Hooking Up : Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus by Kathleen Bogle (e book reader android txt) 📗

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