N OT E S TO C H A P T E R 2
sociologists and social historians have undertaken this task (Bailey 1988; Coontz 1988; Gordon 1973; Lystra 1989; Murstein 1974; Rothman 1984; Shorter 1975; Whyte 1990). Importantly, some quantitative sources of data, such as census data and local records of births, marriages, and the like can help fill in some of the gaps left from the qualitative sources.
3. Bailey 1988; Murstein 1974; Shorter 1975.
4. Rothman 1984.
5. Shorter 1975; see Adair (1996) for an alternate view of the role of parental and community involvement in intimate partnering.
6. Bailey 1988.
7. Rothman 1984.
8. Shorter 1975. See also Coontz (2005) for a thorough discussion of the historical circumstances that led to love and romance playing a greater role in mate selection.
9. Sexual attraction remains paramount in the contemporary hookup script..
10. Bailey 1988.
11. Bailey 1988; Rothman 1984.
12. Specifically, the first usage of the term “dating” in this context was in 1896 (Bailey 1988).
13. Bailey 1988.
14. Bailey 1988.
15. Rothman 1984.
16. Rothman 1984.
17. Bailey 1988, 19.
18. Waller 1937.
19. Although courting may not always have culminated in marriage, the idea was that it would lead to marriage, or at least that it might. With dating, there is no explicit or implicit intention to marry one’s date (Murstein 1974). Although dating is viewed by some as a process of whit-tling down potential mates until one’s life partner is found (Whyte 1990), many scholars agree that dating has much more of a recreational tone (Waller 1937; Schwartz and Lever 1976). See Baruch (1980) for an interesting discussion of the “politics of courtship.” 20. See Gordon (1981) for a critical examination of Waller’s rating and dating complex.
21. See Horowitz (1987) for further evidence that dating is the key to women gaining status on campus during the 1920s and beyond.
22. See McComb (1998) for more on how young women were commodi-fied during the “rating and dating” era.
23. Unfortunately, Waller does not describe exactly what would constitute an “indiscretion.”
24. Waller 1938.
N OT E S TO C H A P T E R 2
195
25. Waller 1938.
26. Bailey 1988.
27. Bailey 1988, 28.
28. Bailey 1988.
29. Bailey 1988.
30. Bailey 1988.
31. Bailey 1988.
32. Cate and Lloyd 1992.
33. Bailey 1988, 51.
34. Bailey 1988.
35. Bailey 1988; Rothman 1984.
36. Bailey 1988.
37. Bailey 1988.
38. Bailey 1988. See also Bromley and Britten (1938) and Fass (1977) for more on college students’ sexual behavior during the “rating and dating” era.
39. Bailey 1988.
40. Bailey 1988, 80.
41. LeMasters, quoted in Bailey 1988, 80.
42. LeMasters, quoted in Bailey 1988, 80.
43. Bailey 1988; Rothman 1984.
44. Rothman 1984.
45. Bailey 1988.
46. Whyte 1990.
47. For example, Whyte (1990) found continuity in the age that dating began (i.e., 16 years of age). Whyte also found that parents of all generations “hover at the sidelines” of their children’s dating relationships, doing their best to exert their influence without outright controlling their children’s choice of dates (Whyte 1990, 39). See also Bruce (1976) and Leslie et al. (1986) for a discussion of parental involvement in the “courtship activities” of children.
48. Whyte 1990, 26.
49. Gagnon and Simon 1973.
50. Whyte 1990.
51. Bailey 1988; Horowitz 1987; Murstein 1980.
52. Horowitz 1987; Moffatt 1989; Strouse 1987.
53. Moffatt 1989, 49.
54. D’Emilio and Freedman 1988.
55. Laumann et al. 1994.
56. Gagnon and Simon 1987.
57. Laumann et al. 1994.
58. Cate and Lloyd 1992; Gagnon and Simon 1973.
59. Rubin 1990.
196
N OT E S TO C H A P T E R 2
60. Gagnon and Simon 1973.
61. Modell, quoted in Arnett 1998, 301.
62. Bailey 1988.
63. Poulson and Higgins 2003.
64. See Lance (1976) for a discussion of the effect of sex-integrated dormitories on college student sexual permissiveness.
65. Surra 1990.
66. Bianchi and Casper 2000.
67. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics 2001.
68. Cate and Lloyd 1992.
69. Glick 1975.
70. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 2002.
71. Horowitz, 1987; Moffatt 1989; Murstein 1980; Strouse 1987.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
1. Most dictionaries do not include an entry on hookup or hooking up where the definition refers to a form of sexual interaction. This omission includes many dictionaries focused on slang terms or sexual terminology. An exception is Eble’s (1996) book on slang among college students. In a study on the use of slang terminology among students at the University of North Carolina from the 1970s to 1990s, Eble found the term “hooking up,” defined as
“to find a partner for romance or sex” or “to kiss passionately,” to be commonly used since the mid-1980s.
2. From this point forward, I will often refer to “college students”; however, I am referring only to the white, heterosexual, traditional-aged college students at the two East Coast universities I studied. As I indicated in chapter 1, the interviewees were not chosen via probability sampling; therefore, the results cannot be generalized to all college students.
3. See Manning (2005) for a discussion on middle and high school students’ participation in “nonromantic sexual activity.” 4. Stepp 2003.
5. See Bogart et al. (2000) for a discussion on college students’ interpretations of what scenarios count as “sex.” See also Sanders and Reinisch (1999) on the debate about what counts as “sex.” See Rosenblatt (1998) for a journal-istic account of this debate.
6. Notably, oral sex has become an increasingly common part of the sexual script for young heterosexuals over the last several decades. For a complete discussion of this change in sexual practice and its implications, see Gagnon and Simon (1987) and Laumann et al. (1994).
N OT E S TO C H A P T E R 3
197
7. This point is confirmed by Carpenter’s (2005) work on the meaning assigned to virginity loss. Specifically, she found that men often perceive virginity as a “stigma” that
