Hooking Up : Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus by Kathleen Bogle (top fiction books of all time .txt) 📕

8. I will return to this issue in chapter 6 with a discussion of why women feel the need to protect their reputation because of the sexual double standard.

9. College students traveling in groups to parties and other social events has been taking place since at least the 1970s (Horowitz 1987; Moffatt 1989; Murstein 1980; Strouse 1987).

10. See Holland and Eisenhart (1990) for a discussion of college women’s preoccupation with beautifying their appearance in order to appeal to men during cross-sex interaction at parties, bars, sporting events, and so on. See also Grazian (in press) for a discussion of college women’s (and men’s) preparations for a night out.

11. See Greer and Buss (1994) for a discussion of what tactics college students use to promote sexual encounters and how these tactics vary by gender.

See Moore (1995) for how adolescent girls utilize facial expressions and gestures to signal interest in boys.

12. See Armstrong (2005) on how “in-network strangers” affect socializing on a college campus.

13. What determines who is attracted to whom is a complicated matter.

However, Laumann et al. (1994) shed light on this issue with their discussion of human capital and the sexual marketplace. They argue that people possess a collection of qualities that place them on a continuum of desirability in the sexual marketplace. Interested parties are, in a sense, shopping for a potential sexual partner. However, not everyone will meet a shopper’s criteria for a potential match. Importantly, which qualities are valued in potential sexual partners depends not only on individual preferences, but also on what a given culture defines as desirable in a partner. See also Townsend and Levy (1990) on what characteristics college students look for when selecting partners.

14. Bailey 1988.

15. Martin and Hummer 1989.

16. See Gagnon and Simon (1973) for a discussion of how nonverbal cues play a role in sexual scripts in general.

17. Consistent with Gagnon and Simon (1973), the hookup script begins with nonverbal cues, which are derived from culturally agreed upon symbols of sexual interest. Some in the field of communication (see Koeppel et al. 1993) have found that there are significant gender differences in interpreting nonverbal cues. For instance, men tend to perceive women as making a sexual advance when they initiate interaction, while women perceive a male-initiated conversation as “just being friendly.” My research has not uncovered gender differences in this regard; however, direct questions on this subject might have yielded different results.

198

N OT E S TO C H A P T E R 3

18. Given that many religious denominations attempt to regulate the sexual behavior of their members, one might expect religion to have an effect on sexual behavior. Yet most of the college students I interviewed who were practicing members of their particular religious denominations still took part in the hookup script—an issue I will return to in chapter 4.

19. Paul, McManus, and Hayes 2000.

20. This finding is consistent with Glenn and Marquardt’s (2001) finding, in the survey portion of their study: 57 percent of college women indicated that they felt “awkward” after hooking up with someone.

21. This finding is similar to Willard Waller’s (1937) revelation that male/

female interaction on campus is governed by the “principle of least interest,” where the party with the least interest in a relationship holds all the power.

22. Importantly, college students’ use of the term “dating” did not reflect the traditional meaning of the term. In other words, students were not referring to the traditional dating script, which would include going out to dinner or the movies or any other public place to spend time together. Instead, “dating” referred to repeatedly hooking up with one person and having some form of contact between the hookup encounters.

23. Similarly, Glenn and Marquardt (2001) found that college women generally initiate “the talk” to see whether hooking up will evolve into a relationship; however, it is generally the men who decide whether the relationship will progress.

24. Bailey 1988; Waller 1937.

25. This finding is consistent with Glenn and Marquardt’s (2001) national study on college women.

26. Bailey 1988; Waller 1937.

27. Bailey 1988.

28. Bailey 1988.

29. Bailey 1988.

30. The crucial role that alcohol plays in facilitating hooking up has been documented by other researchers as well. According to Glenn and Marquardt, “A notable feature of hook ups is that they almost always occur when both participants are drinking or drunk” (2001, 15). Similarly, Paul et al. found “the overwhelming majority of hook up experiences included alcohol use by both partners” (2000, 85).

31. Moffatt 1989; Strouse 1987.

32. Bailey 1988.

33. Bailey 1988; Whyte 1990.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 4

1. In chapter 7, I will discuss what circumstances must be in place for young alumni to hook up. For a discussion on middle and high school students’ participation in “nonromantic sexual activity,” see Manning et al. (2005).

N OT E S TO C H A P T E R 4

199

2. The fact that one’s environment greatly affects sexual behavior has been highlighted by other scholars (e.g., see Laumann et al. 2004).

3. This process of defining what behavior is appropriate under certain circumstances has been described by sociologist W. I. Thomas (1923) as determining the “definition of the situation.” 4. The effects of drinking on the student body, even those who do not drink, have been documented by the Harvard School of Public Health’s College Alcohol Study research team. See Wechsler et al. (1994) for more on “secondhand binge effects.”

5. See also Glenn and Marquardt (2001) regarding college women’s marital aspirations.

6. Students’ plan to marry later is consistent with national data on the age at first marriage, which has increased to a median age of 25 for women and 27 for men. This represents a significant increase since the mid-twentieth century, when the age at first marriage was 20 for women and 23 for men (Bianchi and Casper 2000).

7. See also Arnett (2004) for a discussion of women’s “deadline” for marrying.

8. A national study revealed that 63 percent of college women were interested in finding