Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Giordano and colleagues have, here and in a series of papers published in peer-reviewed journals, demonstrated the deep relevance of “dating” relationships for both boys and girls in the transition to adulthood. The strength of this work lies in their mixed-method approach, which allows them to illustrate the meaning of these relationships in the youth’s own words while at the same time using a probability sample to present quantitative measures for comparison by gender or other important characteristics. Their data make clear that in young adulthood relationships not only involve strong emotions of affection, but also can be a source of instrumental support. As Giordano and colleagues argue, their analysis provides “strong contrast to recent studies decrying the end of romance, and rise of a ‘hook-up’ culture” (Chap. 9).

Although young adults (and social scientists) use the term “hook-up” to describe a wide range of sexual activities, an accepted common understanding is that it involves a physical relationship in which no further social or emotional connection is expected. While these relationships are by definition physical, they do not always involve sexual intercourse. In fact, one attraction of the term is that it is ambiguous in this regard (Bogle, 2008; Glenn & Marquardt, 2001). Some argue that casual sexual encounters “have become a primary form of intimate heterosexual interaction” (Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009, p. 590) and that hooking up has replaced dating on college campuses (Bogle, 2008; Burdette et al., 2009; England, Shafer, & Fogarty, 2007; Glenn & Marquardt, 2001). Others suggest more broadly that courtship and serious dating are dead (Kass, 1997). Obviously, the Toledo Adolescent Relationship participants who consider themselves in dating or cohabiting relationships are too strongly attached to be considered hooking up, but are only a small minority of young adults in “dating relationships?” Are these unusually conservative or traditional individuals, is Toledo unusually romantic, or do these dating couples actually represent the typical experiences of young adults in the United States?

My intention is to supplement Giordano et al.’s work with a descriptive picture of young adult relationships using data from the recently released 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), which includes a sample of 1,621 women and 1,393 men ages 18–23. The strength of this analysis is that it employs nationally representative data on both men and women and considers the broad spectrum of relationships experienced by young adults ages 18–23, including marriage, cohabitation, non-coresidential sexual relationships, the sexually inactive, and the sexually inexperienced. Because much of the research on the “hook-up” culture has focused on college students, I also describe how relationship experiences differ between college students and other young adults.

Why Do We Care If Young Adults Are Forming Relationships or Hooking-Up?

To help guide my analysis of young adult relationships, I first want to consider why we might care about this subject. One reason emerges from the belief that the rise in casual sexual relationships represents an increase in sexual exploitation of young women. Descriptions of adolescent relationships in impoverished neighborhoods depict men duping young women into having their babies by promising a picket fence (Anderson, 1989). A popular account of teenaged hook-ups that appeared in the New York Times described a scene in which girls talked tough but were really depressed – and not sexually satisfied – after hook-ups (Denizet-Lewis, 2004). Some descriptions of the gender politics of college hook-ups are similar. The consistent theme is that women typically want relationships and men would rather only have casual sex. In fact, some argue that sexual liberation has in some ways enhanced men’s power over women as evidenced by the fact that men are getting what they want and women are not (Glenn & Marquardt, 2001; Stepp, 2007). Others are not as certain that women, particularly college women, want relationships. Women do want to avoid the social stigma associated with too many hook-ups, but they enjoy physical intimacy and some feel they do not have the time to maintain a relationship (Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009). A weakness of most of these accounts is that they rely on reports only from women, leaving unchallenged the notion that men are not interested in relationships.

While some are concerned about the gender imbalance in power, other scholars are interested in the growth in hook-ups because they reflect a broader process of individuation and weakening of social ties. Compared to 25 years ago, today adults living in the United States see friends less, are less likely to join an organization, and have smaller conversation networks (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Brashears, 2006, 2009; Putnam, 2001). They also are delaying marriage; many who do marry will eventually divorce (Goldstein & Kenney, 2001; Martin, 2006). Instead of marrying, many cohabit – living together and delaying any long-term commitment. Hook-ups seem to be the last step in the deinstitutionalization of intimate relationships, and some are concerned about the implications for family life (Glenn & Marquardt, 2001; Kass, 1997). Whether these concerns are supported depends to some extent on whether hook-ups are in fact the dominant form of relationship formation among young adults today. That is, the presence of hook-ups is not necessarily the issue; it is the lack of attachments.

A public health reason to worry about the growth in hook-ups is the spread of sexually transmitted disease. As the number of sexual partners increases, so does the risk of becoming infected, especially when youth do not always use effective protection. Finally, some might note the rise in the percentage of children born outside of marriage and believe that this is somehow related to the growth in hook-ups. I’ll dismiss this possibility right away. By far the majority of nonmarital births are to women who are in romantic relationships (Chap. 12) and births to cohabiting women account for much of the increase in nonmarital fertility (Kennedy & Bumpass, 2008).

Young Adult Relationships

The first panel of Fig. 11.1 presents data from the NSFG describing men’s and women’s marital, cohabitation, and virginity status. Most men and women ages 18–23 are not in a coresidential union (marriage or cohabitation) and about one in four have never had sex. Nearly 50% of women and 56% of men are sexually experienced and not in a coresidential union. This is the group who may be “hooking up.” To explore this issue further, I looked at these men’s and women’s responses to questions about the number of sexual partners they had had over the past year and the number of current sexual partners. The results are shown in the second and third panels of Fig. 11.1.

Fig. 11.1
figure 1_11

Breakdown of relationship types of young adults by gender

Full size image

Panel 2 shows that most of the single sexually experienced respondents had had sex in the last year – 92% of women and 89% of men. Panel 3 of Fig. 11.1 describes the current status of those who had had sex in the last year and were not in a coresidential union. Very few – 2% of women and 5% of men – had had multiple ongoing sexual relationships at the time of the survey. Many more – two-thirds of the women and about one-half of the men – had one current partner at the time of the survey. About one-third of sexually active men and women not in a coresidential relationship had no ongoing sexual relationship.

Previous research suggests that often “hook-ups” are with former romantic partners or with friends (Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2006). It is likely that at least some men and women would report these as ongoing relationships. For this reason and others, some young adults may be in an ongoing sexual relationship with someone they do not view as a steady romantic partner. Panel 4 of Fig. 11.1 presents additional information on the relationship characteristics of respondents with one current (non-coresidential) partner. The NSFG asked women in a relationship at the time of the survey to report the type of arrangement they have with their current partner. Four out of five currently monogamous women are either engaged to or going steady with their partner (mostly going steady). This leaves about 19% of women with one current non-coresidential partner (or 5% of all women ages 18–23) who are engaged in more casual relationships, relationships that fit within the rough parameters of what we consider to be “hook-ups.”

I cannot do a similar analysis for men, who were instead asked about the chances that they would marry their current partner. Seventy percent of men who are currently in a monogamous relationship say that there is an even chance or greater that they will marry their current partner. This leaves 30% of men with one current non-coresidential partner (or 8% of all men ages 18–23) who are in relationships that they do not anticipate will lead to marriage, and under a generous definition these might be considered hook-ups. Generally, those men and women who are in ongoing monogamous sexual relationships are romantically involved, or in TARS terms in dating relationships.

Those with no current partner but who are sexually active might be having hook-ups or they might be in a romantic relationship that dissolved. The NSFG does not ask respondents to report their relationship to their most recent sexual partner if the relationship is not ongoing, but the NSFG does provide information on the number of sexual partners over the last year. If respondents had multiple sexual partners in the past 12 months, then it is less likely that these were committed relationships. Among sexually active women with no current partner, 41% had more than one partner in the past year. About 50% of sexually active men with no current partner had more than one partner in the last year. Some of these might have been serious relationships from at least one partner’s perspective, but many of them likely were not.

Overall, these results suggest that a minority of young adults are hooking up and having sex and not forming relationships. Combining those in multiple ongoing sexual relationships with those currently with one casual partner and those who have no current partner but had multiple sexual partners over the past year, 12% of young adult women and 21% of young adult men probably have had a recent casual sexual relationship (see Table 11.1). Note that this is an inclusive definition, incorporating some who probably had two serious sexual relationships in the past year. Among both men and women ages 18–23, about 30% are in steady relationships or had a single sexual partner over the past year. Some of those in current monogamous or steady relationships have hooked-up in the past. The TARS data indicate that most young adult men and women have had at least one hook-up (Halpern-Meekin, Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2010). The NSFG data indicate that both women and men in this “steady” group have typically had three sexual partners (median) in their lifetime. Nonetheless, casual relationships are not the dominant form of sexual activity among young adults. Fewer young men and women have had only casual relationships over the past year than have been in a steady relationship. Note also that an additional 29% of women and 20% of men are in a coresidental union (marriage or cohabitation).

Table 11.1 Current and Recent Relationship Type of Men and Women Ages 18–23
Full size table

The College Experience in Comparative Perspective

Most of the literature on the emergence of hook-up relationships has studied college students. This focus is motivated by a number of factors. First, they are a convenient population for university-based researchers to study. Also, as Glenn and Marquardt argued, college students are the group from which future social leaders emerge. Most importantly, one’s college years are normatively a time of exploration and experimentation. College students are expected to put off marriage and other adult roles even though physically they are adults. Hamilton and Armstrong (2009) noted that many of the college women whom they studied, especially those from privileged backgrounds, were not interested in a steady relationship, favoring instead a focus on their personal development. Quotes from some of the TARs participants echo the sentiment. This might lead us to expect college students to be especially likely to engage in casual sexual relationships. Finally, some have expressed the belief that the hook-up culture is generated by the imbalance in the gender composition of colleges. As women’s educational attainment has surpassed men’s, college campuses have increasingly skewed sex ratios. Some argue that this gives men more power in sexual bargaining on college campuses.

Figure 11.2 presents an exploration of how college women’s current or recent relationships compare to the relationships of women who are no longer enrolled in school. As before, I limit the sample to women ages 18–23. I do not include those who have graduated from college or those still enrolled in high school, making each education group roughly the same age. (The mean age of those with some college and not enrolled is about one year older than the other groups.) As before, I establish four categories of relationship type. At the extremes there are those who have had no sexual relationship in the last year and those who are in a coresidential union. Figure 11.2 shows that a distinctive characteristic of women enrolled in college is the low percentage currently in a coresidential union (black bar) and the high proportion who were sexually inactive in the past year (white bar). Some might find the large proportion of college women who were sexually inactive surprising, but this figure is consistent with other studies (Glenn & Marquardt, 2001; Morgan, Shanahan, & Brynildsen, 2010).

Fig. 11.2
figure 2_11

Women’s relationship status by educational attainment

Full size image

I divide those women who are sexually active and not in a union (gray bars) into two groups: those having only casual sexual relationships and those whose current or most recent relationship was likely more serious. The casual group includes women not in a current relationship and who had two or more sexual partners in the last year, those who are in an ongoing casual relationship, and a small number who have multiple current partners. The “steady” group is mostly made up of women with a current partner who they identify as a steady boyfriend or fiancé, but also includes some who are not currently in a relationship but had only one sexual partner in the last year.

Across all education groups, the percentage of women with only casual relationships was smaller than the percentage with steady relationships. Those enrolled in college were much less likely than women in the other groups to be in a coresidential union and much more likely not to be sexually active. Women with less than a high school degree were the group most likely to have casual relationships (15%). Only 9% of college women had had only casual relationships in the past year.

Figure 11.3 presents a similar analysis for men. One difference is that, as I mentioned earlier, the NSFG asked men a different question to assess the seriousness of their current relationship. We considered men who believed that there was a 50% chance or greater that they would marry their current partner to be in serious relationships. Patterns for men resembled those for women, except that across all groups more men were in casual relationships. Even so, more men had steady relationships than only casual ones. Moreover, again, men enrolled in college had the lowest percentage with casual relationships (20%) and the highest percentage sexually inactive (40%). This is not consistent with the idea that college is an especially ripe context for casual sexual relationships. Importantly, this analysis focused only on relationships involving sexual intercourse. Thus, it did not fully cover the range of relationships that might be considered hook-ups. England’s analysis suggests that fewer than half of college hook-ups involve intercourse or oral sex (England et al., 2007). It may be that college students are having more casual physical relationships that stop short of sex.

Fig. 11.3
figure 3_11

Men’s relationship status by educational attainment

Full size image

While there appears to be no difference by educational attainment in the percentage of young adults in casual sexual relationships, one big difference is the percentage in serious relationships, largely because college students are much less likely to be in coresidental unions. A nontrivial proportion of the lower education groups have even married (20% of women with just a high school degree), suggesting that they have achieved at least one adult status. An even larger proportion had had a child. Among women ages 18–23 with just a high school degree, 38% had had at least one child. An even higher percentage of women without a degree were mothers – 69%. Thus, it is clear that college students are experiencing delayed transitions into some adult family statuses, while their age peers who are no longer in school are already forming families through marriage or, more often, parenthood.

Conclusion

Earlier I suggested a few reasons why we might be concerned about hook-ups. One was that it represents sexual exploitation because women tend to want relationships while men want only sex. Giordano’s work suggests that men get a lot out of their dating relationships and that women have substantial power and influence in these relationships as well. Yet, this does not mean much if most are hooking up, that is, if most of the action is outside of a dating relationship. My results indicate that steady relationships are more common than hook-ups for both men and women, although this is truer for women than men. When young men form relationships they may be as committed as young women but they are more likely than women to have hook-ups. Altogether these results suggest that most sexually active young adult men are in relationships where they appear to respect their sexual partners and this is true across education groups. This does not deny that sexual exploitation ­happens, just that this is not the typical relationship experience of young adults, even college students.

These results also suggest that despite substantial increases in sexual freedom, young adults still form relationships. Other research indicates that the large majority expect to marry some day. This is a social tie that at least so far is enduring. Nonetheless, we need to better understand the implications of casual sexual relationships on marriage timing and stability. Previous research suggests a link between number of sexual partners and risk of marital dissolution (Teachman, 2003). Hopefully, TARS will continue to follow its respondents to help provide further insight into this question.

Finally, even if in any 1 year most young adults are in relationships with substantial romantic content, most will experience a hook-up at some point in young adulthood (Manning et al., 2006). Although social ties are enduring, casual sexual relationships can increase the immediate risks of sexually transmitted diseases. While this is important, it is a much narrower concern than if we had evidence that casual sex had replaced the usual precursors to stable relationship formation.