We hear the
term “hooking up” all the time, but what exactly does it mean and what are some
of its consequences?
What does hooking up mean?
Hooking up involves short term sexual encounters that
generally last for one night, and is contrasted in both the vernacular and the
literature with the more traditional form of dating. Uecker and Regnerus explain that dating has
not disappeared, but hooking up is becoming more prevalent and may even be a precursor
for dating (although further research needs to be conducted on this topic): “Dating is not dead, but it seems increasingly understood as
commencing after an
exclusive (and perhaps even sexual) relationship is formed” (2010: 408).
There are
obviously many forms of dating, but Bradshaw, Kahn, and Saville interviewed
college students and found the pattern of a typical date “that is consistent
with traditional gender roles, the man being active and the woman being
reactive” (2010: 661). In other words,
the male is responsible for initiating the date, for making all decisions –
from the time and location to sexual encounters, and pays for the date;
meanwhile, the young woman waits for the man and has the power to accept or decline
the date, location, sexual activity, etcetera (Bradshaw, Kahn, and Saville 2010: 661). Despite changing gender roles in other realms,
the authors argue that dating still follows these traditional gender roles.
Just as there is
a pattern of the typical date, there are also patterns of the most common
behavior involved in hookups: “Almost all hookups (98%) involved kissing,
and many involved touching of
the breasts (67%), genital touching outside clothing (56%), or genital touching underneath clothing (46%). Only
27% of hookups involved oral
sex,
27% involved vaginal sex, and none involved anal sex [in this particular study].
Condom use was
reported for 0% of oral sex hookups and 69% of vaginal sex hookups” (Fielder and Carey 2010a: 351). People who hookup are more likely to do so
with someone they already know: “Casual sex
occurred more often between ‘friends’ than with strangers” (Grello, Welsh, and Harper 2006: 255). Fielder and Carey surveyed a number of
college women and found in order of most to least common that their “Hookup
partners included friends, acquaintances, strangers, ex-boyfriends, and others.
A total of 44% reported that their most recent hookup was not the first time they had hooked
up with that
particular partner” (2010a:
351).
Hooking up is the new “it” thing on campus.
Hooking up has become an important topic of study
over the past decade because of its increasing prevalence. Bradshaw,
Kahn, and Saville note that “Hooking up on college
campuses has become more frequent than dating in heterosexual sexual
interaction” (2010: 661). Paul, McManus, and Hayes note that there may
be a correlation between the prevalence of hookup and “peer norms and peer
pressures,” highlighting the desire to belong and feel normal when it comes to
sexual behavior (2000: 78).
Why do people hook up?
Motivations for
hooking up are similar to dating, except that participants often admit a
stronger focus on sexual motivations. Additionally,
they feel less pressure since these encounters are not expected to last. Fielder and Carey found “The
most common motive for hooking up was sexual desire (80%). Other frequently
endorsed motives were spontaneous urge (58%), partner’s attractiveness (56%),
intoxication (51%), partner’s willingness (33%), and to feel
attractive/desirable (29%)” (2010a:
351). In fact, Paul, McManus, and Hayes
have found alcohol consumption to be a strong social predictor for hooking up
in the college setting, and they note the high prevalence of both drinking and
hooking up as occurring simultaneously (2000: 77).
Uecker and
Regnerus explain “how
institutional characteristics may influence the romantic
and sexual relationships of college students and how
these relationships may vary across college campuses with different
demographic, cultural, and structural characteristics” (2010: 408). They describe campuses that have more women
than men and explain that the sex ratio influences “suggests that an oversupply of women on a
college campus gives men more dyadic power in romantic and sexual
relationships, which translates into lower levels of relationship commitment and less favorable treatment of women on the part of
men and a more sexually permissive climate” (Uecker and Regnerus 2010: 409).
Hooking up has
various meanings and may be labeled as one-night-stands (occurring only once,
with no intention of repeating with the same partner) or friends-with-benefits
(friends/acquaintances who want a steady sexual partner outside of the emotional
relationship/dating context); these various labels have extremely different
meanings. In fact Paul and Hayes have
suggested the alternate term of “casual sexual encounters,” since hookups can
various meanings, but it seems as though the term did not catch on (2002: 639).
However,
scholarly literature has found some commonalities that allow me to generalize
about them in opposition to dating (Bradshaw, Kahn, and Saville 2010: 661). Because of their prevalence, they are
accepted as a normal part of college life and associated with minimal stigma
among college students. However, this is
not to say they are without their costs.
For both men and women, Bradshaw, Kahn, and Saville studied the costs
and benefits of dating and hooking up: “Analysis of the relative benefits and
costs associated with dating and hooking up suggest that women benefit more
from dating while men benefit more from hooking up” in terms of both men and
women’s relationship preferences
(2010: 661).
What do hookups mean to men vs. women?
Since men have
more power in traditional dating relationships, it might seem odd that they
often prefer hooking up to dating. Bradshaw,
Kahn, and Saville explain:
Traditional
heterosexual dating among college students is a highly patriarchal affair in
which the man usually has more control than the woman because he is both the
initiator and decision-maker; the woman, for the most part, only has veto power.
Having this control can be difficult for men, who risk rejection from the
outset when they attempt to initiate a date. Dating is also costly for a man
both in terms of responsibility and finances. He is responsible for getting
himself and his partner to the location of the dating activity, paying for
himself and his date, and making sure the woman has a good time. The man also
risks rejection if he attempts sexual overtures. These decision-making
responsibilities can lead to stress and anxiety in college students who may be
shy and lack confidence in their ability to successfully carry out all the dating
functions. Unlike women who date infrequently, college men who date
infrequently report more anxiety about dating and fewer dating-related social skills
(2010: 662).
Therefore,
hooking up becomes desirable for men because it releases them from the responsibility
and pressure involved in a dating relationship.
If he makes mistakes or does something to make his partner dissatisfied,
he does not have to worry about long-term repercussions, since hookups are
short-term. Further, the context of
hooking up allows a man to be more confident because this pressure is removed. Bradshaw, Kahn, and Saville write, “College
men would appear to benefit more from hooking up than from a traditional date.
The flirting and brief interactions that precede a hook up make rejection less likely
… Furthermore, at least within college samples, men are more likely than women
to have sexual goals as the primary motivation for dating” (2010: 663).
Similarly, Giordano,
Longmore, and Manning find in their study that focuses on adolescent males that
“among those adolescents who had begun dating (n = 957), boys report
significantly lower levels of confidence navigating various aspects of their
romantic relationships, similar levels of emotional engagement as girls, and
greater power and influence on the part of their romantic partners” (2006: 260). Since males have lower confidence but more
power in dating relationships, they may experience greater stress about doing
the wrong thing. Further, males “experience a greater level of communication awkwardness in connection with
their romantic liaisons” (Giordano, Longmore, and Manning 2006: 265). Because they are not particularly confident,
they have difficulty expressing themselves and making an emotional
connection. Thus, the authors argue that
it may take several dates with the same woman before a young man feels
comfortable enough to establish an emotional connection (Giordano, Longmore,
and Manning 2006: 265). This, however, requires that both the man and
woman be persistent in their effort to make the budding dating relationship work.
Therefore,
for men, hooking up provides intimate encounters without the pressure of
dating.
Conversely,
since women have less power in traditional dating relationships, it might seem
odd that they often prefer dating to hooking up. Bradshaw, Kahn, and Saville explain:
Despite
women’s passive, reactive role,
they receive many benefits in traditional dating situations. They have the power
to reject a date initiation. They do not have the responsibility of planning
the details of the dating activity and do not have to pay for those activities.
They are usually expected only to look nice and be pleasant. They usually have
the ability to accept or reject a man’s sexual overtures. The costs of traditional dating for women
include not being asked out in the first place, engaging in activities in which
they have little or no interest, and fending off unwanted sexual advances.
Compared to men, it would appear that traditional dating involves fewer costs
and responsibilities and is often less stressful for women. Finally, college women
more than college men report relationship goals for dating such as
companionship, intimacy, and having fun that can more easily be achieved
through dating than through hooking up (2010:
663).
The authors
continue to explain that the costs of hookups outweigh any potential benefits
they may have pertaining to increased power or control of sexual activity: “College women consistently
express less comfort engaging in sexual behaviors than do men … As mentioned
previously, college women are more likely than college men to mention dating
goals of companionship, intimacy, and fun, whereas men are more likely than
women to mention sexual goals. The sexual double standard can make women feel
guilty about hooking up” (Bradshaw, Kahn, and Saville 2010: 663). College
women are less likely to feel guilty after a dating encounter than they are
hooking up, which means they are more likely to enjoy the dating encounter than
they are hooking up (Fielder
and Carey 2010a: 353).
A major reason
women prefer dating to hooking up is the guilt and regret they feel after
hooking up. Eshbaugh and Gute found two
main forms of regret associated with sexual activity after hookups, especially
for women: “Results indicate that two sexual
behaviors were particularly predictive of participants’ regret: (a)
engaging in sexual intercourse with someone once and
only once and (b) engaging in intercourse with someone known for less than 24 hours” (2008: 77). However, “noncoital hookups (performing and receiving oral sex) were not
significantly related to regret” (Eshbaugh and Gute 2008: 77). The
authors note that “Regret
may have implications for health and happiness” (Eshbaugh and Gute 2008: 86).
More recent
studies have examined the psychological effects of hookups and found negative
consequences for women but not men: “Penetrative sex hookups increased psychological distress for females,
but not for males” (Fielder and Carey 2010b: 346). Grello, Welsh, and Harper also found negative
consequences for women but not men: “Males who
engaged in casual sex reported the
fewest symptoms of depression, and females who had
a history of casual sex reported the most depressive symptoms” (2006: 255). Combined, these articles support the
hypothesis that hookups are not as beneficial for college-aged women as they
are for men.
So, it seems
that the hookup trend is paradoxical. It
has negative psychological effects for women, despite its potential for
empowerment based on sexuality. Yet, for
men, hooking up actually has positive psychological effects, at least in the
short term. Once again, we see an
imbalance in power that puts women at a disadvantage. The problem seems to be in conflicting
messages being sent by family, the media, and peers. Even though hooking up touts sex without love
as the answer to complicated emotions, sex is still moralized in the U.S.,
which means the messages surrounding hooking up are still steeped in moral
judgments. Television shows like The Jersey Shore (and anything on MTV) send
the message that people are constantly hooking up. For men, that is the ultimate form of
masculinity; you now have ‘swag.’ For women,
that means you’re a slut/whore/many other derogatory names; you have now lost
the respect of all other women. Is it really
this simple? No, of course not.
What’s love got to do with it?
Well, Tina, I’m
glad you asked. Not much, or so it would
seem at first glance. Hooking up is all
about having a short-term relationship without all the icky emotions; it hinges
on the idea that sex without love keeps things from being complicated. And this might be the case for men, but for
women, the situation is more complicated.
Hooking up is the ultimate form of denying love, of ignoring and
avoiding emotional connections. This is
where the element of work comes in – but it’s especially tough for women. The research seems to conclude that this
generally ends poorly for women, as they are likely to suffer from guilt,
regret, depression, and anxiety. [We
could talk about Freud and repression here – as these women are repressing
their emotions, especially love, and suffering negative psychological
consequences seemingly as a result – but since no scholars have written about
this, I’ll leave that for someone with a psych degree to tackle.] Oddly, by denying love, then, hooking up
still gets stuck in the web of emotions.
Story time…
I don’t have any
great stories about hooking up (unless you count the escapades I overheard in
my undergrad courses, but I maintain that about 64% of them were fictionalized
and I wouldn’t feel right retelling them).
Sorry to disappoint! Despite my
lack of anecdotal evidence, I wanted to include hooking up in my love story
because I feel like it tells an important story about the connection between
love, work, and psychological impacts. I
was also overwhelmed by the amount of current scholarly work on the topic,
which persuaded me of its relevance.
Bibliography:
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.
Eshbaugh,
Elaine M, and Gary Gute
2008 Hookups
and Sexual Regret Among College Women. The Journal of Social Psychology 148(1):
77
Fielder,
Robyn L, and Michael P Carey
2010a Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual
Hookups Among First-semester Female College Students. Journal of Sex &
Marital Therapy 36(4): 346–59.
2010b Predictors and Consequences of Sexual “Hookups”
Among College Students: a Short-term Prospective Study. Archives of Sexual
Behavior 39(5): 1105–19.
Giordano,
Peggy C, Monica A Longmore, and Wendy D Manning
2006 Gender and the Meanings of Adolescent Romantic
Relationships: A Focus on Boys. American Sociological Review 71(2): 260–287.
Grello,
Catherine M., Deborah P. Welsh, and
Melinda S. Harper
2006 No Strings Attached: The Nature of Casual Sex
in College Students. Journal of Sex Research 43(3): 255–267.
Paul,
E. L., and B. McManus, and A. Hayes
2000 “Hookups”: Characteristics and Correlates of
College Students’ Spontaneous and Anonymous Sexual Experiences. The Journal of
Sex Research 37(1): 76–88.
Paul, E. L., and K. A. Hayes
2002 The Casualties of ‘Casual’ Sex: A Qualitative Exploration of the Phenomenology of College Students' Hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 19(5): 639–661.
Uecker,
Jeremy E., and Mark D. Regnerus
2010 Bare Market: Campus Sex Ratios, Romantic
Relationships, and Sexual Behavior. The Sociological Quarterly 51: 408–435.
No comments:
Post a Comment