Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Asking out and Sliding in: Gendered Relationship Pathways in College Hookup Culture

  • Published:
Qualitative Sociology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The cultural dominance of non-relational sexual scripts for short-term sexual encounters on college campuses, combined with the persistence of gendered practices for heterosexual relationship formation, complicates students’ interest in committed, monogamous, and gender egalitarian relationships. This paper draws on interviews with 56 heterosexual undergraduates ages 18–23 at the University of Illinois at Chicago to examine how students perceive and experience committed relationships and the role of gendered practices in their formation. I find that relationships begin with “hanging out” and then follow either date (“asking out”) or hookup (“sliding in”) pathways into exclusivity. The dating pathway is characterized by “symbolic gendering” (Lamont, 2014) but presents clear progression into commitment. In contrast, “sliding in” is less characterized by gendered practices but also generates ambiguity in its lack of direct verbal communication. This ambiguity is particularly challenging for women, given perceptions and realities of their greater interest in relationships than men and the operation of a sexual double standard. Students face some trade-off between gender egalitarianism and definitional clarity in forming committed relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allison, Rachel, and Barbara J. Risman. 2013. A double standard for “hooking up”: How far have we come toward gender equality? Social Science Research 42 (5): 1191–1206.

  • Allison, Rachel, and Barbara J. Risman. 2014. “It goes hand in hand with the parties”: Race, class and residence in college student negotiations of hooking up. Sociological Perspectives 57 (1): 102–123.

  • Armstrong, Elizabeth A., and Laura T. Hamilton. 2013. Paying for the party: How college maintains inequality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, Elizabeth, Paula England, and Alison C.K. Fogarty. 2012. Accounting for women’s orgasm and sexual enjoyment in college hookups and relationships. American Sociological Review 77 (3): 435–462.

  • Bailey, Beth L. 1988. From front porch to back seat: Courtship in twentieth-century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banker, Jamie E., Christine A. Kaestle, and Katherine R. Allen. 2010. Dating is hard work: A narrative approach to understanding sexual and romantic relationships in young adulthood. Contemporary Family Theory 32 (2): 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartoli, Angela M., and M. Diane Clark. 2006. The dating game: Similarities and differences in dating scripts among college students. Sexuality & Culture 10 (4): 54–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berntson, Marit Ann, Kristi L. Hoffman, and Tracy L. Luff. 2014. College as context: Influences on interpersonal sexual scripts. Sexuality & Culture 18 (1): 149–165.

  • Best, Joel, and Kathleen A. Bogle. 2014. Kids gone wild: From rainbow parties to sexting, understanding the hype over teen sex. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogle, Kathleen A. 2007. The shift from dating to hooking up in college: What scholars have missed. Sociology Compass 1 (2): 775–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogle, Kathleen A. 2008. Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, Carolyn, Arnold S. Kahn, and Bryan K. Saville. 2010. To hook up or date: Which gender benefits? Sex Roles 62 (9–10): 661–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brimeyer, Ted M., and William L. Smith. 2012. Religion, race, social class, and gender differences in dating and hooking up among college students. SociologicalSpectrum 32 (5): 462–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currier, Danielle M. 2013. Strategic ambiguity: Protecting emphasized femininity and hegemonic masculinity in the hookup culture. Gender & Society 27 (5): 704–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, Asia E., Suzanna M. Rose, Camille Interligi, Katherine Fernandez, and Maureen McHugh. 2016. Gender and ethnicity in dating, hanging out, and hooking up: Sexual scripts among Hispanic and white young adults. Journal of Sex Research 53 (7): 788–804.

  • Eaton, Asia E., and Suzanna M. Rose. 2012. Scripts for actual first-date and hanging-out encounters among young heterosexual Hispanic adults. Sex Roles 67 (5–6): 285–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, Asia E., and Suzanna M. Rose. 2011. Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35 year review using sex roles. Sex Roles 64 (11–12): 843–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • England, Paula, Emily Fitzgibbons Shafer, and Alison C.K. Fogarty. 2008. Hooking up and forming romantic relationships on today’s college campuses. In The Gendered Society Reader, eds. Michael Kimmel and Amy Aronson, 559–572. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • England, Paula, and Reuben J. Thomas. 2006. The decline of the date and the rise of the college hook up. In Families in transition, eds. Arlene S. Skolnick and Jerome H. Skolnick, 14th ed., 151–162. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahs, Breanne, and Adrielle Munger. 2015. Friends with benefits? Gendered performances in women’s casual sexual relationships. Personal Relationships 22 (2): 188–203.

  • Gagnon John, H. 1990. The explicit and implicit use of the scripting perspective in sex research. Annual Review of Sex Research 1 (1): 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, Norval, and Elizabeth Marquardt. 2001. Hooking up, hanging out, and hoping for Mr. Right: College women on dating and mating today. New York: Institute for American Values.

  • Hamilton, Laura, and Elizabeth A. Armstrong. 2009. Gendered sexuality in young adulthood: Double binds and flawed options. Gender & Society 23 (5): 589–616.

  • Jackson, Pamela Braboy, Sibyl Kleiner, Claudia Geist, and Kara Cebulko. 2011. Conventions of courtship: Gender and race differences in the significance of dating. Journal of Family Issues 32 (5): 629–654.

  • Kimmel, Michael. 2008. Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konstam, Varda, Teyana Curran, Selda Celen-Demirtas, Samantha Karwin, Kimberly Bryant, Bonnie Andrews, and Ryan Duffy. 2019. Commitment among unmarried emerging adults: Meaning, expectations, and formation of relationships. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships 36 (4): 1317–1342.

  • Kuperberg, Arielle, and Joseph E. Padgett. 2016. The role of culture in explaining college students’ selection into hookups, dates, and long-term romantic relationships. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships 33 (8): 1070–1096.

  • Lamont, Ellen. 2015. The limited construction of an egalitarian masculinity: College-educated men’s dating and relationship narratives. Men and Masculinities 18 (3): 271–292.

  • Lamont, Ellen. 2014. Negotiating courtship: Reconciling egalitarian ideals with traditional gender norms. Gender & Society 28 (2): 189–211.

  • Laner, Mary Riege, and Nicole A. Ventrone. 2000. Dating scripts revisited. Journal of Family Issues (4): 488–500.

  • Lever, Janet, David A. Frederick, and Rosanna Hertz. 2015. Who pays for dates? Following versus challenging gender norms. SAGE Open 5 (4): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy, Meg C. 2015. Hooking up as an individualistic practice: A double-edged sword for college women. Sexuality & Culture 19 (3): 464–492.

  • Luff, Tracy, Kristi Hoffman, and Marit Berntson. 2016. Hooking up and dating are two sides of a coin. Contexts 15 (1): 76–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, Megan K., and Janice R. Kelly. 2015. Perceptions of dating behavior: The role of ambivalent sexism. Sex Roles 72 (5–6): 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monto, Martin A., and Anna G. Carey. 2014. A new standard of sexual behavior? Are claims associated with the “hookup culture” supported by general social survey data. Journal of Sex Research 51 (6): 605–615.

  • Padgett, Joseph, and Lisa Wade. 2018. Hookup culture and higher education. In Handbook of Contemporary Feminism, eds. Andrea Press and Tasha Oren. New York: Routledge.

  • Paynter, Alexa, and Campbell Leaper. 2016. Heterosexual dating double standards in undergraduate women and men. Sex Roles 75 (7–8): 393–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, Julie A., Sinikka Elliott, and Gretchen R. Webber. 2011. Casual hookups to formal dates: Refining the boundaries of the sexual double standard. Gender & Society 25 (5): 545–568.

  • Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2011. Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Risman, Barbara J. 2017. 2016 southern sociological society presidential address: Are millennials cracking the gender structure? Social Currents 4 (3): 208–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siebenbruner, Jessica. 2013. Are college students replacing dating and romantic relationships with hooking up. Journal of College Student Development 54 (4): 433–438.

  • Simon, William, and John H. Gagnon. 2003. Sexual scripts: Origins, influences, and changes. Qualitative Sociology 26 (4): 491–497.

  • Simon, William, and John H. Gagnon. 1986. Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior 15 (2): 97–120.

  • Twenge, Jean M., Ryne A. Sherman, and Brooke E. Wells. 2015. Changes in American adults’ sexual behavior and attitudes, 1972-2012. Archives of Sexual Behavior 44 (8): 2273–2285.

  • Uecker, Jeremy E., and Brandon C. Martinez. 2017. When and why women regret sex in hookups more than men do: An analysis of the online college social life survey. The Sociological Quarterly 58 (3): 470–494.

  • Wade, Lisa. 2017. American hookup: The new culture of sex on campus. New York: W. W. Norton, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, Cynthia, Terry Gandell, Jacinthe Beauchamp, Lynn McAlpine, Carol Wiseman, and Cathy Beauchamp. 2001. Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a coding system. Qualitative Sociology 24 (3): 381–400.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Mississippi State University, 201 Bowen Hall, 456 Hardy Road, PO Box C, Mississippi State, MS, 39762, USA

    Rachel Allison

Authors
  1. Rachel Allison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel Allison.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Allison, R. Asking out and Sliding in: Gendered Relationship Pathways in College Hookup Culture. Qual Sociol 42, 361–383 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-09430-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-09430-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation