didn't tell us what you read so we can more easily investigate the literature for ourselves. That may be why you caught some downvotes.

what research? where is it? who performed it? how is "casual sex" defined?
- I asked him, but he hasn’t responded yet. Once he does, I will upgrade the image on the post to include the response
- https://search.ononoki.org/search?q=casual+sex+is+psychologically+destructive
  
  kinda funny that this is at the top of that search

Historically psych research has ranged from wildly pro-sex, treat a handjob like a handshake to no one should ever have sex other than to procreate. Saying ‘the research is very clear’ is just wrong. In general, the number of topics that can be considered very clear in psychological research can be counted on one hand.
Personally I don’t think any of it is meaningful outside societal context. In a very conservative culture, having casual sex could lead to judgements from third parties that significantly impact one’s life. Hard to say that’s the fault of casual sex more than it is a case of violating a taboo like any other. I don’t know of anywhere this is currently the case, but I think we could imagine another ‘sexually liberated’ culture where not participating in casual sex could lead to suspicion among others pretty plausibly too.

How the hell do you scientifically measure what is casual sex and what is not
- I wager that it's likely a spectrum, but more specifically, hooking up casually is different than not-casually. There is some middle-ground.

frequent reminder not to idolize anyone, especially a youtuber.
Hakim is not correct on this and he's just giving off self report bitter vibes lol.
- I've read some scientific reports/articles about this, and I was surprised that Hakim is largely right. Or at least, alot of it is right.
  That being said, it feels weird for him to comment on.
  
  I wouldn't pay too much attention to psychology studies. Not to harp on the "psychology isn't science" shtick, but the fact is, it is extremely difficult to run studies on these kinds of things. Usually it boils down to mass questionaires that usually disregard other factors. Psychology studies are the epitome of "correlation does not mean causation", and one should be very mindful of that before drawing conclusions.
  There's probably destructive psychological effects associated with repeated casual sex, but is it the act itself causing it or other underlying factors?
  
  Highly skeptical, link the studies.

Breaking News: Iraqi Muslim Doctor Marxist-Leninist has a different view on casual sex than Anglosphere Internet Marxist-Leninists; Anglosphere Internet Marxist-Leninists are compelled to opine that he's wrong.
- I'm not quite sure how to take this framing. I can't speak for others, but the main problem I had was the claim that "the research is absolutely clear on this" (it seems to be mixed) and the use of vague generalizing language to say why and how it's a problem. My criticism primarily had the west and its research in mind, and patriarchal thinking generally, which is a problem in many countries including places like the US. If there is research in other cultures and languages that tells a much more clear picture about "casual sex", I will happily consider it, but am only fluent in the one language sadly, so it would be difficult to find such things, much less understand them.
  Basically, I'm not sure what him being, as you say, an Iraqi Muslim Doctor Marxist-Leninist, has to do with this. He even made a point of saying it's not about "prudeness" and that there are "secular arguments for general social and sexual modesty." Between that and the focus on what "research" says, he appears to be arguing within the context of secular science, not within a religious basis, so isn't it only natural for his claim to be addressed in that context?

Bit of a weird take by Hakim. There is an argument to be made about how we, especially in the west, view sex and casual hookups but saying it is psychologically destructive is just nonsense. There's nothing wrong with having casual sex with consenting adults regardless of if you know them or if you just met them. Don't let some random YouTuber guilt trip you into some other idea.
- Aren't you Dutch? I heard the Netherlands was one of the most "sex positive" places on the planet.
  
  I am and I guess that is (or was) true. I mean that's how I was raised at least: love who you want however you want as long as there is consent (and legal age of course). Though The Netherlands has gotten far more conservative over the last few years sadly.

I'm non-binary. Am I thus immune to the psychologically destructive effects?
- Another NB win

Thanks, but I don't need a youtuber saying what is and isn't "psychologically destructive" for me. I've had plenty of casual encounters and I actually think that if most of my serious relationships were actually just casual encounters I would be a lot better off "mentally".
So, I'd say the opposite. Committed relationships can be terrifying, destructive and can change you entirely as a person as that is what they demand if you want to improve yourself for the other person and all of that could still be for nothing other than yourself when the other person decides they're tired/bored of you. At least with a casual encounter, there isn't anything expected on the table nor anything emotional at least for me.
Does the West need a better hook-up culture? Yes. Otherwise though, if he is offering "personal opinions" based upon constantly changing psych research then I think I'll just tuck it in the "Youtuber Takes" pocket.

Surely the action of inserting unfamiliar penis into unfamiliar vagina isn't mentally destructive. If there's truth to these statements, I think it'd have a lot more to do with your relationship to sex and your own self confidence/worth. And I could see that - sex/orgasms are extremely powerful reward systems within our brain that can easily reinforce negative behaviors or thoughts.

I'm not a doctor, so I lean towards Hakim being correct on this, and I'm sure that what he is saying is very likely true.
This feels slightly weird for him to comment on. And it still seems like prudeness.
That all being said, I can imagine that "hooking up" in a socialist society, where everyone's needs and most desires are taken care of, would be wildly more different and healthier than in a capitalist dog-eat-dog society.

All I can say is that plenty of people should think less with their genitals.

Welp, he's just repeating what his church or whatever says. Casual sex works great for some people, not so much for others. Some people can tell what works for them, others have to go find out what they like best.
But one thing it is not: psychological destructive. Bad people in your life can be though. Like people who confidently state that kind of #####t. Exposure to ######t I suppose you could consider cumulative.
- Why did you censor your comment?
  
  Personal preference