By centering attention on how students feel after casual sex, studies of the college social scene miss an extremely important phenomenon—namely, how hookups get started. This article argues that it is in the negotiation of contact during hookups that college students creatively navigate their sexual identity. Using a mixed methodology, this research reveals that the cell phone, as both an object of communication and consumption, is essential to the formation of self, and, as such, it provides the means by which men and women can play with gender boundaries. And yet, the male dominated fraternity system at college restricts the ability of women to realize full agency within the hookup scene.
AfifiW. A.FaulknerS. L. (2000). On being “just friends”: The frequency and impact of sexual activity in cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(2), 205–222.
2.
AhuviaA. C. (2005). Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers’ identity narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 171–184.
3.
BaumanZ. (2003). Liquid life. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
4.
BogleK. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating and relationships on campus. New York, NY: New York University Press.
5.
BordoS. (1993). Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western culture, and the body. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
BordoS. (1997). Reading the male body. In MooreP. L. (Ed.), Building bodies (pp. 31–73). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
7.
BordoS. (1999). The male body: A new look at men in public and private. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
8.
ButlerJ. (2006). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
CameronD. (1997). Performing gender identity: Young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. In JohnsonS.MeinhofU. H. (Eds.), Language and masculinity (pp. 47–64). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
10.
CampbellS.ParkY. (2014). Predictors of mobile sexting among teens: Toward a new explanatory framework. Mobile Media & Communication, 2(1), 20–29.
11.
CasadoE.LasenA. (2012). Mobile telephony and the remediation of couple intimacy. Feminist Media Studies, 12(4), 550–559.
12.
CasadoE.LasenA. (2014). What is disturbing and why not to disturb. On mobile phones, gender, and privacy wihtin heterosexual intimacy. Mobile Media & Communication, 2(3), 249-264.
13.
CoatesJ. (1988). Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups. In CoatesJ.CameronD. (Eds.), Women in their speech communities: New perspectives on language and sex (pp. 199–223). London, UK: Longman.
14.
DworkinS.O’SullivanL. (2005). Actual versus desired initiation patterns among a sample of college men: Tapping disjunctures within traditional male sexual scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 42(2), 150–158.
15.
EpsteinM.CalzoJ. P.SmilerA. P.WardL. M. (2009). “Anything from making out to having sex”: Men’s negotiations of hooking up and friends with benefits scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 46(5), 414–424.
16.
EshbaughE. M.GuteG. (2008). Hookups and sexual regret among college women. Journal of Social Psychology, 148(1), 77–89.
17.
FielderR. L.CareyM. P. (2010). Predictors and consequences of sexual “hookups” among college students: A short-term prospective study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(5), 1105–1119.
18.
FitzpatrickK. (2011). Planned obsolescence: Publishing, technology, and the future of the academy. New York, NY: New York University Press.
19.
GershonI. (2010). The breakup 2.0: Disconnecting over new media. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
20.
GlennN.MarquardtE. (2001). Hooking up, hanging out, and hoping for Mr. Right: College women on dating and mating today. New York, NY: Institute for American Values.
21.
GrelloC. M.WelshD. P.HarperM. S. (2006). No strings attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. Journal of Sex Research, 43(3), 255–267.
22.
HamiltonL.ArmstrongE. A. (2009). Sexuality in young adulthood: Double binds and flawed outcomes. Gender & Society, 23(5), 589–616.
23.
HollandD. C.EisenhartM. A. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, acheivement, and college culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
KatzJ. E. (2004). A nation of ghosts? Choreography of mobile communication in public spaces. In NyiriK. (Ed.), Mobile democracy: Essays on society, self and politics (pp. 21–31). Vienna, Austria: Passagen Verlag.
25.
KimmelM. (2008). Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men. New York, NY: Harper.
26.
KorobovN.ThorneA. (2006). Intimacy and distancing: Young men’s conversations about romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 27–55.
27.
LingR. (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
28.
LingR. (2008). New tech, new ties: How mobile communication is reshaping social cohesion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
LoveM. A.HelmbrechtB. M. (2007). Teaching the conflicts: (Re)engaging students with feminism in a post-feminist world. Feminist Teacher, 18(1), 41–58.
30.
ManningW. D.GiordanoP. C.LongmoreM. A. (2006). Hooking up: The relationship contexts of “nonrelationship” sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21(5), 459–483.
31.
MihailidisP. (2014). A tethered generation: Exploring the role of mobile phones in the daily life of young people. Mobile Media and Communication, 2(1), 58–72.
32.
MoffattM. (1989). Coming of age in New Jersey. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
33.
NafusD.TraceyK. (2002). Mobile phone consumption and concepts of personhood. In KatzJ. E.AakhusM. A. (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 206–221). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
OwenJ. J.RhoadesG. K.StanleyS.M.FinchamF. D. (2010). “Hooking up” among college students: Demographic and psychosocial correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior39(3), 653–663.
35.
PaulE. L.HayesK. A. (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.
36.
PaulE. L.McManusB.HayesA. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. The Journal of Sex Research, 37(1), 76–88.
37.
RayR.RosowJ. A. (2010). Getting off and getting intimate: How normative institutional arrangements structure Black and White fraternity men’s approaches toward women. Men and Masculinities, 12(5), 523–546.
38.
RhoadsR. A. (1995). Whale tales, dog piles, and beer goggles: An ethnographic case study of fraternity life. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26(3), 306–323.
39.
SandayP. R. (1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on campus. New York, NY: New York University Press.
40.
SteppL. S. (2008). Unhooked: How young women pursue sex, delay love, and lose at both. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
41.
TaylorK. (2013, July12). Sex on campus: She can play that game, too. The New York Times.
42.
TurkleS. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books.
43.
WeisskirchR. S.DeleviR. (2011). “Sexting” and adult romantic attachment. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1697–1701.
