5. Since the inception of dating in the early part of the twentieth century, it has been the man’s responsibility to initiate the date, pick the woman up in his car, and pay for any costs incurred during the course of the date (Bailey 1988).
6. There may be other times at which men and women choose to engage in hookup encounters when the opportunity (i.e., “campus circumstance”) presents itself. For instance, many young alumni go to reunion events where alcohol is served and many familiar faces are present. This atmosphere might also be conducive to hooking up, although none of the men and women I spoke with mentioned it.
7. I am thankful to Rob Palkovitz, a member of the Individual and Family Studies Department at the University of Delaware, for reviewing my man-uscript and suggesting the concept of “script-switching.” This concept is anal-ogous to what Elijah Anderson has dubbed “code switching.” This refers to inner-city youth living by the “code of the street” to survive when interacting with their peers in public, while switching to a more polite form of interaction around teachers, close friends, and family members (Anderson 1999).
8. The fact that men want different qualities in potential partners after college illustrates Blumer’s (1986) idea of the changing meaning of social objects. During college, many men view women as “sex objects.” After college, when more men are looking for serious romantic relationships, they view women as potential marriage partners.
9. Although I did not ask alumni direct questions about the use of dating Web sites, a couple of people mentioned using them or having friends who did.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 8
1. Coontz 1992.
2. For example, see Glenn and Marquardt (2001).
3. Although Whyte (1990), in his quantitative study of women in Detroit, examined changes and continuities in dating throughout most of the twentieth century, he did not consider the contemporary hookup scene on the college campus.
4. Skipper and Nass 1966.
5. Bailey 1988.
6. Gagnon and Simon 1987.
7. This finding confirms what previous researchers have found (see Glenn and Marquardt 2001; Paul, McManus, and Hayes 2000; Williams 1998).
N OT E S TO C H A P T E R 8
207
8. Whyte 1990. See also Kinsey 1953.
9. In fact, Paul, McManus, and Hayes (2000) found that 30.4 percent of the college students in their study had engaged in at least one hookup that culminated in sexual intercourse. This finding is particularly interesting when one considers that the definition of hooking up employed by Paul, McManus, and Hayes referred to encounters with a stranger or brief acquaintance (or what interviewees in my sample referred to as “random” hookups).
10. Rubin 1990.
11. Carpenter 2005.
12. Reiss 1997; Harding and Jencks 2003.
13. Laumann et al. 1994.
14. Those born between 1933 and 1942 had their first experience of intercourse at approximately 18, while the age for those born 20 to 30 years later decreased by six months (Laumann et al. 1994).
15. Laumann et al. 1994.
16. See Hollander (1997) for a discussion of how different religious affilia-tions (i.e., Catholics and “mainstream” Protestants versus conservative or fun-damentalist Christians) affect attitudes on premarital sex.
17. Rubin 1990, 46.
18. See Carpenter (2005) for more on how many people view virginity as a stigma.
19. See Martin and Hummer 1989; Boswell and Spade 1996; Sanday 1992.
20. Bailey 1988; Whyte 1990. See also Thornton (1990).
21. See King and Christensen (1983) for a discussion of the stages in dating relationships.
22. Women were advised to avoid kissing on the first date (Duvall 1958).
23. Bailey 1988.
24. Goffman 1977.
25. Despite the fact that sexual intercourse is expected in exclusive relationships, some research indicates that a sizable percentage of college couples are not having intercourse. Specifically, Glenn and Marquardt (2001) found that 24 percent of the college women they surveyed had a boyfriend but had never had sexual intercourse.
26. Horowitz 1987; Moffatt 1989; Strouse 1987.
27. Duvall 1958.
28. The expectation that the man is responsible for paying for the date is tied, in part, to the relative economic positions of men and women during the 1920s, when dating became the dominant script for young heterosexual interactions throughout the United States.
29. There is no doubt that some college students feel more welcome than others at campus parties and nearby bars. Recall from chapter 4 that minority 208
N OT E S TO C H A P T E R 8
students as well as gay and lesbian students were far less involved with the alcohol-centered hookup scene on campus.
30. In Waller’s (1937) classic study of the dating script at Penn State University, he found that fraternity men dominated the dating scene, while freshman men were generally blocked from dating co-eds. This restriction was not placed on freshman males by the administration; rather, upperclassmen attempted to combat their institution’s unfavorable sex ratio (six men for every woman) by excluding some of the “competition” from participating at all. Although women, at least those at Penn State, had a much more favorable sex ratio on their side, there were other issues that might prevent them from participating in the dating scene. For instance, a woman who did not meet the standard of feminine beauty might find herself “waiting for the phone to ring” while her more attractive classmates were being treated to an evening of socializing.
31. Waller 1937; Bailey 1988.
32. See Wechsler 2003.
33. Cooper 2002; Dermen, Cooper, and Agocha 1998.
34. See Peralta (2001) for a discussion of the effects of drinking on the college culture.
35. See MacAndrew and Edgerton (1969) for a discussion of cross-cultural variation in how alcohol affects members of a society. Interestingly, there are some cultures that use alcohol but do not connect it to sexual activity.
36. See Williams (1998) for more on the connection between alcohol and sexual behavior among college women.
37. A couple of male students from State University told me that if a man hooks up with a woman his peers deem “fat,” he can neutralize any teasing he might receive the morning after by proclaiming that he “went hoggin’.” However, when I asked students directly during interviews if they knew what this term meant, most did not.
38. See also Williams 1998.
39. Bailey 1988.
40. Waller 1937.
41. Bailey 1988.
42. Waller 1937.
43. Bailey 1988.
44. Bailey 1988, 70.
45. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, 1998.
46. See Arnett (2004) for a thorough discussion of “emerging adults” and what factors they believe are most important in making the transition to adulthood. See Arnett (1994) for a discussion of the transition to adulthood specifically among college students.
47. Bailey 1988
N OT E S TO T H E M E T H O D O ll O G I C A ll A P P E N D I X
209
48. Bailey 1988.
49. See Sarch for a discussion of how contemporary single women use the telephone to “exert control and power” in their relationships with men, while being “confined by the cultural belief that a woman ought to have a man without pursuing one aggressively” (1993, 128).
50. Virtually any sociology textbook defines power as the ability to impose one’s will on others (e.g., see Andersen 2003).
51. This is consistent with Glenn and Marquardt’s (2001) finding that the burden is on college women to initiate “the talk” in order to see if a series of hookups with the same partner can evolve into a relationship. Women ask, men decide.
52. Goffman 1977.
53. Waller 1937.
54. Behrendt and Tuccillo 2004.
55. Waller 1937.
56. Although none of the college men in my sam
ple were afraid that women might exploit them financially, many feared women “clinging onto them” by trying to form an unwanted serious relationship.
57. Rubin 1990.
58. Rubin 1990; Skipper and Nass 1966.
59. Skipper and Nass 1966, 417.
60. Reitman 2006.
61. Rubin 1990.
62. See Duvall 1958.
63. See Holland and Eisenhart (1990) for a discussion of gender roles, sexual intimacy, and the cultural model of romance.
64. Duvall 1958, 205.
65. Skipper and Nass 1966, 417.
66. Laumann et al. 1994.
67. Laumann et al. 1994.
68. Rubin 1990.
69. Paul et al. (2000) found in their quantitative study of a large university in the northeastern United States that approximately 22 percent of undergraduate students had never engaged in a hookup.
NOTES TO THE METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX
1. It is interesting to note that there were more female volunteers for the undergraduate portion of the study and more male volunteers for the alumni portion. Perhaps this difference reflects women’s difficulty coping with the hookup culture on campus and men’s difficulty coping with the switch to a more traditional dating script after college.
210
N OT E S TO T H E M E T H O D O ll O G I C A ll A P P E N D I X
2. In rare instances, I conducted interviews at public places, such as a restaurant or coffee shop, per the request of the participant.
3. Straus and Corbin 1998.
4. As I indicated in chapter 1, my sample also lacked diversity in terms of sexual orientation (96 percent of the students and young alumni I interviewed were heterosexual).
Bibliography
Adair, Richard. 1996. Courtship, Illegitimacy, and Marriage in Early Modern Eng-land. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Afifi, Walid A. and Sandra ll. Faulkner. 2000. On Being “Just Friends”: The Frequency and Impact of Sexual Activity in Cross-Sex Friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 17: 205–222.
American College Health Association. American College Health Association—
National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA) Web Summary. Up-dated April 2006.
Amott, Teresa ll., and Julie A. Matthaei. 1996. Race, Gender, and Work: A Mul-ticultural History of Women in the United States. Boston: South End Press.
Andersen, Margaret ll. 2003. Thinking about Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Gender. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Anderson, Elijah. 1999. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York: W. W. Norton.
Armstrong, Elizabeth A., Laura Hamilton, and Brian Sweeney. 2005. Hooking Up and Party Rape: The Social Organization of Gender and Sexuality at a Large Research University. Paper given at American Sociological Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 2004. Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from the Late Teens through the Twenties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 2001. Conceptions of the Transition to Adulthood: Perspectives from Adolescence through Midlife. Journal of Adult Development 8: 133–143.
Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 2000. Emerging Adulthood. American Psychologist 55: 469–480.
Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 1998. Learning to Stand Alone: The Contemporary American Transition to Adulthood in Cultural and Historical Context.
Human Development 41: 295–315.
Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 1994. Are College Students Adults? Their Conceptions of the Transition to Adulthood. Journal of Adult Development 1: 213–224.
Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 1994. Adolescence Terminable and Interminable: When Does Adolescence End? Journal of Youth and Adolescence 23: 517–537.
211
212
B I B ll I O G R A P H Y
Bailey, Beth ll. 1988. From Front Porch to Back Seat: Courtship in Twentieth-Century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Baldwin, John, and Janice Baldwin. 1988. Factors Affecting AIDS-Related Sexual Risk-Taking Behavior among College Students. Journal of Sex Research 25: 181–197.
Baruch, Elaine H. 1980. The Politics of Courtship. Dissent 27: 56–63.
Behrendt, Greg, and Liz Tuccillo. 2004. He’s Just Not That Into You: The No-Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys. New York: Simon Spotlight Entertainment.
Bell, Robert A., and Nancy ll. Buerkel-Rothfuss. 1990. S(he) loves me, S(he) Loves Me Not: Predictors of Relational Information-Seeking in Courtship and Beyond. Communication Quarterly 38: 64–82.
Bergen, Raquel K. 1998. Issues in Intimate Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bettor, Laura, Susan S. Hendrick, and Clyde Hendrick. 1995. Gender and Sexual Standards in Dating Relationships. Personal Relationships 2: 359–369.
Bianchi, Suzanne M., and Lynne M. Casper. 2000. American Families. Population Bulletin 55 (December).
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bogart, Laura M., Heather Cecil, David A. Wagstaff, Steven D. Pinkerton, and Paul R. Abramson. 2000. Is It “Sex”? College Students’ Interpretations of Sexual Behavior Terminology. Journal of Sex Research 37: 108–116.
Bogle, Kathleen A. 2005. The Shift from Dating to Hooking Up: What Scholars Have Missed. Paper given at American Sociological Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Boswell, A. Ayres, and Joan Z. Spade. 1996. Fraternities and Collegiate Rape Culture: Why Are Some Fraternities More Dangerous Places for Women?
Gender & Society 10: 133–147.
Bromley, Dorothy D., and Florence Britten. 1938. Youth and Sex: A Study of 1300
College Students. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Bronner, Simon J. 1990. Piled Higher and Deeper: The Folklore of Campus Life. Little Rock: August House.
Bruce, John A. 1976. Intergenerational Solidarity versus Progress for Women?
Journal of Marriage and the Family 38: 519–524.
Carpenter, Laura M. 2005. Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrait of First Sexual Experiences. New York: New York University Press.
Carpenter, Laura M. 1998. From Girls into Women: Scripts for Sexuality and Romance in Seventeen Magazine, 1974–1994. Journal of Sex Research 35: 158–168.
Carroll, James ll., and Lynnly M. Carroll. 1995. Alcohol Use and Risky Sex among College Students. Psychological Reports 76: 723–727.
B I B ll I O G R A P H Y
213
Cassell, Carol. 1984. Swept Away: Why Women Fear Their Own Sexuality. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Cate, Rodney M., and Sally A. Lloyd. 1992. Courtship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Cohen, Lindsey ll., and R. Lance Shotland. 1996. Timing of First Sexual Intercourse in a Relationship: Expectations, Experiences, and Perceptions of Others. Journal of Sex Research 33: 291–299.
Coontz, Stephanie. 2005. Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking.
Coontz, Stephanie. 1992. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York: Basic Books.
Coontz, Stephanie. 1988. The Social Origins of Private Life: A History of American Families. New York: Verso.
Cooper, M. Lynne. 2002. Alcohol Use and Risky Sexual Behavior among College Students and Youth: Evaluating the Evidence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63: 101–117.
Cupach, William R., and Sandra Metts. 1995. The Role of Sexual Attitude Similarity in Romantic Heterosexual Relationships. Personal Relationships 2: 287–300.
D’Emilio, John, and Estelle B. Freedman. 1988. Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America. New York: Harper & Row.
Dermen, Kurt H., M. Lynne Cooper, and V. Bede Agocha. 1998. Sex-Related Expectancies as Moderators between Alcohol Use and Risky Sex in Adolescents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 59: 71–77.
Desiderato, Laurie J., and Helen J. Crawford. 1995. Risky Sexual Behavior in College Students: Relationships be
tween Number of Sexual Partners.
Journal of Youth & Adolescence 24: 55–69.
Dilley, Patrick. 2002. Queer Man on Campus: A History of Non-Heterosexual College Men, 1945–2000. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Duvall, Evelyn R. M. 1958. The Art of Dating. New York: Association Press.
Earle, John R., and Philip J. Perricone. 1986. Premarital Sexuality: A Ten-Year Study of Attitudes and Behavior on a Small University Campus. Journal of Sex Research 22: 304–310.
Eble, Connie. 1996. Slang and Sociability: In-Group Language among College Students. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Ericksen, Julia A. 1999. Kiss and Tell: Surveying Sex in the Twentieth Century.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fass, Paula S. 1977. The Damned and the Beautiful: American Youth in the 1920s.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Felmlee, Diane, Susan Sprecher, and Edward Bassin. 1990. The Dissolution of Intimate Relationships: A Hazard Model. Social Psychology Quarterly 53: 13–30.
Gagnon, John H., and William Simon. 1987. The Sexual Scripting of Oral Geni-tall Contacts. Archives of Sexual Behavior 16: 1–25.
214
B I B ll I O G R A P H Y
Gagnon, John H., and William Simon. 1973. Sexual Conduct: The Social Sources of Human Sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.
Gilbert, Lucia A., Sarah J. Walker, Sherry McKinney, and Jessica ll. Snell. 1999.
Challenging Discourse Themes Reproducing Gender in Heterosexual Dating: An Analog Study. Sex Roles 41: 753–774.
Glaser, B. G., and A. ll. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glenn, Norval, and Elizabeth Marquardt. 2001. Hooking Up, Hanging Out and Hoping for Mr. Right: College Women on Dating and Mating Today. An Institute for American Values Report to the Independent Women’s Forum.
Glick, Peter C. 1975. Some Recent Changes in American Families. Current Population Reports 52: 23.
Goffman, Erving. 1977. The Arrangement between the Sexes. Theory and Society 4: 301–331.
Gordon, Michael. 1973. The American Family in Social-Historical Perspective.
Hooking Up : Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus Page 26
