Hooking Up : Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus
Page 2
I conducted interviews with students and alumni from two different types of universities to ensure that the findings were not limited to one type of campus or geographic area. The universities are in different states; one is a large state university on the East Coast, the other is a smaller faith-based (Roman Catholic) university in the Northeast. There are many similarities between the two institutions. Most students on both campuses are white and middle or upper-middle class. Both universities are considered primarily residential, with the majority of students living on campus or in nearby apartments or houses with fellow students. Despite these similarities there are also key differences. One university is public, the other is private. The state university has more than three times the number of full-time undergraduates as the private university. There are also significant differences in terms of campus culture and policies for students living in residences; for example, the faith-based university has a rule against having sexual intercourse in university-owned resident facilities.
I began by asking the people I interviewed some background questions, and then I posed many questions about their experiences and observations of how men and women meet, get together, and form relationships. Although most people I spoke with were similar in terms of race and class, I tried to interview a diverse group of students in terms of gender, grade level, and major. I also made a conscious effort to interview different “types” of students. For example, I interviewed some students who were in fraternities/sororities and very much a part of the stereotypical, alcohol-centered college social life, as well as some students who neither drank alcohol nor attended parties. For the alumni portion of the study, I interviewed people from many different professions. Additionally, I have spoken to hundreds of college students about these issues as well as many twenty-something singles.
I N T RO D U C T I O N
7
These conversations have taken place everywhere from bars to living rooms and from classrooms to dormitories.
Like most studies, my findings do not necessarily speak to the experiences of all college students or recent graduates. Nor can I say what percentage of college students (or young alumni) are hooking up, or how often they do it. What my study can show is what hooking up means, how it works on the college campuses I studied, and how it changes after college.
SPEAKING OF HOOKING UP
“Hooking up” is not a new term. Although media references did not begin until around the turn of the twenty-first century, there is evidence that the term “hooking up”—and presumably the practice—was being used by college students across the country since at least the mid-1980s.26 But “hooking up” is a slang term and slang by definition is an informal and nonstandard language subject to arbitrary change, so it is not surprising that there is some confusion and disagreement over the meaning of the term. In fact, the young people I spoke with use many slang terms to describe their intimate interactions. By examining the phrases they use in context, from “hooking up” to “friends with benefits” to “booty call,” I discovered not only what they mean in general, but also that they mean different things to different people, particularly men compared to women.
My challenge as a researcher is being able to find the right language to explain what I uncovered about these relationships. This has been a particular challenge with regard to hooking up. Can hooking up be characterized as a “phenomenon” or is it a “system”? Perhaps a more sociological way of talking about it would be to refer to it as a culture (i.e., the hookup culture on campus). Rather than choosing among them, throughout the chapters that follow I use these terms interchangeably to describe what hooking up is and how it differs from traditional dating. Ultimately, I found that one of the most useful ways of comparing today’s hooking-up culture with the dating era is to look at each as a “script.”
Sociologists believe that how a person behaves in a social setting can resemble an actor following a script.27 In other words, the cultural norms that we live by can dictate how people act in a given situation. In 8
I N T RO D U C T I O N
their classic sociological analysis, John H. Gagnon and William Simon argue that sexual behavior is socially learned.28 Contrary to biologists and psychologists, who often discuss sexuality in terms of “drives” and
“urges,” Gagnon and Simon believe that individuals internalize what they call “sexual scripts” in order to interact with the opposite sex.29 For instance, in the United States, sexual scripts suggest that sexual interaction begins with kissing, then sexual touching, and ultimately culminates in sexual intercourse (i.e., the “bases”).30 What is called “scripting theory” not only sheds light on the content and progression of sexual interaction, but also on the appropriate scenarios defined by society for sexual behavior to ensue. Thus, cultural norms can dictate a “script” for when, where, why, and how sexually intimate interaction can occur.
Without these scripts, sexual behavior can lose context and meaning.31
These sexual scripts are different for men and women and, some sociologists argue, largely determine the roles men and women play during sexual interaction.32 Traditionally, men take on the role of aggressor while women take on the role of gatekeeper. Men initiate sexual interaction; women decide if men will “get any” sexual contact and, if so, how much women will “put out.” There are also culturally prescribed roles that both men and women play in seeking potential sexual partners.33 The roles that men and women play are shaped by cultural influences in the context of both a specific social setting, such as the college campus, as well as a specific historical time period.34
In the next chapter, I will detail how from the 1920s through the mid-1960s the traditional sexual script dictated that dating was the means for men and women to become sexually intimate. The dating script permeated all social classes, including middle- and upper-class men and women attending college.35 However, in the second half of the twentieth century, a series of changes in the culture, as well as in the environment of the college campus, created the possibility for a new sexual script to emerge. These changes set the stage for the new hookup scene to emerge and flourish, particularly on college campuses.
PLAN OF THE BOOK
A basic sociological concept is that individuals are affected by their social world. The people who are coming of age during the hookup era are not only drawing on their own moral compass to guide their intimate I N T RO D U C T I O N
9
behavior; they are also profoundly influenced by their social setting (e.g., the college campus), their peers, and the times. In other words, college students and young alumni are not merely acting in isolation; society is providing a script for them to follow. Preliminary studies indicate that hooking up is the dominant script on campuses today, but this does not mean that everyone is following this script in the same way, or even at all. What it does mean is that there is a way of getting together that exists at the center of college life. Although those in the margins are many, they still recognize the dominant script and are affected by it.
In the chapters that follow, I will explore how one’s environment affects how young singles begin sexual and romantic relationships both in college and after. The best place to start understanding the way men and women get together today is by looking at how they got together in the past. In chapter 2, I will look at the rise and fall of dating in the early twentieth century through the mid-1960s and the ensuing rise of the hookup.
With this foundation in place, I will let the words of the men and women I talked with illuminate their intimate lives. In chapter 3, I describe the hookup scene on campus, showing how it happens, with whom, and under what circumstances. I also explore the sexual norms of hooking up, highlighting how they differ from the dating era. In chapter 4, I will discuss the features of the modern college campus that made it conducive to the emergence of a hookup culture. I also consider how other factors, such as fraternity/sorority membership and alcohol use, affect participation in hooking up
. In chapter 5, I examine how college students are influenced by their peers. Specifically, I will consider how students’ perception of what others are doing sexually affects their own behavior. In chapter 6, I focus on how participation in the hookup culture is different for men and women. I also examine how the traditional sexual double standard applies to the hookup culture.
In chapter 7, I turn to a discussion of life after college. I present alumni accounts of how the singles’ scene changes once students leave campus. I explain why men and women favor traditional dating once they are situated in a new environment. In chapter 8, I conclude by comparing and contrasting the traditional dating script with the modern hookup script.
As you begin reading this book, try to put aside what you have heard in the media about hooking up. Before deciding whether you believe hooking up is something to be concerned about or celebrated, let’s 10
I N T RO D U C T I O N
first look at what it is and how it came to be. In my own analysis, I found some aspects of hooking up to be less troubling than is often assumed, and other aspects very troubling. In the end, the script in any given period should not be analyzed for the purpose of deeming it “good” or
“bad,” but to understand the role it plays in our lives. I know that what I present here will not be the last word on hooking up, but I hope it will make a significant contribution to the growing scholarship in this area.
I have spent the last six years immersed in all things related to hooking up and dating. By talking with college students and “twenty-something” college graduates, I have come to understand how private matters are part of something bigger. That is, our personal stories of sexual encounters and relationships are inextricably linked to the social context in which we find ourselves. Although the accounts of the men and women who talked with me cannot capture the experiences of all college students and young alumni, I hope that by listening to them the reader will take away a deeper understanding of how modern relationships begin in college and beyond.
2
From Dating to Hooking Up
In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking Now heaven knows anything goes . . .
The world has gone mad today and good’s bad today And black’s white today and day’s night today When most guys today that women prize today Are just silly gigolos.
The lyrics of this Cole Porter song titled “Anything Goes” are telling.
They speak of a lax in society’s propriety and values; the irony is that the song dates back to the 1930s. Messages like this one convey a sentiment that rings true in any time period: change is scary. As society tries to come to terms with the changing mores of today’s youth, there is a tendency to characterize the change as frightening. In one magazine ed-itor’s opinion, adolescent morality may be “tumbling toward Shanghai on a sailor’s holiday.”1 The implication is that the ways of the past were superior.
Many media pundits have called for a return to a more traditional style of courtship. Again, the gist is that the old way is the better way. I agree that it is helpful to examine today’s hookup culture in light of the dating era. However, we should take a closer look at what young people were actually doing in the past before we long for a return to it.
Uncovering how young people became sexually intimate in the past is a difficult task given that information on the intimate aspects of life did not exist prior to the twentieth century.2 What we do know about earlier Western societies is that the process for most young middle- and upper-class people to find potential mates was heavily monitored by parents, their families, and their communities.3 This close supervision ensured two things. First, there was a limit to how much sexual interaction would be permitted, with most of society forbidding intercourse until marriage or at least until the family had approved an 11
12
F RO M DAT I N G TO H O O K I N G U P
engagement.4 Both the community at large and the family had a vested interest in ensuring that a child was not born out of wedlock.5
Second, familial supervision was deemed necessary in order to ensure that the mate chosen was suitable (in terms of social class, etc.) and had potential as a marriage partner.6 The mate selection process was heavily supervised by parents and other adults in part because practical considerations were of the utmost importance in finding a mate. For example, men were not considered eligible for marriage until they demonstrated that they could financially support a wife and family.7
However, in post–Industrial Revolution Western societies, romantic feelings were given greater importance. Over time, romantic feelings began largely to outweigh material considerations in the search for a potential partner.8 Romantic feelings are greatly affected by sexual attraction; therefore, sexual attraction became an increasingly important aspect of intimate partnering throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.9
Over the past hundred years, there have been three distinct scripts guiding young men and women’s intimate lives, each emerging during a period of transition. I will examine each one, but let’s begin by turning back the clock to the beginning of the twentieth century to see how young people at that time got together and ultimately formed relationships.
THE CALLING ERA
According to social historian Beth Bailey, for the first decade of the twentieth century “respectable” young men would “call” on respectable young women at their home. The object of the call was to spend time with the woman of interest as well as her family, especially her mother.10 Many rigid guidelines were followed during the “calling” era. Young women and their mothers controlled the practice of calling.
That is, they and only they could invite a young man to come to their home for a calling visit. Such a visit typically consisted of spending time in the woman’s parlor with her and her family. During the visit, the young woman might play the piano to entertain her guest. The young man and woman might be given some degree of privacy for part of the visit, particularly if the mother knew her daughter really “liked” the young man.11
F RO M DAT I N G TO H O O K I N G U P
13
A perfect illustration of the calling script can be found in the Christmas classic, It’s a Wonderful Life. In the film, the female lead, Mary Hatch (played by Donna Reed) has had a crush on George Bailey (played by Jimmy Stewart) since childhood. One scene depicts an evening when George calls on Mary at home, where she lives with her mother. George wears a suit for the occasion, and Mary receives her visitor wearing a pretty dress. When George arrives, Mary invites him to sit with her in the parlor so they can listen to records. Since Mary’s mother does not approve of George as a suitor for her daughter, she repeatedly tries to interrupt the visit by spying on them from the top of the staircase in her bathrobe. Mary’s mother demands to know: “What are you two doing down there?” Mary, irritated by her mother’s persistent meddling, teases her by responding: “He’s making violent love to me, Mother!” Her joke shocks not only her mother, but her gentleman caller, too.
As entrenched as the calling system was among middle- and upperclass circles, this script did not work for the lower or working classes.
Most members of the lower class lacked the facilities to entertain young men in their homes. Thus, lower-class youth ultimately stopped trying to aspire to the middle- and upper-class system of calling. Instead, they began going out somewhere together, which became known as going on a “date.” The term “date” can be traced to the late nineteenth century, when it was first used as a slang term by some in the lower class.12
It referred to occasions on which a man obtained sexual favors from a lower-class woman.13 Later, the term spread beyond this narrow, illicit meaning and the more modern use of the word took hold.
THE DATING ERA—“RATING AND DATING”
The phenomenon of dating did not remain exclusively in the lower class for long. Dating emerged next among rebellious upper-class youth who began going out, away from the watchful eyes of
parents. A date might consist of a woman dining out alone with a man or going to the theater.14 Regardless of the precise location of the date, it required that a man and a woman “went somewhere” outside the home in order to enjoy each other’s company.15 Dating was not a matter of upper-class rebellion only, but also grew out of changes in society. Women at this time in history were becoming increasingly a part of the public sphere, 14
F RO M DAT I N G TO H O O K I N G U P
with growing numbers attending college, taking jobs, and in general becoming more a part of the public world that was still largely considered the province of men. With this increased access to the public sphere, dating began to supplant calling as a way for young people who were interested in each other to spend time together. In addition to women’s newfound freedom from parental and community supervision, the advent of the automobile was a major factor in creating and maintaining this new arrangement.16 Young men’s access to cars made the idea of taking a woman “out on the town” increasingly possible.
From its inception in the first decade of the twentieth century, dating spread throughout U.S. culture until about the mid-1920s, when it became a “universal custom in America.”17 In other words, by the 1920s dating was the dominant script for how young people would become sexually intimate and form relationships. Willard Waller’s classic sociological study on dating first revealed many of the norms of dating on the college campus. Waller examined the dating customs of college students at Penn State University in the 1920s and 1930s.18 To begin, Waller defined dating by distinguishing it from courtship. Courtship involves people of the opposite sex getting to know each other en route to marriage. Dating, on the other hand, is not true courtship because the intent is not to marry.19 Thus, Waller characterized dating as a sort of “dal-liance relationship.” These relationships were particularly prevalent in college because students (especially men) wanted to delay marriage until they graduated and were settled into their postcollege careers.