Hooking Up : Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus

by Kathleen A. Bogle

  Given that those who dated did not intend to marry, Waller argued that dating was dominated by “thrill seeking.” Men were often seeking some form of sexual gratification. Women, on the other hand, were often looking to have money spent on them, including expensive gifts.

  It is important to note the environment in which all of this took place. Waller’s study was conducted at Penn State, a large school, where most students lived on campus; half of the male students lived in fraternities, and most came from a middle- or upper-middle-class background. Although women started attending college in greater numbers during this period, there was still a six-to-one male-to-female ratio on campus at the time. Dating consisted of going to college dances, the movies, or to fraternity houses for Victrola dances and “necking.” A whole host of norms accompanied the phenomenon of dating. For instance, dating was almost exclusively carried on by fraternity men.

  Freshman men were not allowed (by tradition) to date coeds, and F RO M DAT I N G TO H O O K I N G U P

  15

  women from outside the university were “imported” for some of the bigger occasions on campus.

  Waller argued that dating on this campus took place under what he referred to as “the rating and dating complex.”20 Both men and women did not want to date someone who did not “rank.” Competition for dates was fierce, and the “Class A” men on the rating scale wanted to be sure only to be seen with “Class A” women, and vice versa. Students went to great lengths to rate high on the dating scale. For men, rating high depended on belonging to a top fraternity, and having good clothes, dancing skill, a good pick-up “line,” access to a car, and money to spend on dates. For women, rating high depended on getting a reputation for being a sought-after date.21 To ensure that they appeared to be a hot commodity, women avoided being seen too often with the same boy (so they did not scare off other potential dates).22 To remain in high standing, women consistently had to date Class A men only. Women also avoided drinking in groups or frequenting the beer parlors.

  Women’s prestige on campus would decline once they were no longer a fresh face on campus, due to indiscretions, or if they were too readily available for dates.23

  Peers were heavily involved in monitoring who was dating whom.

  In fact, some women did not date at all because the dates they could

  “get” were ridiculed by their peers. Waller noted that the involvement of peers combined with the system for dating on campus created antagonisms between the sexes. He attributed part of the reason for these antagonisms to the unbalanced sex ratio, which left many men shut out from the dating pool altogether. Additionally, Waller noted that this system was particularly difficult for those who rated low on the dating desirability scale. In other words, those who did not “rate” were often left behind.

  Waller acknowledged that, in some cases, dating led to true courtship and ultimately to marriage. However, the system of dating made this outcome unlikely. Instead, Waller argued that dating often became exploitative.24 Men exploited women for sexual favors, and women exploited men by “gold digging.” Waller believed that exploitation occurs only when one party is masking his or her true intentions. Thus, if both parties realized the relationship was not “going anywhere,” then the relationship was not exploitative. However, in most cases, one party was more interested in the continuation of the relationship than the other. This created a scenario where one person could 16

  F RO M DAT I N G TO H O O K I N G U P

  get what he or she wanted from the other by promising to keep the relationship going. Waller concluded that with heterosexual dating relationships, we may surmise that the party with the least interest in continuing the relationship has the most control.

  Dating in the 1920s and 1930s was largely a competitive enterprise.

  In fact, dating was secondary to “rating” or popularity. One dated in order to rate among one’s peers.25 To achieve the goal of “rating,” one would date as many members of the opposite sex as possible as long as those individuals were believed to enhance one’s popularity rather than detract from it. At this point in history, it was seen as scarcely better to date one person than to date none at all.26 In other words, most young people looked down on exclusive dating relationships before one was ready to get engaged and marry.

  One’s popularity as a date was not determined mostly by intrinsic qualities of the individual. Instead, popularity, which was largely defined by the peer culture, determined who “made the cut” in terms of being a worthwhile date. At some schools, rating was not merely determined informally by word of mouth. Rather, in some cases, lists would be floated around college campuses to help determine one’s dating value. For instance, some women at the University of Michigan rated the “BMOCs” (i.e., Big Men on Campus) according to their campus dating stock. “Those qualifying were rated either A—smooth; B—OK; C—pass in a crowd; D

  —semi-goon; or E—spook.”27 This list was used as a guide for women on campus to determine whether they should accept a date or not. Whether or not such lists were taken seriously by college women, the fact that these lists were created provides evidence of how much peers were involved in rating and monitoring each other’s dating partners.

  THE DATING ERA—“GOING STEADY”

  Despite the prominence of the norms discussed above throughout the 1920s and 1930s, they did not last. Dating continued; however, the onset and aftermath of World War II in the 1940s led to a new version of the dating script.28 During this time, men literally became a scarce resource.

  Millions of men were now in the armed forces and went overseas during the war and, unfortunately, thousands of men never made it back home alive. Awareness of this scarcity of eligible men changed the tone of the dating scene. Popularity in terms of getting the greatest number of F RO M DAT I N G TO H O O K I N G U P

  17

  high-ranking dates possible went out with the war. In its place came an increasing focus on exclusive dating or “going steady” with one person.

  College girls who reveled in the number of dates they went on with a variety of partners in the 1920s and 1930s were replaced by college girls hoping to be “pinned” to one fraternity man or hoping to be engaged soon to their soldier fighting overseas.29 Dating took on a more serious tone for men during this era as well. Men who wanted to be “big men on campus” during the rating and dating era now longed to settle down.30

  The end of World War II ushered in a period of economic prosper-ity in the United States, which also had an effect on dating. Employment opportunities and a booming economy gave young men the financial stability to afford to marry sooner than they could in the previous era.31 It is well documented that in the years after the end of World War II, the median age of marriage dropped, the number of children per family grew, and, in general, a heightened focus on a harmonious do-mestic life took hold.32

  Like the previous rating and dating script, the going-steady era carried its own set of conventions. “Steadies” often gave each other something to wear to indicate to onlookers that they were “taken.” Such symbols were the youths’ answer to a wedding ring. For example, a young man might give his steady girlfriend his class ring to wear or the letter sweater he received from his participation in athletics. Local conventions varied on this point, with some steadies exchanging rings, the girl wearing the boy’s ID bracelet, or even both steadies donning matching

  “steady jackets.”33 One might wonder whether such conventions were followed in order to make it easy for those who were unattached to know who was “off limits,” or whether this practice was a way to indicate who had the status of a steady dating relationship—or perhaps both.

  In addition to symbols of steady relationships, other conventions were widely practiced. Specifically, young men were expected to take their steady girlfriends on a certain number of dates per week. This practice manifested itself with somewhat different local norms in terms of the exact number.34 However, as in the rating and dating er
a, steady dating was not expected to lead directly to marriage. There could be many steadies along the way before a mate was chosen.35

  The going-steady era has been immortalized in films like Grease, which portrays students in the senior year of high school in the 1950s.

  Many elements of the going-steady script are brought to life here, such as young women wearing their steady’s ring or letterman’s sweater, 18

  F RO M DAT I N G TO H O O K I N G U P

  and having Saturday night dates at a dance, malt shop, or drive-in movie. The film also depicts the sexual norms of the time period with the “good girl” lead character, Sandy, fighting off advances from her boyfriend, Danny.

  CALLING VERSUS DATING

  In addition to the changing norms for how young men and women got together and formed relationships between the calling and dating eras, there were corresponding changes in power, peer influence, and degrees of sexual intimacy. During the calling era, young women (and their mothers) controlled the invitation to “call.” With dating, it was exclusively the man’s right to ask a woman out on a date in order to enjoy the pleasure of her company for an evening. This represents a fundamental shift in power: men were now in control. This shift was likely due to the monetary aspect of dating.36 Men were expected to pay for themselves and their date. At this time, it was assumed that women either earned less money than men or had no money of their own at all.

  Thus, it was the man’s responsibility to treat the woman to dinner, the theater, or some other form of entertainment. But with this ability to pay came power. Men had the power to ask women out. Women, of course, had the power to decline an invitation, but could not initiate a date without risking their reputation as respectable young women. Additionally, men had the power to decide when and where the date would take place. Since he was paying, he had to decide what he felt like doing for the date, what he could afford, and how much the woman was

  “worth” in terms of spending.37

  Power was not the only thing that changed with the dating era; peers became increasingly important as well. With calling, the family had had the greatest influence over the choice of a gentleman caller.

  Dating, on the other hand, moved into the public sphere, at least partially away from the watchful eyes of parents. This was particularly the case on the college campus, where parents were even farther removed from the process. In the absence of parents, peers began to exert greater influence over one’s choice of a dating partner. Furthermore, since dating had largely become somewhat of a popularity contest, it became important to follow the dominant script of the times (e.g., going steady) in order to be part of the “in” crowd.

  F RO M DAT I N G TO H O O K I N G U P

  19

  As intimate relationships moved away from parental supervision, increasing sexual intimacy entered the equation. During the dating era, particularly when couples went steady, relationships lasted long enough for the couple to become increasingly close. With this closeness came increased opportunity for sex. However, it was not only steadies who engaged in sexual behavior; there had been sexual interaction among those in the rating and dating era also.38 Although no nationally representative samples that documented the sexual behavior of American youth were available, smaller-scale studies and an onslaught of publications (both scholarly and mainstream media) dealt with sexual behavior. These sources indicate that “necking” and “petting” were the norm among youth.39 Precise definitions of these practices do not exist, but necking was generally believed to include “stimulation” from the

  “neck up” with the “main areas of sexual stimulation remaining covered by clothing.”40 With necking, the neck, lips, and ears are “utilized extensively as sexual objects.”41 Petting involved greater sexual intimacy and included “literally every caress known to married couples but does not include complete sexual intercourse.”42

  Both necking and petting likely occurred even before the dating system took hold in the 1920s.43 Evidence of this can be found in the love letters of courtship partners in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.44 However, the importance of these sexual acts lies not so much in the acts themselves, but in their increasing visibility and acceptance among an emerging youth culture.45 As the twentieth century progressed, necking and petting on dates, especially with steadies, became a hallmark of the youth dating experience. Thus, the dating script, particularly during the 1940s and 1950s, dictated a greater degree of sexual intimacy than the calling era had allowed.

  Regarding premarital sexual intercourse, evidence suggests this happened during the dating era, but it was not the norm.46 In a particularly ingenious quantitative study, conducted in 1984, sociologist Martin Whyte surveyed women in the greater Detroit metropolitan area about their dating, mating, and marriage experiences. The study focused on women between the ages of 18 and 75 who indicated that they were currently or had previously been married. The women were placed into three major categories: prewar brides, marrying in the years 1925–1944; baby boom brides, marrying in 1945–1964; and those who first wed during the years 1965–1984. These data give us the clearest sense of how much change has taken place since dating began. Despite 20

  F RO M DAT I N G TO H O O K I N G U P

  some continuity across time periods, Whyte documented what he refers to as an “intimacy revolution” among those in the most recent cohort.47

  “Among the prewar brides, only 24% had already lost their virginity (prior to marriage), according to our rough estimate. For the baby boom era brides this figure increases to 51% and in the post-1965 cases to 72%.”48 Whyte favors the term “intimacy revolution” to “sexual revolution” because, while the majority of women in the latest cohort had premarital sex, this act was often taking place in the context of a steady relationship and in many cases was happening with one’s eventual spouse. Although there was a significant increase in women having sexual intercourse before meeting their eventual husband, or “pre-premarital sex,” in all three cohorts the majority of women had premarital sex with their eventual husband only.49 Only 3 percent of prewar brides and 17 percent of baby boom brides had sex with someone other than their eventual husband. This percentage rose to 33 percent among brides in the most recent (post-1965) generation.50

  As these data show, dating and moderate levels of sexual intimacy, especially necking and petting, were an increasingly common part of the youth experience from the early part of the century through at least the mid-1960s. As the twentieth century progressed, greater sexual intimacy emerged, but for those in the mainstream this sexual intimacy was generally restricted to intimate relationships where a likely outcome was marriage. However, the custom of dating in order to get to know someone of the opposite sex en route to potential sexual intimacy has not remained the norm among American youth. In the latter part of the twentieth century, a shift was underway, particularly on college campuses, which allowed a new script to emerge.

  THE EMERGENCE OF THE HOOKING-UP ERA

  Despite the dominance of dating from the 1920s, eventually changes in society led to yet another shift in the script. In the mid-1960s, changes in the way young people were getting together had begun to occur.51

  This shift away from traditional dating was particularly apparent on college campuses.52 College students began socializing in groups, rather than pair dating, and “partying” with large numbers of friends and classmates. Parties represented more than just a social outing; they became the setting for potential sexual encounters. At parties, students F RO M DAT I N G TO H O O K I N G U P

  21

  generally consumed alcohol while trying to meet new people with whom they could potentially become sexually intimate or to initiate encounters with classmates they already knew.53 In addition to the sexual possibilities, parties were a place to find a potential romantic partner and begin a new relationship. Is it possible that the mid-1960s marks the end of formal dating and the emergence of hooking up on the college campus? I believe that a number of
sociohistorical trends, both cultural and demographic, that coincide with this time period suggest that this is the case.

  The 1960s are widely known as a time of great change throughout our society, particularly among youth. The advent and increased availability of the birth control pill coupled with a liberalization of attitudes toward sexuality led to changes in what was socially acceptable to do sexually. In fact, intercourse became thought of as a sign of intimacy and physical pleasure rather than merely a means of reproduction.54

  With these reproductive and attitudinal changes came changes in sexual behavior. Precisely how dramatic the change in sexual behavior was is the subject of much debate. However, most scholars agree that there was a discernible change in sexual behavior. In other words, sexual intercourse prior to marriage was no longer taboo but was becoming the norm for both women and men.55 Along with the increase in sexual intercourse prior to marriage came an increase in other avenues of sexual expression for heterosexuals. Sexual acts that had previously been reserved for marriage (and after intercourse had taken place) were integrated into earlier “bases” of the sexual script.56 Specifically, oral sex became an increasingly common element of the sexual script throughout the second half of the twentieth century, particularly among well-educated whites.57 Thus, the sexual possibilities for unmarried heterosexuals were expanding.

  A second source of cultural change that could be relevant to the emergence of the hookup culture is the women’s movement. Feminism has fundamentally affected the roles available to men and women in many aspects of life, including the areas of relationships and family.58 In addition to the variety of roles and choices available to men and women in adult life, there are also more choices available to boys and girls throughout their childhood and young adulthood. This seems particularly true in the area of sexuality. Feminists have promoted the idea that women should be free to be sexual both in and out of marriage and that not only “bad” girls like sex.59 Furthermore, feminists have challenged 22