Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Sex and the Single (Neoliberal) Girl: Perspectives on Being Single Among Socioeconomically Diverse Young Women


Young women’s orientation toward romantic relationships and being single is shaped not only by heteronormative gender expectations but also by their socioeconomic status (SES). The intersection of gender and class is itself situated in the midst of prevailing norms, including those stemming from neoliberal ideology. To learn how these normative conditions affect young women’s perceptions of being single, we analyzed open-ended survey responses from 274 single women in the U.S. who were between the ages of 18 and 22 and who occupied three distinct social locations: affluent undergraduates at a private mid-Atlantic university; low-SES undergraduates across New York State; and low-SES women in Western New York who were not in college. We identified eight themes that captured participants’ feelings about being single and assessed if and how the participants’ perceptions differed by social location. In the Discussion, we reflect on and summarize the thematic patterns found in participants’ responses, with affluent undergraduates seeming to characterize being single as positive and self-enhancing, the low-SES undergraduates seeing it as a strategy for self-advancement, and the low-SES non-students framing it in defensive, self-protective terms. Despite these differences, all participants seemed to draw on common neoliberal tenets. We argue that participants’ predominantly positive perspectives on being single may be at least partially attributed to commercialized feminism and an agency imperative that requires young women to cast all circumstances and conditions in light of individual choice, will, and responsibility.

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


  1. Allen, L. (2008). “They think you shouldn’t be having sex anyway”: Young people’s suggestions for improving sexuality education content. Sexualities, 11, 573–594. doi:10.1177/1363460708089425.

  2. Armstrong, E. A., & Hamilton, L. T. (2013). Paying for the party: How college maintains inequality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  3. Arnett, J. J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

  4. Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2015). The Agency Line: A neoliberal metric for appraising young women’s sexuality. Sex Roles, 73, 279–291. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0452-6.

  5. Bettie, J. (2003). Women without class: Girls, race, and identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  6. Bowleg, L. (2012). The problem with the phrase women and minorities: Intersectionality—an important theoretical framework for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 1267–1273. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300750.

  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

  8. Braveman, P. A., Cubbin, C., Egerter, S., Chideya, S., Marchi, K. S., Metzler, M., & Posner, S. (2005). Socioeconomic status in health research: One size does not fit all. JAMA, 294, 2879–2888. doi:10.1001/jama.294.22.2879.

  9. Brown, W. (2003). Neo-liberalism and the end of liberal democracy. Theory & Event, 7. doi: 10.1353/tae.2003.0020.

  10. Burns, A., & Torre, M. E. (2004). Shifting desires: Discourses of accountability in abstinence-only education in the United States. In A. Harris (Ed.), All about the girl: Culture, power, and identity (pp. 127–137). New York: Routledge.

  11. Claxton, S. E., & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2013). Casual sexual relationships and experiences in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 138–150. doi:10.1177/2167696813487181.

  12. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

  13. Connell, C., & Elliott, S. (2009). Beyond the birds and the bees: Learning inequality through sexuality education. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 4, 83–102. doi:10.1080/15546120903001332.

  14. Duggan, L. (2003). The twilight of equality?: Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack on democracy. Boston: Beacon.

  15. Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2011). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  16. Fasula, A. M., Carry, M., & Miller, K. S. (2014). A multidimensional framework for the meanings of the sexual double standard and its application for the sexual health of young Black women in the U.S. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 170–183. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.716874.

  17. Fields, J. (2008). Risky lessons: Sex education and social inequality. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.

  18. Froyum, C. M. (2010). Making “good girls”: Sexual agency in the sexuality education of low-income black girls. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 12, 59–72. doi:10.1080/13691050903272583.

  19. Gavey, N. (2005). Just sex?: The cultural scaffolding of rape. New York: Routledge.

  20. Goodkind, S. (2009). “You can be anything you want, but you have to believe it”: Commercialized feminism in gender‐specific programs for girls. Signs, 34, 397–422. doi:10.1086/591086.

  21. Hamilton, L. T., & Armstrong, E. A. (2009). Gendered sexuality in young adulthood double binds and flawed options. Gender & Society, 23, 589–616. doi:10.1177/0891243209345829.

  22. Hancock, A. (2007). Intersectionality as a normative and empirical paradigm. Politics & Gender, 3, 248–254. doi:10.1017/S1743923X07000062.

  23. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

  24. Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz, D., St. John, D. C., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R. A., & Carey, J. W. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16, 307–331. doi:10.1177/1525822X04266540.

  25. Hurtado, A. (1989). Relating to privilege: Seduction and rejection in the subordination of white women and women of Color. Signs, 14, 833–855. doi:10.1086/494546.

  26. Jowett, M., & O’Toole, G. (2006). Focusing researchers’ minds: Contrasting experiences of using focus groups in feminist qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 6, 453–472. doi:10.1177/1468794106068014.

  27. Kelly, L., Burton, S., & Regan, L. (1996). Beyond victim or survivor: Sexual violence, identity and feminist theory and practice. In L. Adkins & V. Merchant (Eds.), Sexualizing the social: Power and the organization of sexuality (pp. 77–101). London: Macmillan.

  28. Lyons, H. A., Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2014). Young adult casual sexual behavior: Life-course-specific motivations and consequences. Sociological Perspectives, 57, 79–101. doi:10.1177/0731121413517557.

  29. Martin, K. A. (1996). Puberty, sexuality, and the self: Girls and boys at adolescence. New York: Routledge.

  30. Maxwell, C. (2006). Understanding young women’s sexual relationship experiences: The nature and role of vulnerability. Journal of Youth Studies, 9, 141–158. doi:10.1080/13676260600635615.

  31. Maxwell, C., & Aggleton, P. (2010). The bubble of privilege. Young, privately educated women talk about social class. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31, 3–15. doi:10.1080/01425690903385329.

  32. Meier, A., & Allen, G. (2008). Intimate relationship development during the transition to adulthood: Differences by social class. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 119, 25–39. doi:10.1002/cd.207.

  33. Osgood, D. W., Foster, E. M., Flanagan, C., & Ruth, G. R. (2005). On your own without a net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  34. Peek, L., & Fothergill, A. (2009). Using focus groups: Lessons from studying daycare centers, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina. Qualitative Research, 9, 31–59. doi:10.1177/1468794108098029.

  35. Silva, J. M. (2012). Constructing adulthood in an age of uncertainty. American Sociological Review, 77, 505–522. doi:10.1177/0003122412449014.

  36. Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., Maxwell, J. A., Joel, S., Peragine, D., Muise, A., & Impett, E. A. (2013). Settling for less out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1049–1073. doi:10.1037/a0034628.

  37. Stringer, R. (2014). Knowing victims: Feminism, agency and victim politics in neoliberal times. New York: Routledge.

  38. Taylor, A. (2012). Single women in popular culture: The limits of postfeminism. New York: Palgrave.

  39. Thomson, R. (2000). Dream on: The logic of sexual practice. Journal of Youth Studies, 3, 407–427. doi:10.1080/713684385.

  40. Thomson, R., Henderson, S., & Holland, J. (2003). Making the most of what you’ve got? Resources, values, and inequalities in young women’s transitions to adulthood. Educational Review, 55, 33–46. doi:10.1080/00131910303249.

  41. Tolman, D. L. (2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  42. Tolman, D. L., & Szalacha, L. A. (1999). Dimensions of desire. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 7–39. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00338.x.

  43. Wilke, J., & Saad, L. (2013, June 3). Older Americans’ moral attitudes changing: Moral acceptance of teenage sex among the biggest generational divides. Retrieved from

  44. Wolfers, J., Leonhardt, D., & Quealy, K. (2015, April 20). 1.5 million missing Black men. New York Times. Retrieved from

Download references


The authors thank Anne Bruns, Alyssa Zucker, Sangeeta Chatterji, Melinda Mizell, Jilleesha Inverary, and Inbal Fischer for their assistance with data collection, entry, and coding. Funding was provided by the University at Buffalo’s Les Brun Research Endowment Fund Pilot Program and the Institute for Research and Education on Women and Gender. This research was made possible by the cooperation of student services administrators at colleges and universities throughout New York State and social service providers in Western New York.

Author information

Correspondence to Laina Y. Bay-Cheng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors are unaware of any potential conflicts of interest related to this research project.

This study was approved by the institutional review boards of The George Washington University and the University at Buffalo.

Prior to data collection, participants were provided information about the study, their rights as participants, potential risks and benefits to participation, and the responsibilities of the researchers. Only those who offered their informed, voluntary consent were enrolled as study participants.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bay-Cheng, L.Y., Goodkind, S.A. Sex and the Single (Neoliberal) Girl: Perspectives on Being Single Among Socioeconomically Diverse Young Women. Sex Roles 74, 181–194 (2016).

Download citation


  • Undergraduate women
  • Low-income women
  • Single women
  • Intersectionality
  • Neoliberal ideology