Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 74, Issue 5–6, pp 181–194 | Cite as

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

  • Laina Y. Bay-ChengEmail author
  • Sara A. Goodkind
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Undergraduate women Low-income women Single women Intersectionality Neoliberal ideology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

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.

References

  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, E. A., & Hamilton, L. T. (2013). Paying for the party: How college maintains inequality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnett, J. J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bettie, J. (2003). Women without class: Girls, race, and identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duggan, L. (2003). The twilight of equality?: Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack on democracy. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  15. Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2011). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fields, J. (2008). Risky lessons: Sex education and social inequality. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gavey, N. (2005). Just sex?: The cultural scaffolding of rape. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hancock, A. (2007). Intersectionality as a normative and empirical paradigm. Politics & Gender, 3, 248–254. doi: 10.1017/S1743923X07000062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin, K. A. (1996). Puberty, sexuality, and the self: Girls and boys at adolescence. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Silva, J. M. (2012). Constructing adulthood in an age of uncertainty. American Sociological Review, 77, 505–522. doi: 10.1177/0003122412449014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Stringer, R. (2014). Knowing victims: Feminism, agency and victim politics in neoliberal times. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Taylor, A. (2012). Single women in popular culture: The limits of postfeminism. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  39. Thomson, R. (2000). Dream on: The logic of sexual practice. Journal of Youth Studies, 3, 407–427. doi: 10.1080/713684385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tolman, D. L. (2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 http://www.gallup.com/poll/162881/older-americans-moral-attitudes-changing.aspx.
  44. Wolfers, J., Leonhardt, D., & Quealy, K. (2015, April 20). 1.5 million missing Black men. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/20/upshot/missing-black-men.html?abt=0002&abg=0.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social WorkUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations