CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY, NOVEMBERDECEMBER

2004, VOL. 6, NO. 6, 463481

Getting off and going out: young peoples

conceptions of (hetero)sexual relationships
LOUISA ALLEN
Research that has explored young peoples (hetero)sexual behaviour has often assumed that
the idea of relationships is transparent. Subsequently, the diversity which exists within
this concept has been neglected. This paper endeavours to unpack the concept of
relationships with reference to young peoples own understandings and meanings of the
term. Drawing on findings from focus group research with 1719 year-olds in New
Zealand, it analyses how relationships are constituted and differentiated. Some of the
determining characteristics are: the time partners spend together, a sense of exclusivity and
intimacy, emotional attachment and the kinds and frequency of sexual activity engaged in.
On the basis of various configurations of these elements, young peoples relationships can
be loosely categorized as one-night stands, short-term relationships, casual dating and
going out. The diversity, complexity and fluidity in these conceptualizations present a
challenge to traditional understandings of these relationships, and have implications for
how sexual health promotion might be carried out.

Introduction

Relationships can occupy a prominent place in the daily thoughts and

experiences of young people, whether they are involved with someone or
just on the look out. This is because considerable time, energy and
emotional investment may be spent on initiating and/or sustaining them,
as well as recovering from their demise. Young peoples relationships also
have symbolic importance in that they can affirm peer group status
(Holland et al. 1993, Kehily and Nayak 1997). In addition, they can be a
marker of heterosexuality and space in which gender intelligibility is
configured (Butler 1990). It is in heterosexual relationships that many
young peoples sense of themselves as gendered/sexual people is realized
and performed (Holland et al. 1998). Their importance as a focus of study
then, is not only derived from the salience of relationships in young
peoples own minds, but as a site for contextualizing how gender/sexuality
is lived out.
The advent of HIV/AIDS and the concomitant need to understand
sexual behaviour has seen a proliferation of academic interest in young
peoples relationships. This is partly attributable to the fact that young
people are perceived as particularly vulnerable to HIV infection with
currently over half of all new incidences occurring within the 1524 year
age group.1 Attention has resided on specific aspects of young peoples
Louisa Allen is a research fellow in the School of Education at the University of Auckland, Private Bag
92019, Auckland, New Zealand; e-mail: le.allen@auckland.ac.nz
Culture, Health & Sexuality
ISSN 1369-1058 print/ISSN 1464-5351 online # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/13691050410001694325

464

LOUISA ALLEN

relationships, one being motivation for and experience of, first sexual
intercourse where early sexual encounters may establish future patterns of
safer sex behaviour (Holland et al. 2000, Mitchell and Wellings 1998,
Traeen and Lundin Kvalem 1996, Rosenthal et al. 1999, Thomsen and
Chang 2000).
The framing of interest in young peoples relationships within a global
context of HIV/AIDS has also centred attention on the use/non use of
condoms. Here researchers have been concerned with how condom-use is
negotiated between partners and the reasons why they may or may not be
employed (Moore and Rosenthal 1998, Holland et al. 1990).
Feminists have long been interested in heterosexual relationships and
the gendered relations of power which structure them. Their concentration has been on how power operates between gendered subjects (Holland
et al. 1992, Allen 2003a) with many signalling the way in which it can
manifest unequally in the form of sexual coercion and rape (Rosenthal
1997, Tolman et al. 2003, Hird and Jackson 2001). Culturally ascribed
meanings of sex through which subjects constitute and make sense of their
experience, have also captured contemporary feminist attention for what
they reveal about the nature of sexual behaviour and its gendered effects
(Hillier et al. 1999). All of this research comprises a critical body of
literature which has shed light on young peoples relationships.
It might be argued that within the media and sexuality education
young peoples relationships are often associated with negative outcomes
such as sexually transmissible infections (STIs), unplanned pregnancy,
sexual coercion and date rape. A discourse of danger also surrounds much
research in this area as an unintentional consequence of the way in which
reducing risk of STIs and understanding sexual coercion have shaped
much funded research. While this negative edge has been beneficial in
underscoring the importance of exploring young peoples relationships, it
has constituted our interest in them in a way which underplays their
positives and pleasures. In fact, the pursuit of pleasure has been seen as an
archenemy of sexual health promotion, when in the heat of the moment
the condom is forgotten. I wish to propose that the positives and pleasures
of young peoples relationships can offer an equally insightful window
through which to understand their behaviour and inform safer sex
promotion. Drawing on the ideas of Foucault (1976), pleasure is one of
powers productive effects. According to Foucault power not only works
repressively (by prohibiting certain thoughts, feelings/behaviours) but also
operates productively to produce pleasure in/for the subject. This
productive nature of power can be seen as a more subversive incitement
to action than the use of overt force. From an examination of what gives
young people pleasure in relationships we can understand the productive
nature of power that structures them.
The literature cited above offers a multitude of insights concerning the
micro-politics of young peoples relationships. However, the meanings
young people themselves attribute to them has received less attention.
Instead, there has been a tendency to assume that what these relationships
are is self explanatory, with the effect that they have taken on a generalized
meaning of sexual attraction and/or emotional attachment to someone of

YOUNG PEOPLES CONCEPTIONS OF (HETERO)SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

465

the opposite gender. A consequence of taking for granted that what

relationships are is known, is that their diversity and complexity is
concealed. This has important implications for how we make sense of
young peoples sexuality and how sexual health programmes and policies
are designed. For example, characterizing young peoples relationships
dualistically as either short or long term negates variability within these
categories (Coleman and Ingham 1999). Short-term could entail a oneoff encounter or month long partnering that in both cases may or may not
involve sexual intercourse. These situations imply different combinations
of emotional investment and physical intimacy that demand health
promotion strategies which acknowledge and cater to these. Examining the
diversity and complexity of relationships becomes increasingly important
if sexuality education is to reflect young peoples lived realities and engage
their interests.
For these understandings to bolster the effectiveness of sexuality
education they must be based on young peoples own conceptualizations
of relationships. It is commonly presumed that the relationships young
people engage in are taken less seriously by them, and involve less
personal investment than those in later life (Masters et al. 1994). As a
consequence, the significance some young people attribute to their
relationships has not always been afforded the respect it deserves.
Teenage relationships are often judged as immature and lacking the
commitment and depth of emotion which characterizes adult intimacies
(Erikson 1968). Such perceptions are drawn from discourses which
constitute adolescence as a time of fickle desires reflecting a need to play
the field before selecting and settling into a serious relationship (Coleman
1980). As a derivative of ideas which align young peoples sexuality with
deviance and promiscuity this construction privileges an adult rather
than youthful perspective. This paper begins from a different assumption
in its concern with young peoples own conceptualizations of their
relationships as a means of acknowledging and prioritizing them. Such an
approach attempts to dispel popular belief that these relationships are
always short and sweet and indicates that in a significant number of
cases, they mirror the type of serial monogamy displayed in contemporary
Western adult relationships.
Following a brief description of how findings were collected, the paper
offers a discussion of the different types of relationships young people
described, together with their motivations for entering relationships.
Subsequently, the focus shifts to young peoples descriptions of the pleasures
gained from relationships and how these are conceptualized. Acknowledging
what is pleasurable about these relationships is a way of reframing the often
negative representation of them as a context for unplanned pregnancies and
STIs.
The study

The voices in this study belong to 515 young people aged 1719 years
living in New Zealand. All self identified as heterosexual and were
recruited from either schools or community employment training

466

LOUISA ALLEN

programmes. Comprising two-thirds of the sample, the at school

population were drawn from seven socio-economically diverse schools
in rural and urban centres. Those not at school generally had few or no
formal qualifications and were attending community training programmes
to acquire skills that would increase their chances of full time employment. In many cases, these young people had been unemployed for long
periods and had experienced quite different life histories from those still at
secondary school. Like much research on sexuality which relies on
volunteers, more young women than men responded to calls for
participation from their teachers, community trainers and advertisements
posted in youth centres and health clinics (Johnson and Copas 1997).
Subjects were ethnically diverse, reflecting although not exactly matching
the ethnic composition of the general youth population at the time.2
Findings traversed here form part of a broader study concerned with
exploring young peoples (hetero)sexual subjectivities, knowledge and
practices. This investigation was structured by an interest in understanding what has been conceptualized as a gap between what young
people learn in sexuality education and what they do in practice (Willig
1999). While the larger project employed a variety of methods the data
explored is predominantly drawn from 92 participants involved in 18
focus groups. These consisted of either mixed or single gender groupings
of between four and ten friends, whose familiarity it was hoped would
facilitate discussion. Focus groups were conducted in a plethora of
available spaces, ranging from unoccupied classrooms to a sports hall in a
rural paddock.
Sessions were structured around a set of open ended questions
designed to explore how young people constructed and articulated their
perceptions of heterosexual relationships and what they thought was
important and problematic about them. To enable participants to evoke
their own understanding of relationships the opening question asked;
Whats the first thing that comes to mind when I say the word
relationships? This let young people set their own agenda regarding
how relationships were understood, allowing me to then pursue more
specific questions in relation to their conceptualizations (the complete
focus group schedule is provided in the endnotes).3 Each focus group was
transcribed to acquire a sense of emerging patterns about how young
people conceptualized relationship experience and the language they
employed. While there was some variation in terminology used to describe
different types of relationships, conceptualizations of these were generally
analogous. These patterns were then translated into relationship types
and named to reflect the language most participants referred to them by
(i.e., one-night stands, short-term relationships, casual dating and
going out). Each narrative invoking a conceptualization of relationships
was then analysed for features that matched one or more of the above
categories. Narratives which overlapped relationship types were not seen
as anomalies and instead considered indicative of the blurred boundaries
and fluidity of young peoples relationship practice.
In accordance with the regulations of the University of Auckland
Human Ethics Committee, prospective participants and the governing

YOUNG PEOPLES CONCEPTIONS OF (HETERO)SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

467

bodies of schools received a verbal and/or written explanation about the

research and opportunity to ask questions. After choosing to take part
written consent was gained from all principals of participating schools and
each individual subject. Focus group participants could decide whether a
tape recorder was used and were able to request it be turned off at any
time during discussion without having to provide an explanation. All
groups agreed to be audio-taped and no participants exercised their right
to withdraw information they had provided. There were, however, several
occasions when participants requested certain pieces of information were
excluded from the final research write up. Often, these were comments
which could identify them or people they knew, or were judged to have
potentially negative implications if read by certain audiences.
Conceptualizing relationships

Other research has conceptualized young peoples relationships within a

developmental framework in which relationship types correlate with an
individuals age (Griffiths 1995). A linear progression is inferred here,
from less serious couplings in early adolescence to the development of
more mature relationships as individuals grow. Finding that young
womens relationships did not mirror this developmental progression in
any simple way, Morris and Fuller (1999) have proposed a continuum, of
seriousness in which commitment is seen to define relationship status.
Within this continuum relationships range from the transitory getting
off, to the more serious seeing someone to the very serious going out
with, a longer-term relationship more closely resembling adult partnerships (Morris and Fuller 1999: 537). Such relationships are not perceived
to be age-related nor to occur in an ordered progression, rather young
women might go out with a boy for a period of time [with] her next
relationship taking the form of getting off, and the subsequent going out
with again (Morris and Fuller 1999: 537). What is useful about this
conceptualization is the recognition that young peoples relationships may
not follow any developmental pattern and can involve slippage across
different types. This not only offers a more complex picture of
contemporary relationships, but also suggests that targeting educational
messages to a population who are perceived only to engage in non-serious
encounters may not be beneficial. The current paper seeks to make a
contribution to these understandings by firstly, determining whether an
older and geographically different sample conceptualize their relationships
similarly to those in Fuller and Morriss study. Secondly, the goal is to
tease out these conceptualizations in terms of the meanings young people
attribute to relationships and how they differentiate these. For instance,
what exactly are the qualities of a relationship which constitute it as such
and enable a demarcation between types of couplings?
An extra relationship category (short-term) was discerned in the New
Zealand based study, although similarities were apparent in the meanings
these young people attributed to relationships and the way involvement in
them was not sequenced. In their response to my question about the sorts

468

LOUISA ALLEN

of relationships young people engage in, four types could be identified

comprising one-night stands, short-term relationships, casual dating
and going out. Elements that appeared to constitute and distinguish these
couplings were; the amount of time partners spent together, a sense of
exclusivity, emotional investment and attachment and the kinds and
frequency of sexual activity engaged in. How these facets were configured
varied across categories that to some extent overlapped. Fluidity and
complexity within any conceptualization of young peoples relationships
was evidenced in that some displayed qualities from more than one
category making them difficult to define.
Findings
One-night stands and short-term relationships

The term one-night stand was used by participants to describe relationships which were characterized by one-off sexual contact. Typically, this
entailed opportunistically engaging in sexual activity with someone at a
party or similar social event that they had just met, or previously known
but not been involved with. While one-night stands are commonly
thought to entail sexual intercourse, participants conceptualized them as
also involving just getting off with each other.
Following a request from his friend to explain what counted as a onenight stand, Michael revealed that getting off with each other meant just
like kissing and stuff like that indicating non-coital sexual activity
(Michael, 17 years, AS).4 Michaels attendant comment that one-night
stands involving sex are totally different implied these encounters were
rendered of a different quality. This may result from the symbolic
importance attributed to sexual intercourse within Western cultures as the
quintessence of sexual activity (McPhillips et al. 2001). The resultant
coital imperative which is seen to structure heterosexual relations
prioritizes sexual intercourse over other sexual practices (McPhillips
et al. 2001).
Given the greater status it is accorded, it is perhaps unsurprising that
young people viewed one-night stands involving sexual intercourse as
qualitatively different. These types of relationships resemble those of
getting off in Morris and Fullers study, although young women in their
study did not mention sexual intercourse as part of the sexual activities
these entailed. Its inclusion in the current sample may reflect the sexual
behaviours of an older age group and fact that this period captures the
average age of inaugural sexual intercourse in New Zealand which is 17
years (see Dickson et al. 1998).
Short-term relationships or as Ruth called them a quick fling had no
equivalent conceptualization in the British research. These relationships
were as Tawa explained past the one-night stand thing in that they were
not typified by a single-event and may not involve sexual activity of any
description. Instead, they were uniformly short-lived lasting anywhere
from a matter of hours to a couple of weeks. What appeared to distinguish

YOUNG PEOPLES CONCEPTIONS OF (HETERO)SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

469

this kind of relationship was their public recognition, where being known
as someones girlfriend/boyfriend regardless of actual intimacy was
important. Illuminating the character of these relationships Georgia (19
years, AS) explained that, Officially its when you go steady together you
know and when youre known as his girlfriend and he is known as your
boyfriend even if it is for a short period of time. Thats even if its a
half day, I guess that is even a relationship. While these relationships
may involve intimate interaction which is sexual or otherwise, several
participants noted that some couples barely talk to each other in public
(April, 17 years, AS) and appear to be conducting a relationship in name
only. There was an insinuation that relationships assuming this guise
resembled the type of going round with someone that younger people
engage in. Explaining this idea Tina (17 years, AS) says;
I think when you are younger and you first start college or you know
at intermediate school5] I think uhm I would say you were going round
going out with this person You werent necessarily on that basis of
thing You went out and just, you were partnered together you werent
out

just before [i.e.,

with rather than
intimacy sort of
necessarily going

Casual dating and going out

One young woman described casual dating as like being sex friends
because of the way in which it often involved engaging in sexual contact
with someone (either intercourse or other sexual activities) at certain
intervals. What distinguished this type of encounter from a one-night
stand was the repeated nature of sexual contact with the same partner on
different occasions. Such relationships involved a loose association with
another person which did not render them attached, but contained an
expectation that they may get together. Below are some examples of the
way in which this type of relationship could involve sexual encounters that
were intermittent.
Theres people that you dont consider yourself to be going out with but maybe if you go to
a party and you get with them sort of thing (Crystal, 18 years, AS)
We know of some, some relationships that are casually sexual they are not officially together
as boyfriend and girlfriend but they do get together (Georgia, 19 years, AS)
Theres just like the sexual relationship where they just sleep with each other and theres
the going out [relationship] like you can always get with him but it doesnt matter if
you go to a party and get with someone else thats the not caring relationship. (Aroha,
17 years, AS)

As the last comment suggests, these relationships may not be exclusive

and involve sexual contact with others in between instances of getting
together. While there may be some public acknowledgement that certain
people will sometimes partner up, this kind of relationship is not
constituted as a coupling in the same way as going out. This is because
it appears to lack a particular kind of temporal and emotional investment
from partners. However, of all the relationship categories, the boundaries
of casual dating appeared the most ambiguous with participants
disagreeing about how these were drawn. What if any kind of emotional

470

LOUISA ALLEN

attachment and prior expectations for getting together casual dating

entailed, was an uncertainty which might be a feature of the relationship
itself. The problems this sort of ambiguity could pose for young people
are seen in the following conversation where the distinctions between onenight stands, casual dating and long term relationships are scrutinized.
Annalise: Well a one-night stand, you sort of know that, that is a one-night stand, and thats it,
and long term relationship you sort of know that, but when you are casually dating you dont
really know where it is going, you dont
Ruth: You are unsure where you stand with the person. If it is supposed to be a relationship or
if its just a friendship with a few perks to it [others laugh].
Annalise: Then that can get really confusing cause one of them might think, one partner in the
relationship might think that you are together and then the other one might think that you are not.
Ella: Yeah I hate that feeling I feel like I have to ask them straight out look whats going on?
Just so I know, I dont like being mucked around you know, I have to know whats going on.
(Mixed ages, AS)

These comments suggest that casual dating could potentially move beyond
periodic sexual engagement to a relationship representing a precursor to
going out. As the young womens talk indicates, when one partner
wished to activate this possibility a period of anxiety may ensue while
trying to determine whether this was mutually desired. The way in which
such relationships may undergo this transformation indicates their fluidity
and the complexity involved in differentiating them.
Where casual dating often involved sporadic coupling, one of the
things seen to distinguish going out was its exclusivity expressed by
Rosalind (17 years, AS) as, Its just like you and that person. This meant
being publicly recognized as a couple who were committed to one another
and may invoke the sort of comment made here by Debbie (17 years, AS),
Well you see some people around the school and you think God they are
going to get married, because they look so, you know together. Part of
this togetherness stemmed from an expectation (not always born out in
reality) that such relationships were monogamous. Their exclusivity was
also understood temporally with Marcel (17 years, AS) noting they
involved Spending time alone I guess deliberately. There was also a
sense that something intangible characterized these relationships and was
often named as intimacy or a bond (Tem, 19 years, NAS) which
entailed being closer together than like friends (Tina, 17 years AS) and
was generated by physical intimacy and/or emotional attachment.
While those who were said to be going out had often been in a
relationship for an extended period, what determined this relationship
were its qualities rather than a temporal measurement. For instance, one
young couple who described themselves as going out had only been
together a couple of months but depicted a relationship which exhibited
features of intimacy and exclusivity. Sexual activity was also a common
component of these relationships, although not all couples who were going
out necessarily engaged in sexual intercourse due to religious convictions
or a feeling that they were not ready. For several couples however, these
relationships provided the context for their first experience of sexual
intercourse (see Allen 2003a).

YOUNG PEOPLES CONCEPTIONS OF (HETERO)SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

471

Why get involved in relationships?

Before embarking on an analysis of the reasons young people proffered for

entering into relationships, it is important to note a comment made by one
of the participants. This was shared in a mixed gender focus group
conducted at school in response to a question about what young people
want out of relationships. The answer gives some insight into the diversity
which characterizes young peoples relationships and the way in which
motivations for engaging in them are mirrored by the type of relationship
pursued. Rodney (18 years, AS) explained that what young people wanted
from relationships came down to:
All different things depending on uhm on what kind of relationship they think it is, like if it
is just a casual relationship they might just want someone to get with at a party or something.
If it is a long-term relationship then security and everything.

Rodneys point alerts us to the fact that there is no single entity which
might be defined as young peoples relationships but rather an array of
possibilities which serve different purposes. He also highlights that a
connection exists between types of relationships and reasons for entering
and maintaining them. These points provide a lens through which the
motivations outlined below should be considered.
A dominant discourse surrounding young peoples relationships is that
they are chiefly driven by a desire to experience and engage in sexual activity.
This can be attributed to the conceptualization of adolescence as a time of
physiological maturation which signals preparation for reproductive capability
and an increased interest in sexual activity. Participants in this research drew
on such ideas in their references to feeling horny, lust and attraction as
reasons for initiating relationships. Both genders made these comments across
focus groups with Shane (17 years, AS) capturing their flavour when he said
some people just want to get it on constantly and Jane (17 years, AS) Theres
an element of lust uhm and discovering sexuality etc of people our age. Within
this talk feelings of attraction and desire were constituted as natural through
their attribution as Laura phrased it to our hormones (17 years, AS). For
some young people the process of relationship formation was understood
within a developmental framework where growing up, feeling horny and
wanting a heterosexual relationship followed in natural succession. Vaughn
described this when he posited that getting involved in a relationship is just the
circle of life (19 years, AS). Such references to biological attraction to the
opposite gender serve as a heteronormalizing technique in the way that they are
the normalizing processes which support heterosexuality as the elemental
form of human association [and] as the very model of inter-gender relations
without which society wouldnt exist (Warner 1993: xxi).
Another effect of discourses of adolescence is their constitution of this
as a life stage involving experimentation where young people try out
numerous, non-serious partners. This forms a rite of passage through
which young people acquire experience and knowledge about relationships
to take into adulthood. These ideas were expressed by many participants
who made reference to entering into relationships for the experience, to
find out what boyfriends and girlfriends do (Peter, 18 years, AS) and to
see things try things and experiment (Michael, 17 years, AS).

472

LOUISA ALLEN

While young women and men both talked about the need to
experiment and gain experience, there was a gendered difference in how
this was conceptualized. For instance, young men were more likely to
frame this experience in terms of curiosity for its own sake, hedging their
comments about experimentation with phrases like messing around and
having fun (Darren, 17 years, AS). Young women on the other hand,
made more remarks which set this experimentation in context of finding a
long term partner as when Amy (17 years, AS) explained relationships
were about find[ing] the right partner and Melinda (19 years, NAS) said
they were to experiment before you get married. Below, Becky (17 years,
AS) provides an extended explanation of some young womens motivation
for engaging in relationships.
[relationships are about] experiencing different people. I mean I know a lot of religious
people would say no [laugh] but they reckon like, that not only [gaining] sexual experience
but just having different kinds of people to see what sort of person that youre attracted too,
that you could have a long relationship with and they reckon that if you dont have sex
before marriage you might not be compatible to your long-term partner so thats another
reason probably, just experience.

Beckys remark they reckon that if you dont have sex before marriage
you might not be compatible to your partner suggests that sexual
intercourse involves a pre-existing biological chemistry between partners
which can not be cultivated. The they who prescribe this approach makes
reference to essentialist discourses which attribute attraction and
compatibility to physiological indicators like optimum body shape for
reproduction and pheromones. For Becky and the other young women
quoted above, this experimental stage is constructed as both temporary
and necessary in order to eventually select Mr Right. Interestingly,
despite Beckys attempts to distance her view from those of religious
people her narrative draws on what Hollway has named heterosexualitys
have/hold discourse. This is based on Christian ideals associated with
monogamy, partnership and family life where there is a commitment by
partners to have and to hold each other (Dallos and Dallos 1997). Here
experimenting which within Christian doctrine might be deemed as
promiscuous is constituted as a legitimate and even necessary strategy for
securing a successful long-term partnership.
Explanations of young peoples behaviour often point to peer pressure
as an influencing factor and therefore it might be perceived as a
predictable motivator for engaging in relationships. However, when
participants were asked directly if they felt peer pressure was a reason
relationships were initiated, this was generally denied. The following
conversation between young women in a community childcare training
programme was typical of these kinds of exchanges.
Louisa: Why else do young people get involved in boyfriend/girlfriend relationships?
Sharon: Some could be to do with peer pressure, yeah. But thats never happened with me.
Sandra: No I just I cant handle peer pressure, I mean it doesnt like, it is not like someone says
go out with him and Ill go oh okay then Im the opposite if somebody is pressuring me into
doing something I wont do it. (Mixed ages, NAS)

The refusal to be viewed as someone who succumbs to peer pressure while

YOUNG PEOPLES CONCEPTIONS OF (HETERO)SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

473

simultaneously acknowledging its effect, is evidenced in Sharons

concession that it could be to do with peer pressure But thats
never happened with me. A possible reason for rejecting the idea that peer
pressure effects her own decisions, is that this positioning offers minimal
agency by casting young people as the dupes of their friends, rather than
independent actors.
Yet peer pressure clearly did influence some participants decisions to
commence relationships, and when not overtly stated in terms of because
everyone else is doing it (April, 17 years, AS) was covertly signalled
through particular types of comments. These expressed a wish to have
what others had or to emulate their happinessyou see other people do it
and you think Id like to do that (Michael, 17 years, AS). Participants
comments imply that the power of the peer group does not always operate
repressively or in terms of relations of force inciting them to as Sandra
says, go out with him. Instead, it also works productively to produce
young peoples desire to replicate the situation of others and experience
pleasures gained from relationships.
This effect of power has been described by Foucault as capillary in
action where power reaches into the very grain of individuals, touches
their bodies and inserts itself into their actions and attitudes, their
discourses, learning processes and everyday lives (Foucault 1980: 39). Its
embodied effects are also manifest in feelings of attractiveness and
pleasure produced through knowing that as Trisha (17 years, AS)
explained, you have someone that really likes you or as Claudine (17
years, AS) commented, it is nice just to feel special. The ability of power
to produce these incentives in the form of positive embodied feelings
appeared to provide a strong inducement to forge relationships. For some
participants it also seemed to engender a fulfilling sense of gender identity
which was inextricably tied to (hetero)sexuality. This is conveyed in the
following narrative offered by Ruth (17 years, AS) during a single sex
focus group at school:
I suppose it [a relationship] makes you feel more of your own sex. Like if you are going
out with a guy then you feel more like [pause] like a woman. And maybe it is the same
for the guy going out with the girl. Then they feel more like a man. Because that is how
it should be

Here, Ruth demonstrates the rewards of complying with what Rich (1980)
has described as compulsory heterosexuality in which heterosexuality is
socially and economically constructed as the natural expression of
sexuality. The reward is to feel more like a woman a consequence of the
inextricable relationship between sexuality and gender. Butler (1993)
explains this as the way that gender is routinely spoken through a
heterosexual matrix in which heterosexuality is presupposed in the
expression of real forms of masculinity or femininity (Haywood and Mac
an Ghaill 2003: 77). Within this framework being a real woman is achieved
through sexual and emotional attraction and attachment to men.
Successfully initiating a (hetero)sexual relationship offers a context in
which this regulatory fiction is realized. Feeling more like a woman
through virtue of a (hetero)sexual relationship is configured positively

474

LOUISA ALLEN

within a social economy which actively reproduces and rewards

heterosexuality (Sedgwick 1990). The compulsory nature of this sex/
gender order is reflected in Ruths recognition that such pleasure in
achievement of gendered identity is because that is how it should be .
Participants narratives reveal the productive nature of power to incite a
desire to enter relationships and the subsequent effect of feeling attractive
and more of your own sex.
While the reasons presented so far for entering relationships might
have been predicted, young peoples yearning for support and security
may be considered less typical motivations, due to perceptions of their
relationships as being brief and lacking emotional investment. Contrary to
this view, many young women and men spoke about entering relationships
in order to have someone there for me (Kate, 17 years, AS) or as Theo
(18 years, AS) put it, having someone to lean on and to tell your problems
to and to feel close too. The fact that young men appeared to articulate
this as frequently as young women lends additional support to emerging
evidence of male sexual subjectivities which resist dominant discourses of
masculinity (Redman 2001, Allen 2003b). It is likely that those suggesting
support and security as motivations for entering relationships were
envisaging more emotionally intimate partnerships in which these qualities
might materialize. This point highlights the connection young people
conceptualized between the type of relationship sought and reasons for
engaging in it.
The importance of security was especially pertinent to participants
who comprised the not at school portion of the sample, as many lived
alone or in shared accommodation with their partners. For these young
people having someone to care for them extended beyond emotional
support to providing basic necessities such as food, housing and money.
As many of these young people, were unemployed such benefits may have
appeared particularly appealing and a key motivator for initiating
relationships. Their importance was alluded to by Delwyn (18 years,
NAS) in her explanation of the attraction between another young woman
on her training course and the partner who was physically abusing her.
Delwyn described how, I think its a bit of hes older and hes got
probably material things that like, usually different lifestyle from like our
age group. Hes older, hes working, yeah that kind of thing. For young
people who have no financial resources and few additional networks of
support, a relationship with these benefits (even one that is violent) may be
attractive. Morris and Fuller (1999) note a similar phenomenon in their
research where relationships with older partners offered security in the
form of an income and access to a car. For young women in a rural
community this provided a level of freedom that they might not
otherwise experience. Attaining financial support also appeared to be a
consideration for some young men in the not at school sample. For
instance, Vete (19 years, NAS) who was training for a career in the sports
industry stated that gaining a source of income could be a valid reason
for going out with someone.

YOUNG PEOPLES CONCEPTIONS OF (HETERO)SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

475

Pleasure in young peoples relationships

Given the discursive constitution of adolescence as a time of sexual

discovery it might be assumed that when participants were asked about the
best things in their relationships the pleasures of sexual activity would
feature. Indeed, sexual activity was frequently reported as the best thing
about relationships and insight into why this was can be derived from data
from another of the research methods, the anonymous survey.6 When
asked to complete the sentence, What I find pleasurable about sexual
activity is participants responses could be grouped into three themes.
The most consistently mentioned answers referred to a general notion of
pleasure and enjoyment, typically describing this activity as being fun
and enjoyable or, as one young man wrote, I love the fun of it. Very
exciting (17 years, NAS). The feelings associated with the pleasurableness of emotional intimacy was another popular specification indicating
how physical closeness evoked pleasurable emotional feelings. For
instance, one anonymous male participant (17 years, AS) described, the
feeling of being so close to someone while another young woman (19
years, NAS) answered, the intimacy and the feeling and the bond
afterwards. For others, the pleasures of sexual activity could be
understood as positive feelings associated with the body and were
grounded in bodily sensations which produced a positive corporeal
experience as captured by this young womans (19 years, NAS)
explanation of her enjoyment of, the feeling of naked skin together. In
deciphering these answers it was apparent that corporeal and emotional
pleasures were often inextricably intertwined making it sometimes
impossible to know which exactly participants were referring too.
Although sexual activity was often cited as one of the most pleasurable
aspects of relationships, it did not dominate young peoples narratives
which made abundant references to what might be conceptualized as
intimacy. For example, the best things about relationships were often
cited as doing things as a couple, the security of having someone around,
the feeling of closeness and the joy of romance. What was valued most was
connected to particular types of relationships so that prizing security and
support implied reference to a going out relationship rather than a onenight stand.
When pressed about the best things concerning relationships,
participants often defaulted to describing characteristics associated with
going out. This tendency infers a privileging of this kind of relationship
as ideal and something which young people may have wanted to
experience. This kind of relationship was the type which most closely
reflected traditional notions of marriage in which commitment, trust and
love are upheld.
Doing things as a couple, was frequently mentioned as one of
the best things about relationships because of the way enjoyment in
an activity could be shared. The responses below highlight the way
participants valued being together over and above the type of activity
engaged in.

476

LOUISA ALLEN

Being together. Theres you just do lots of stuff together and you get lots out of it. (Peter, 18
years, AS)
You go away like together and you do all this stuff together and then you can reminisce about it
because there is someone there that you know. (Sharon, 18 years, NAS)
[the best thing about relationships is] mmm the stuff you can do together I reckon. Like just
not even sex and stuff just I dunno maybe lying on the couch and watching TV you know
(Rodney, 18 years, NAS)
My boyfriend used to always take me out, he used to take me out to Mount Victoria and drive
me along the waterfront. Like we wouldnt just have to spend money to have a good time.
(Caitlin, 17 years, NAS)

Companionship features strongly in these extracts evident in the way each

participant mentions the importance of being together. Sharons allusion to
reminiscing about past experiences suggests the pleasures inherent in a
shared history. Having someone who, as Delwyn (18 years, NAS)
explained, knows about you and knows about your life, could provide a
confidante and subsequently a source of security and support. This kind of
support was conceptualized differently from the sorts of confidences
between friends, because as Michael (17 years, AS) indicated, you get
more closer to uhm to your girlfriend. Uhm like you cant like , sit in
the car with your mates and talk about some things like you can with
them. While for some young men girlfriends enabled a form of self
expression that was not possible with their mates, this sense of being
closer to a romantic partner was indicated in other ways. This is apparent
from another pleasure participants described deriving from relationships,
which entailed knowing somebody just so well that, you know you can
guess what they are thinking (Peter, 18 years, AS). Many participants
made reference to the pleasures associated with a closeness which only
comes from knowing someone intimately. These special familiarities in
relationships were seen as exclusive to the couple and described by
participants below as part of a relationships benefits.
Aroha: You learn little things about him that no one else knows and you feel like I dunno just
things about him that like you would never learn from his group of friends.
Louisa: Can you think of an example?
Aroha: like uhm like say he has got a birth mark or something somewhere and you think it
is quite funny because no one else knows and like its a personal joke between you.
Lesley: Or you know that they still sleep with like a little square of a blanket or something and
you go oh the boys down the league club would enjoy that one wouldnt they? [all laugh].
Becky: Its just weird little things.
Aroha: Things that arent big. (Mixed ages, AS)

Other information, such as details pertaining to the sexual activity

couples engaged in, were also considered to form part of this special
closeness. This also extended to romantic moments which were frequently
mentioned as a source of great pleasure. Kate (17 years, NAS) described
what she loved about her relationship was the way she would find poems
all over the house and little messages composed by her boyfriend while
another young woman described the way her partner framed and hung the

YOUNG PEOPLES CONCEPTIONS OF (HETERO)SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

477

pictures she had drawn with children at kindergarten. Peter (18 years, AS)
produced half of a silver heart from around his neck explaining that this
symbolized his relationship with his girlfriend because, when we are
together we are a whole person, when I am apart I am a half person.
These examples indicate that not only is romance alive in some young
peoples relationships, but that it is a source of great pleasure for them.
The findings above suggest that the pleasures young people derive
from relationships are corporeal and emotional and often an inextricable
combination of both. It would seem that while sexual activity is important,
relationships offer many other pleasures which can be conceptualized as
intimacy and encompasses physical/emotional closeness. These sorts of
pleasures do not appear to be the product of puppy love, but instead the
consequence of deeply felt feelings and attachment. The valuing of
security and support which was also a reason participants expressed for
entering relationships, highlights the importance of these partnerings in
their lives and the similarity they display with so called adult
relationships. What these pleasures tell us about young people is that
their motivations for initiating relationships are often far from immature
and that these couplings can provide a positive and important source of
security and support for them.
Conclusions

This paper has attempted to offer an understanding of the way in which a

group of 1719 year-olds living in New Zealand conceptualize their
(hetero)sexual relationships. Rather than taking for granted the notion of
what young peoples relationships are, this paper has endeavoured to
unpick their meaning as described by young people themselves. This has
served as a means of acknowledging and prioritizing what young people
understand these relationships to be so that programme design and
delivery in this area may reflect their conceptualizations and interests.
It is apparent from this investigation that there is considerable
diversity in young peoples conceptions of relationships and that these do
not neatly conform to conventional perceptions of them simply being
short and sweet. Instead, participants relationships were characterized
by their complexity and fluidity and conceptualized as a series of loose
categories called one-night stands, short-term relationships, casual
relationships and going out. While these types of relationships to some
extent overlapped what appeared to constitute and distinguish them were
features such as; the amount of time spent together, a sense of exclusivity,
emotional investment and attachment and the kinds and frequency of
sexual activity engaged in, as well as a somewhat elusive notion of
intimacy.
These insights suggest that sexual health strategies which presuppose
that all young peoples relationships are brief, non-serious and devoid of
emotional investment fail to take account of the diversity and complexity
these can entail. Just over half the questionnaire sample (53%) indicated
that their longest relationship had been more than six months with nearly

478

LOUISA ALLEN

40% reporting this between one and five years. The fact that some young
people are entering relationships which mirror those typically associated
with later life, has important ramifications for sexual and mental health.
As these relationships may constitute a central form of support for young
people and involve considerable emotional investment it is probable that
when they do end, this will invoke distress for which they may need
additional support.
The diversity in young peoples relationships also has implications for
how safer sex messages are targeted as other research points to the fact
that condom negotiation differs depending upon whether this is an
established or new relationship (Coleman and Ingham 1999). Reasons for
non-use of condoms have also been seen to vary depending on emotional
attachment in relationships with the belief that it is less necessary to use
protection when your partner is someone you know well, love and trust
(Moore and Rosenthal 1998: 238). As the data in this study reveals, these
feelings are likely to characterize a going out type of relationship. Other
research indicates that young men engaging in one-night stands are likely
to base condom use on an assessment of the sexual reputation of their
partner (Waldby et al. 1993). If she is known as someone who has had
previous partners, it is likely a condom will be used. However, if she is
considered clean, then condom use is less likely to be instigated. It is,
therefore, important that young peoples conceptualization of relationships
as also involving one-night stands and casual dating (in which they may
engage in sexual intercourse) is acknowledged by sexual health promotion.
The ambiguity of emotional investment and intimacy within some casual
dating relationships may render these a special consideration in terms of
how safer sex is encouraged within them. Clearly, the diversity,
complexity and fluidity with which young people in this research
conceptualized their relationships offers sexual health promotion much
in the way of challenges.
Acknowledgements

This research was made possible by a New Zealand Health Research

Council, post-graduate scholarship. I would also like to thank the focus
group participants for their time and energy and the dedicated people who
facilitated our introductions.
Notes
1. UNAIDS has stated that many young people are vulnerable to HIV because of risky sexual
behaviour or substance abuse, because they lack access to HIV information and prevention services,
or for a host of social and economic reasons (2002: 70).
2. Of the subjects, 57.4% were Pakeha (non-Maori New Zealanders of European descent), 16.3% were
from the Pacific Islands, 16.3% were Maori, 9.1% were Asian and 1% other. See Ministry of
Youth Affairs (1999) for ethnic composition of New Zealands youth in 1999.
3. What is the first thing that comes to mind when I say relationships? Why do you think young
people get involved in relationships? What qualities do you think are important in relationships?

YOUNG PEOPLES CONCEPTIONS OF (HETERO)SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

479

How would you describe the kinds of relationships young people get involved in? What do you
think young women and men want from relationships? What are some of the best things about
being in a relationship? What kinds of problems do you think young people experience in
relationships?
4. Key: AS (at school) NAS (not at school).
5. In New Zealand, this is a school for children aged between 11 and 13, which sits between primary
and secondary.
6. Anonymous written questionnaires were another method used in the larger project. Four hundred
and eleven subjects participated in the questionnaire which was designed to tap on a larger scale
than focus groups young peoples conceptualization of their sexual knowledge, subjectivities and
practices.

References
Allen, L. (2003a) Power talk: young people negotiating (hetero)sex. Womens Studies International
Forum, 26, 235244.
Allen, L. (2003b) Girls want sex, boys want love: resisting dominant discourses of (hetero)sexuality.
Sexualities, 6, 215236.
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (London: Routledge).
Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that matter, On the Discursive Limits of Sex (London: Routledge).
Coleman, J. (1980) The Nature of Adolescence (London: Methuen).
Coleman, L. and Ingham, R. (1999) Contrasting strategies used by young people to ensure condom
use: some finding from a qualitative research project. AIDS Care, 11, 473479.
Dallos, S. and Dallos, R. (1997) Couples, sex and power: The Politics of Desire (Buckingham: Open
University).
Dickson, N., Paul, C., Herbison, P. and Silva, P. (1998) First sexual intercourse: age, coercion, and
later regrets reported by a birth cohort. British Medical Journal, 316, 2933.
Erikson, E. (1968) Identity, Youth and Crisis (New York: Norton).
Foucault, M. (1976) The History of Sexuality: Volume 1 An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley
(London: Penguin Books).
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge (New York: Pantheon Books).
Griffiths, V. (1995) Adolescent Girls and Their Friends (Avebury: Aldershot).
Haywood, C. and Mac an Ghaill, M. (2003) Men and Masculinities: Theory, research and social practice
(Buckingham: Open University Press).
Hillier, L., Harrison, L. and Bowditch, K. (1999) Neverending love and blowing your load: the
meanings of sex to rural youth. Sexualities, 2, 6988.
Hird, M. and Jackson, S. (2001) Where angels and wusses fear to tread: sexual coercion in
adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Sociology, 37, 2743.
Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C. and Sharpe, S. (1993) Wimp or gladiator: Contradictions in acquiring
masculine sexuality. WRAP (MRAP) Paper 9 (London: The Tufnell Press).
Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Scott, S., Sharpe, S. and Thomson, R. (1990) Dont die of ignorance I
nearly died of embarrassment: Condoms in context. WRAP Paper 2 (London: The Tufnell Press).
Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S. and Thomson, R. (1992) Pleasure, pressure and power:
some contradictions of gendered sexuality. Sociological Review, 40, 645674.
Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S. and Thomson, R. (1998) The Male in the Head: Young
People, Heterosexuality and Power (London: The Tufnell Press).
Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S. and Thomson, R. (2000) Deconstructing virginityyoung
peoples accounts of first sex. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 15, 221232.
Johnson, A. and Copas, A. (1997) Assessing Participation Bias. In J. Bancroft (ed.) Researching Sexual
Behaviour: Methodological Issues (Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press), pp. 276288.
Kehily, M. and Nayak, A. (1997) Lads and Laughter: humour and the production of heterosexual
hierarchies. Gender and Education, 9, 6987.
Masters, W., Johnson, V. and Kolodny, R. (1994) Heterosexuality (London: Thorsons).
McPhillips, K., Braun, V. and Gavey, N. (2001) Defining (Hetero)sex: How Imperative is the Coital
Imperative. Womens Studies International Forum, 24, 229240.
Ministry of Youth Affairs (1999) Young People in New ZealandWhere do we fit. Fact Sheet 2
(Wellington: Ministry of Youth Affairs).

480

LOUISA ALLEN

Mitchell, K. and Wellings, K. (1998) First sexual intercourse: anticipation and communication.
Interviews with young people in England. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 717726.
Moore, S. and Rosenthal, D. (1998) Contemporary Youths Negotiations of Romance, Love, Sex and
Sexual Disease. In V.C. De Munck (ed.) Romantic Love and Sexual Behaviour (Westport, CT:
Praeger), pp. 233247.
Morris, K. and Fuller, M. (1999) Heterosexual relationships of young women in a rural environment.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20, 531543.
Redman, P. (2001) The discipline of love: negotiation and regulation in boys performance of a
romance-based heterosexual masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 4, 186200.
Rich, A. (1980) Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5, 631660.
Rosenthal, D. (1997) Understanding sexual coercion among young adolescents: communicative clarity,
pressure, and acceptance. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 26, 481493.
Rosenthal, D., Smith, A. and de Visser, R. (1999) Personal and social factors influencing age at first
sexual intercourse. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 28, 319331.
Sedgwick, E. (1990) The Epistemology of the Closet (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
Thomsen, D. and Chang, J. (2000) Predictors of Satisfaction with First Intercourse: A New
Perspective for Sexuality Education. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National
Council on Family Relations. Minneapolis, MN, 1013 November.
Tolman, D., Spencer, R., Rosen-Reynoso, M. and Porche, M. (2003) Sowing the seeds of violence in
heterosexual relationships: early adolescents narrate compulsory heterosexuality. Journal of
Social Issues, 59, 159178.
Traeen, B. and Lundin Kvalem, I. (1996) Sexual socialization and motives for intercourse among
norwegian Adolescents. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 25, 289302.
UNAIDS (2002) Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic (Geneva: Joint United Nations
Prongramme on HIV/AIDS).
Waldby, C., Kippax, S. and Crawford, J. (1993) Cordon Sanitaire: Clean and Unclean Women in
the AIDS Discourse of Young Heterosexual Men. In P. Aggleton, P. Davies and G. Hart (eds)
AIDS: Facing the Second Decade (London: Falmer Press), pp. 2939.
Warner, M. (1993) Fear of a queer planet (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Willig, C. (1999) Discourse Analysis and Sex Education. In C. Willig (ed.) Applied Discourse Analysis:
Social and Psychological Interventions (Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press), pp. 110124.

Resume

Les recherches qui ont explore les comportements (hetero)sexuels des

jeunes ont souvent fait lhypothe`se que le concept de relations est
transparent, et par la suite, la diversite de ce concept a ete negligee. Cet
article tente de developper le concept de relations en reference avec la
comprehension et la signification que les jeunes attribuent a` ce terme. En
sinspirant des resultats dune recherche menee parmi des jeunes de 17 a`
19 ans, reunis en groupes focus, il analyse la manie`re avec laquelle les
relations sont constituees et differenciees.
Certaines des caracteristiques determinantes sont: le temps que les
partenaires passent ensemble, le sentiment dexclusivite et dintimite,
lattachement emotionnel, les types de rapports sexuels et leur frequence.
A partir de differentes configurations de ces elements, les relations chez
les jeunes peuvent etre approximativement categorisees en relations
dune nuit, a` court terme, occasionnelles et sortir avec. La diversite,
la complexite et la fluidite de ces conceptualisations presentent un defi
aux comprehensions traditionnelles de ces relations et ont des implications sur la manie`re dont la promotion de la sante sexuelle pourrait
etre menee.

YOUNG PEOPLES CONCEPTIONS OF (HETERO)SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

481

Resumen

En los estudios en los que se ha analizado el comportamiento

(hetero)sexual de los jovenes, se supone generalmente que la idea de
relaciones es transparente y, en consecuencia, se ha ignorado la
diversidad que existe dentro de este concepto. En este documento, se
procura analizar el concepto de relaciones con referencia a como
entienden los jovenes este termino y que significado tiene para ellos.
Basandose en los resultados de un estudio de grupos de discusion con
jovenes de 17 a 19 anos, se analiza el modo en que se forman y diferencian
las relaciones. Algunas de las caractersticas determinantes son: el tiempo
que las parejas pasan juntas, un sentido de exclusividad e intimidad, el
vnculo emocional y los tipos y la frecuencia de la actividad sexual en la
que participan. Segun varias configuraciones de estos elementos, las
relaciones de los jovenes pueden clasificarse a grandes rasgos en relaciones
de una noche, a corto plazo, con citas casuales y relaciones mas estables.
La diversidad, complejidad y fluidez de estas conceptualizaciones
presentan un reto para entender estas relaciones desde un punto de
vista tradicional y tienen implicaciones en cuanto a como fomentar la salud
sexual.