!"#$%&'()*+#$,-$.,/'0)"*12$3*,4#56#$&5+$7#8/&4$9814,*0&0*,5 :/0",';)<2$7&44=$:>$?4,=+ 7,/'6#2$@&A*4=$B#4&0*,5)C$3,4>$DEC$F,>$G$;H&5>C$GIIG<C$11>$GDJKE L/M4*)"#+$M=2$F&0*,5&4$.,/56*4$,5$@&A*4=$B#4&0*,5) 70&M4#$NB?2$http://www.jstor.org/stable/585653 :66#))#+2$EOPGKPKEEO$GD2EG

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council on Family Relations and National Council on Family Relations are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Family Relations.

http://www.jstor.org

I . ... ....W 5

/X . ............

The Darkside of Courtship:

Violence and Sexual

Exploitation*

Sally A. Lloyd**

This article reviews the literature on the "dark side of courtship," that is, the occur- rence of physical violence and sexual ex- ploitation between premarital partners. The basic premise of the article is that two features of dating and courtship both en- courage the use of exploitative behavior and allow it to continue over time without necessarily causing the relationship to ter- minate. First, the different context of court- ship for males versus females encourages male control of relationships and female compliance with that control. Second, the highly romanticized nature of courtship en- courages partners to stay together despite highly negative interaction patterns. Im- plications for primary, secondary, and ter- tiary intervention are discussed.

The institution of marriage, despite recent stresses and strains, is very popular in the United States.

Upwards of 95% of Americans marry; the majority do so in a context of "until death do us part" and "happily ever after" (Skolnick, 1987). Unfortunately, the projected divorce rate of 50% can only lead to the conclusion that happily ever after is a particularly difficult state to achieve (Glick, 1984). Since the breakdown of marriage occurs for many couples in the very early years of marriage (the average length of mar- riage before separation is only 5 years, Cherlin, 1981), marital problems most likely have their roots in the premarital stage. Many times premarital partners have some inkling of what is to come in marriage, but because of the nature of a courtship relationship, partners ig- nore the bad and glorify the good.

Despite the fact that half of all dating relationships contain violence and/or sexual exploitation, such negative interaction does not neces- sarily preclude future marriage (Lane & Gwartney-Gibbs, 1985; Lloyd, Koval, & Cate, 1989; O'Leary et al., 1989; Roscoe & Benaske, 1985). Why do partners who are forewarned of the darkside of a relationship marry anyway? The answer may lie in the very nature of a courtship relationship.

"Courtship" is used throughout this article in its broadest sense. The term courtship refers herein to the en- tire gamut of heterosexual dating ac- tivities, from casual dating through engagement and/or cohabitation. This definition recognizes that much of the development of a marital bond occurs in phases of casual and serious dating, presumably well before a formal com-

mitment to marry (Cate & Lloyd, in press). In addition, this broad definition of courtship is meant to emphasize that most dating relationships have commitment as an underlying theme, even though many terminate without ever having discussed marriage (Lloyd & Cate, 1985). This article is directed towards professionals who are likely to encounter the issues of violence and sexual exploitation (from therapists to college student services personnel) as well as to those involved in family life education and education of youth. The Nature of Courtship

At the turn of the century, court- ship behavior was carefully proscribed in social etiquette and informally monitored by both parents and the community (Bailey, 1988; Rothman, 1984). Such etiquette and monitoring served to protect the courting couple from inappropriate behavior, females in particular. However, formal gatekeep- ing gradually eroded during the early part of the 20th century and gave way to a very participant-run system of dating (Waller, 1951). Since norms for

'An earlier version was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Reno, NV, November 8-12, 1989. The author would like to thank Beth Emery for her helpful comments. In addition, the author wishes to express her appreciation to the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation for their support of her research program on violence.

**Sally Lloyd is Professor and Chair, Family and Con- sumer Sciences, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056.

Key Words: abuse, aggression, courtship, dating, violence.

(Family Relations, 1991, 40, 14-20.)

14 FAMILY RELATIONS January 1991

sexual behavior were liberalizing and male-female relations were becoming less formal, courting couples often were left with few rules on appropriate courtship behavior (Bailey, 1988; Cate & Lloyd, in press). As early as 1937, Waller acknowledged the potential of courtship to be exploitative. However, as Makepeace (1989) noted, further recognition of the darkside of court- ship was not forthcoming, since par- ents tended to view courtship in roman- tic terms. Makepeace viewed this as a tradeoff; in order to convince themselves that their sons and daugh- ters would suffer no ill effects from a lack of parental monitoring of the dating system, parents had to believe that the system was nonexploitative, moral, and pure. Few scholars (Kanin, 1957, being a notable exception) challenged the romanticized notion of courtship until the early 1980s.

Work on the negative side of court- ship increased significantly during the 1980s. Inquiry into the correlates of both physical and sexual aggression during courtship documented the role of the cycle of family violence, stress, traditional gender role socialization, patriarchal sexual norms, and so forth (Bernard & Bernard, 1983; Emery, 1982; Garrett-Gooding & Senter, 1987; Koss, 1988; Makepeace, 1983). These studies often followed the lead of marital violence and rape research and looked for similarities between marital and courtship aggression. Oddly enough, most researchers largely ignored any examination of the nature of courtship and how the courtship system itself might contribute to the problems of ag- gression and exploitation.

This article attempts to redress this oversight by calling for more atten- tion to the nature of courting relation- ships as a contributory factor. The basic premise of the article is as follows: The social context of court- ship actually fosters exploitation and violence, and at the same time allows partners to downplay, forgive, or overlook negative behavior. The social context of courtship encompasses two components: the different themes of courtship for males versus females and the "romantic ideal."

The Different Context of Courtship for Men and Women

The courtship system in the United States is largely patriarchal, despite recent efforts to enhance

equalitarianism in intimate relation- ships (Lamanna & Reidman, 1985). Patriarchy as used here refers to the financial and emotional dependence of women on men (Barrett, 1988). Well before marriage, power is ascribed to the male partner in a relationship (Dilorio, 1989). Bailey (1988) ascribed the patriarchal nature of the courtship system to shifts in the social context of dating. Prior to the turn of the cen- tury, courtship activities required little access to money and included simple activities such as taking walks together or sitting in the parlor. This is not to say that there was no economic basis to courtship; a young man did not even attempt to call on a young lady unless he had economic prospects suf- ficient to support a family. However, the basic activities of courting were largely controlled by the young woman and her family. They could indicate through elaborate social rituals of call- ing cards and introductions whether or not the suit of the young man would be accepted (Bailey, 1988; Rothman, 1984).

Female control of the activities of courtship changed significantly through the first two decades of the 20th century (Bailey, 1988). As noted earlier, dating became the centerpiece of courtship. Dating as an activity was out of the control of parents (and to some extent the community), and "go- ing out" now required access to money. By the time of Waller's (1937) classic analysis of dating on the Penn State campus, a male's worth as a date was a function of his ability to "drive the right car" and go to "all the right places." In other words, his worth was very directly related to how much money he spent on the date. Her worth, on the other hand, was related to her ability to generate as much competi- tion as possible for her time; the more she dated the "right" kind of men, the higher she rated as a date (Waller, 1937). Ultimately, this meant that her worth was defined in terms of the men she dated, rather than in terms of characteristics of her person. While such a patriarchal definition of the worth of a woman had long pervaded the marriage system due to the eco- nomic control of the husband, such definition was relatively new to the sys- tem of courtship (Bailey, 1988).

As a result of these changes, courtship came to be pervaded with dif- ferent "themes" for males versus females: for males the theme was one of remaining in control, whereas for females the theme centered around dependence on her partner and/or rela-

tionship. These themes of courtship are reflected today both in the stereotypes we hold about "men and women in relationships" as well as in the many social influences which per- vade the development of a courting relationship. Of course, for purposes of illustration, their importance is overstated. The theme of control does not characterize all men, nor does the theme of dependence characterize all women. Rather, the themes represent threads of socialization, media por- trayals, and stereotypes that influence particular individuals to varying degrees. The hypothesis here is that the greater the emphasis on these themes as "the way courtship should be," the greater the potential for ag- gressive and exploitative behavior.

One aspect of the milieu of court- ship which reflects the theme of male control and female dependence is that of the overriding importance of rela- tionships to women (Breines & Gordon, 1983). At its most basic level, this ideology is reflected in the stereotypes of the "charming bachelor" and the "old maid" (Stein, 1976). The avoidance of courtship and marriage is clearly a positive move for him, yet that same autonomy resigns her to a life of loneli- ness. Other stereotypic beliefs about women in relationships contribute to the theme of female dependence, in- cluding the beliefs that in order to be a fulfilled person, a woman needs to be married, and that upon finding the right man, all of life's goals suddenly fall in- to place. Women's socialization ulti- mately emphasizes female responsibil- ity for relationship maintenance (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Dilorio, 1989).

The themes of male control and female dependence are further re- flected in the stereotypic notions that women are the lovers and men are the leavers (Rubin, Peplau, & Hill, 1981). Despite the fact that in reality men may be first in and last out of romantic rela- tionships (Berscheid & Walster, 1974), there may be pressure from peers for men to present the facade that "she trapped me." After all, dependency on a relationship does not fit with notions of masculinity (Balswick, 1982). This is not to say that men are not dependent on their premarital partners; rather, men's experiences of dependence are counter to the cultural milieu surround- ing courtship.

The qualitative examination of dating conducted by Dilorio (1989) il- lustrates the themes of courtship. Dilorio was interested particularly in

January 1991 _ FAMILY RELATIONS 15

discovering the roots of power in dating relationships. She noted that both men and women expected the women to desire involvement with a man. The dating system was character- ized by a double standard: it was the man's role to take charge and initiate a commitment, but the woman's to main- tain it. The double standard extended to social interaction as well. Dilorio observed stringent rules for a female's social behavior; she was expected to follow her boyfriend's lead and interact with whomever he talked to. Initiating a conversation, especially with another male, was viewed with suspicion. Dilorio concluded that the greater economic dependency of women on marriage trickles into the courtship system, with the result of women look- ing for security and protection. Such a system gives males greater control in courtship relationships.

The patriarchal overlay of court- ship is also illustrated in the social control of women through fear of vio- lence and sexual aggression (Brown- miller, 1975). Women are socialized to restrict their behavior so as to reduce the possibility of victimization. Thus, a woman learns that going out after dark alone is risky, that frequenting bars or clubs is dangerous, and that accepting a date with a stranger is downright dumb. Granted, such mores do serve to protect women from victimization; they also serve, however, to restrict women's behavior and to increase their dependence on a man (ironically for protection from other men). Ultimately, a woman's ability to behave autono- mously in the courtship system is still limited in many ways, from norms about acceptable courtship behavior (e.g., who asks out whom) to norms concerning the acceptability of vio- lence and sexual aggression when the rules of courtship have been violated (Warshaw, 1988).

How do these themes foster or maintain exploitative behavior during courtship? The male theme of control justifies the use of force; it is the prerogative of the male to demand compliance from his partner by what- ever means necessary. The male theme of control may also mean that he is concerned with issues of the regula- tion of commitment and closeness; the use of aggression is one means whereby some men may play out the balancing of dependence versus distance (Dutton, 1988). The female theme of dependence may constrain her to remain in a violent/exploitative relationship. Because marriage is the

primary means of entry into adult status or fulfilled identity for women (Brei nes & Gordon, 1983), marriage as a transition takes on overriding impor- tance. Literally, the cultural notion that "any man is better than no man" may cause a woman to accept aggression as part and parcel of courtship. Unfor- tunately, the romanticized nature of the courting relationship further leads her to believe that he will change his ways with her loving understanding and sup- port.

The Role of Romanticism For both males and females, the

romantic ideal makes courtship unique from other close relationships. This ideal includes the beliefs of love at first sight, that love is blind, love conquers all, love entails both pain and ecstasy, and love is passionate (Waller, 1951). It also entails the notion that love can solve any problem (including violence), and that the negative aspects of court- ship will go away as soon as marriage takes place (Henton, Cate, Koval, Lloyd, & Christopher, 1983; Notz, 1984). Hence, the idealization of partner and relationship may result from roman- ticism.

The romantic ideal characterizes courtship and the earliest phases of marriage more so than other relation- ship types or stages. By the end of the first year of marriage, significant decreases in satisfaction and positive interaction occur (Huston, McHale, & Crouter, 1986). These declines in affect and behavior are probably accom- panied by a decline in romanticism. Therefore, while romanticism may carry over into the honeymoon phase of marriage, it may be short-lived.

The power of romance during courtship is illustrated in Kelly, Huston, and Cate's (1985) study of con- flict before and after marriage. Al- though premarital levels of conflict were unrelated to premarital levels of love, high premarital conflict was pre- dictive of lower marital happiness 3 years later. Kelly et al. (1985) inter- preted these findings from an attribu- tion perspective. Because of the romantic nature of courtship, couples who are having trouble with conflict premaritally may be able to excuse it as "due to the situation"; arguments are attributed to stress from school, pres- sure from family, or planning the wed- ding. After the honeymoon is over, it may not be so easy to excuse the same problems; suddenly, the source of disagreement lies in the partner's per- sonality or failure to conform to expec- tation (Kelly et al., 1985).

The same ability to externalize and forgive negative behavior is evident in the work of Henton et al. (1983) on courtship violence. Romanticism al- lows violence to be easily downplayed, as violence is attributed to external fac- tors and not to a fundamental flaw in the relationship (Henton et al., 1983; Makepeace, 1983). Romanticism allows partners to believe that negative court- ship behavior will disappear over time or be conquered by love. The tendency to excuse negative behavior of one's partner may also be accomplished by attributing blame to one's own actions (Walker, 1979).

Romanticism explains why vio- lence and exploitation can be forgiven so easily. Romanticism ultimately serves as a constraining factor in courtship; it encourages couples to stay together despite extremely negative interaction patterns. Although courtship lacks the features which are thought to constrain the violent mar- riage, namely economic interde- pendence and the presence of young children, the courting relationship is not without constraints of its own. Especially for the female partner, the importance of relationships to her identity, coupled with romanticism and idealization, encourage relationship maintenance in the face of exploitative behavior.

The Role of Courtship Characteristics in Violence and Exploitation

Thus far, this article has docu- mented the existence of features of courtship which may lead to (or main- tain) both violence and exploitation. To what extent do studies of courtship violence and sexual aggression sup- port the ideas that control versus dependence, and romanticism, are related to courtship aggression?

Physical Violence in Courtship

What happens when a conflict gets out of hand? When things get so escalated that one or both partners are out of control? Recent evidence sug- gests that quite often heated conflict ends in violence (Lloyd et al., 1989). After all, getting physical, either by hit- ting, slapping, or physically restraining one's partner, is the ultimate way to regain control of the situation, or to gain compliance (Stets, 1988).

Violence in courtship seems to happen with alarming regularity. Some- where between 1 in 3 and 1 in 2 college students, and 1 in 10 high school

16 FAMILY RELATIONS January 1991

students, report that they have experi- enced or been the initiator of violence in a dating relationship (Cate, Henton, Koval, Christopher, & Lloyd, 1982; Laner & Thompson, 1982; Makepeace, 1981; Roscoe & Callahan, 1985; Rouse, Breen, & Howell, 1988; Stets & Straus, 1989).

Stets and Pirog-Good (1987) hy- pothesized that control is the underly- ing mechanism which fosters court- ship violence. In regulating how quick- ly the relationship develops and how quickly individual autonomy is given up in favor of couple affiliation, attempts to control the actions, thoughts, and desires of the other are bound to arise. In situations wherein the partner is not readily compliant with such requests, violence may emerge as a powerful compliance gaining tactic. And in a patriarchal context of male control of relationships and female compliance with that control, the use of violence to get one's way may go unquestioned.

There is a wide variety of support for the "violence as control" model. Follingstad, Rutledge, Polek, and McNeill-Harkins (1988) noted that women who experienced ongoing vio- lence in a dating relationship, versus those who experienced one isolated in- cident of force, more often reported that their partners made attempts to control them, through actions such as jealousy, accusations of infidelity, and monitoring their activities. Emery, Lloyd, and Castleton (1989) further highlighted the role of control in court- ship violence. These authors were specifically interested in the reasons why some women hit back in response to their partner's violence. While women's use of violence is typically labeled self-defense, Emery et al. (1989) concluded that the label of self- defense was too simplistic. It failed to capture the context of the relationship within which the violence occurred. The women identified control and domination as the reasons for their partner's use of violence. Their own use of violence was seen as containing components of resistance to his at- tempted domination, as well as frustra- tion/anger.

A male's use of physical violence as a technique of control may be both encouraged and supported by his peer group. DeKeseredy (1988) hypothe- sized that male peer networks en- courage the physical and sexual abuse of women as a way to show masculine prowess. These networks may also define certain women as the appropri-

ate targets of abuse, for example, "loose" women. DeKeseredy's (1988) study of college men emphasizes that men who received informational sup- port (i.e., encouragement to behave abusively toward a dating partner) from their male peers were more likely to have been physically and/or sexually abusive during courtship.

The interesting thing about court- ship violence is the ability of premarital partners to overlook, forgive, or ignore such negative interaction. The study of the meaning of violence emphasizes that "romance and violence" go hand in hand; indeed, one third of those who had experienced courtship violence in- dicated that the violence meant "love" (Cate et al., 1982). Only 8% indicated that the violence meant "hate." Overall, dating partners are quite likely to exter- nalize the violence, attributing its oc- currence to spontaneous or impulsive behavior, or to situational factors such as undue stress. The power of romance allows dating partners to virtually ig- nore the negative consequences of abusive behavior in their relationships (Henton et al., 1983).

Sexual Exploitation in Courtship

Sexuality is a major source of con- flict for dating couples (Koss & Oros, 1982). Strategies for persuading one's partner to engage in sexual intercourse vary along a continuum from logic and reasoning to actual rape (forcing inter- course against the will of the partner) (Christopher & Frandsen, 1990). How often do attempts to convince one's partner to have sex cross over into manipulation, coercion, or force? Ap- proximately one fourth of females report having intercourse as a result of being pressured to do so; one fifth report being threatened with force, or actually experiencing force as a means to get them to engage in sexual behavior (Lane & Gwartney-Gibbs, 1985). Other scholars have reported rates of forced intercourse ranging from 15% to 28% (Garrett-Gooding & Senter, 1987; Kanin & Parcell, 1977; Russell, 1984). The figures jump sharp- ly when unwanted sexual advances (in- cluding forced kissing, unwanted pet- ting, forced oral-genital contact, etc.) are considered; fully one half to three quarters of college women report ex- periencing some type of sexual aggres- sion in a dating relationship (Burke, Stets, & Pirog-Good, 1988; Garrett- Gooding & Senter, 1987; Kanin & Parcell, 1977; Koss, 1988; Muehlenhard & Li nton, 1987).

Forced intercourse is not limited to acquaintance or casual date situa- tions (Amick & Calhoun, 1987). In fact, more college women report having been raped by a steady date than by an acquaintance or stranger (Koss, Din- ero, Seibel, & Cox, 1988). Although it is not widely recognized, rape probably occurs at least as often in committed premarital relationships as it does in marriage. Of course, definitions of a "man's right to sex" in a close relation- ship often preclude the definition of coerced or forced intercourse as "rape" in a relationship that is well established (Estrich, 1987; Kilpatrick, Best, Saunders, & Vernon, 1988).

This reflects the expectations that men (and women) bring into dating and courtship relationships. The patriar- chal sexual script grants ownership of sexuality (both his and hers) to the male (Burkhart & Stanton, 1988). Under this script, men are characterized as having an urgent sex drive, which women are expected to fulfill. Women's resistance to sexual pres- sure is viewed as token; the male should continue to exert pressure nonetheless (Check & Malamuth, 1983). The courtship context of male control gives him permission to use force to achieve his sexual goals. That such control is a component of the court- ship script is apparent in studies which point out that approximately 35% of men might force a partner into sex as long as they could "get away with it" (Malamuth, 1981) and in studies which point out that approval of viola- tions of sexual consent is greater in a context of a steady relationship or mar- riage than it is in a stranger situation (Check & Malamuth, 1983; Margolin, Moran, & Miller, 1989).

Unfortunately, the female court- ship themes of dependence and the im- portance of relationships encourage women to attach nonexploitative mean- ings to sexual aggression, especially if the relationship is an established one (Estrich, 1987). In addition, females are socialized to be submissive (Ageton, 1988). Such submissiveness may be in- terpreted as acquiescence in a situa- tion of sexual aggression (Korman & Leslie, 1982).

Again, the peer group may play a role in sustaining norms concerning the acceptability of sexual abuse. Gwartney-Gibbs and Stockard (1989) have studied the composition of both male and female peer groups as they relate to sexual abuse in dating. They identif ied three disti nct peer group

January 1991 __ FAMILY RELATIONS 17

types: a nonaggressive peer group (containing neither male aggressors nor female victims), a female-victimiza- tion peer group (containing sexually victimized female peers but no sexually aggressive male peers), and a sexually aggressive peer group (containing both female victims and male aggressors). Differences by peer group reveal that females with sexually aggressive peer groups were the most likely to have been victims of premarital aggression, whereas males with a sexually ag- gressive peer group were the most like- ly to have behaved aggressively in a dating situation. Gwartney-Gibbs and Stockard (1989) conclude that the sex- ual aggressiveness of the males in one's peer group is an important factor in predicting whether the females in that peer group have been victimized.

Amick and Calhoun (1987) studied successful resistance to rape. They noted that there were few personality or behavioral differences between women who were successful versus unsuccessful in resisting forced sex. The differences that emerged were all situational in nature; unsuccessful resisters were more likely to be in rape situations that were isolated, to be in a steady relationship with the perpetra- tor, and to have had a sexual relation- ship with the perpetrator in the past. The latter two findings are disturbing. Rather than enjoying protection be- cause of the long-standing and com- mitted nature of their relationships, in reality women may feel that they must comply with sexual demands (against their wills) once a relationship is well established. Coupled with this is a con- text in which men may feel entitled to sex in a long-term relationship. Further- more, being in a long-term relationship in and of itself may lead to confusion as to whether an incident of forced sex really is rape, in that the context of a long relationship is at odds with the typical scenario for rape (e.g., that of a stranger attacking in a dark alley).

How does the romantic ideal in- fluence sexual aggression during courtship? As with physical aggres- sion, romanticism may allow sexual coercion to be easily overlooked, forgiven, or excused. In addition, romanticism encourages reinterpreta- tion of sexually exploitative actions as nonexploitative. Females are en- couraged to believe that male partners in committed relationships will not take advantage of them, as part of the romantic ideal of male respect and honor of females.

Implications for Intervention Violence and sexual exploitation

are very serious courtship problems. Their impact extends beyond the court- ing relationship in many ways. If the couple marries, such courtship behav- ior may set the stage for deep-seated marital problems, including escalated physical aggression and marital rape. Even if the courtship terminates, the impact of the dark side of courtship on the victim may be extensive; she may find it difficult to trust men, that any at- tempt at domination by a subsequent partner evokes terror at the idea that it is happening again. Certainly, self- worth and the pursuit of intimacy may be hampered for many years (Emery et al., 1989).

The nature of courtship helps to explain why intervention into a premarital relationship is particularly difficult; effective therapy, education, and/or skills training must first attack the romantic veneer through which pre- marital behavior is viewed by both part- ners. In addition, therapy and interven- tion must struggle with the different themes of courtship for men versus women (control versus dependence), and finally the relative ease with which negative premarital interaction can be forgiven.

Effective intervention into the problems of the darkside of courtship will have to take place on three levels: primary (what can we do to pre- vent negative courtship interaction), secondary (interventions targeted at high-risk groups), and tertiary (remedia- tion with individuals already involved in violent or exploitative relationships). Perhaps the most efficient way to ad- dress the problems of violence and sexual exploitation in relationships is to do so before they occur. Primary in- tervention into courtship emphasizes education and skills training. Four dif- ferent types of education are needed to prevent violence and sexual exploita- tion. First, education for courtship could include skills training in how to effectively manage premarital conflict; the importance of withdrawing from a conflict that is getting out of control; how to deal with issues of jealousy, re- jection, and alcohol/drugs in dating relationships; and understanding sex- ual signals and communication (Belk- nap, 1989; Jacobson & Margolin, 1979; Lloyd, 1987; Lloyd et al., 1989; Make- peace, 1989). Second, education on male-female relations might emphasize the different themes of courtship for men and women, as well as increasing

empathy and understanding between the sexes and decreasing adversarial attitudes and stereotypes (Lundberg- Love & Geffner, 1989). Third, education on violence and sexual exploitation would include information on the ex- tent of courtship aggression, recogniz- ing abuse and sexual coercion, factors associated with successful resistance to attempted violence and rape, asser- tiveness and self-defense training for women, debunking rape myths, the legitimacy of saying no to unwanted sexual interaction, and respecting no as an answer (Belknap, 1989; Gwartney- Gibbs & Stockard, 1989; Lundberg-Love & Geffner, 1989; Pirog-Good & Stets, 1989). Fourth, education of peer net- works might emphasize the role that peers may play in preventing violence and sexual exploitation. Such a role could be developed through education on the positive aspects of "peer pressure" -that is, the potential for peers to debunk rape myths and pro- mote better understanding between men and women.

Secondary intervention might target high risk groups, including those who have experienced sexual or physi- cal aggression in a former dating rela- tionship, as well as those who have ex- perienced aggression in the family of origin (including both physical violence and sexual abuse). In addition, couples who are struggling with conflict in courtship may be targeted for the skills training and education mentioned previously.

Tertiary intervention emphasizes working with individuals who are cur- rently involved in situations of violence and sexual exploitation. The first stage in tertiary intervention is identification of the group needing services; both counselors and those working with youth should screen clients for prob- lems with the darkside of courtship (Koss, 1988; Makepeace, 1989). As Koss (1988) noted, counselors may not learn of violence and exploitation in the course of normal intake and therapy; however, when clients are asked direct- ly about such experiences, counselors are often shocked at the widespread extent of these problems among their youth clientele. There are several models of therapy for violent marital partners that could be easily adapted to premarital couples (Deschner, 1984; Jacobson & Margolin, 1979). Any adap- tation of conjugal therapy must, however, be sensitive to male-female differences in power, consequences, and options (Willbach, 1989). Premari-

18 __ FAMILY RELATIONS January 1991

tal intervention has the added tasks of working through the romantic veneer of courtship as well as addressing the dif- ferent themes of courtship for males versus females.

Tertiary intervention also entails helping those who have experienced violence and sexual aggression work through the issues and problems associated with such experience. Evidence clearly indicates that rape by an acquaintance or intimate partner is as traumatic as rape by a stranger (Kilpatrick et al., 1988); similarly, there may be pervasive long-term effects on the victim of physical violence in court- ship (Emery et al., 1989). The darkside of courtship may affect a victim's subsequent intimate relationships as well as the victim's feelings of self- worth and esteem; again, the impor- tance of screening for such experi- ences cannot be overstated.

Ultimately, effective intervention in the darkside of courtship includes changing the nature of male-female relations, from a societal pattern of patriarchy to one of equality. Such a change would serve to eliminate the legitimacy of male control and simul- taneously change women's depen- dency on relationships. Messer- schmidt (1986) offered some strategies for changing the relative economic dependence of women. He discussed the importance of reducing women's isolation (perhaps through communal living arrangements and shared responsibilities for housework), the redefinition of male-female relation- ships through an emphasis on compan- ionate marriage and shared parenting, the implementation of policies which make shared parenting and women's ability to fully participate in the labor force possible (e.g., comparable worth policies, parenting leave, reproductive freedom), and the provision of ade- quate economic assistance to the poor.

While improving the balance of power between men and women is a laudable goal, it is only slowly being achieved. Perhaps a shorter term societal change would be working towards a realistic approach towards courtship. Most people have limited ex- perience with serious romantic rela- tionships; the idea that people typically "test out" a variety of relationships before marriage simply is not sup- ported . Rath er, many people marry the first or second person with whom they have a relatively serious relationship (Robins & Huston, 1984). An increased

emphasis on the premarital phase as a period of "testing compatibility," as well as on premarital counseling and education, may ultimately improve the quality of both courtship and marriage.

REFERENCES

Ageton, S. S. (1988). Vulnerability to sexual assault. In A. W. Burgess (Ed.) Rape and sexual assault 11 (pp. 221-244). New York: Garland Press.

Amick, A. E., & Calhoun, K. S. (1987). Resistance to sexual ag- gression: Personality, attitudinal and situational factors. tors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 153-163.

Bailey, B. L. (1988). From front porch to back seat: The history of courtship in America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Balswick, J. 0. (19W2). Male inexpressiveness: Psychological and social aspects. In K. Solomon & N. B. Levy (Eds.), Men in transition (pp. 131-150). New York: Plenum Press.

Barrett, M. (1988). Women's oppression today. New York: Verso.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.

Belknap, J. (1989). The sexual victimization of unmarried women by nonrelative acquaintances. In M. Pirog-Good & J. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 205-218). New York: Praeger.

Bernard, M. L., & Bernard, J. L. (1983). Violent intimacy: The family as a model for love relationships. Family Rela- tions, 32, 283-286.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1974). A little bit about love. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction (pp. 355-381). New York: Academic Press.

Breines, W., & Gordon, L. (1983). The new scholarship on family violence. Signs, 8, 491-531.

Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our wills: Men, women and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Burke, P. J., Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1988). Gender identity, self-esteem, and physical and sexual abuse in dating relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 272-285.

Burkhart, B. R., & Stanton, A. L. (1988). Sexual aggression in acquaintance relationships. In G. W. Russell (Ed.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 43-65). New York: PMA.

Cate, R. M., Henton, J. M., Koval, J. E., Christopher, F. S., & Lloyd, S. A. (1982). Premarital abuse: A social psychological perspective. Journal of Family Issues, 3, 79-90.

Cate, R. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (in press). Courtship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Check, J. P., & Malamuth, N. M. (1983). Sex role stereo- typing and reactions to depictions of stranger versus ac- quaintance rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 344-356.

Cherlin, A. (1981). Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Christopher, F. S., & Frandsen, M. M. (1990). Strategies of influence in sex and dating. Journal of Social and Per- sonal Relationships, 7, 89-106.

DeKeseredy, W. S. (1988). Woman abuse in dating relation- ships: The role of male peer support. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.

Deschner, J. P. (1984). The hitting habit: Anger control for battering couples. New York: The Free Press.

Dilorio, J. A. (1989). Being and becoming coupled: The emergence of female subordination in heterosexual relationships. In B. J. Risman & P. Schwartz (Eds.), Gender in intimate relationships (pp. 94-104). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,

Dutton, D. G. (1988). The domestic assault of women: Psychological and criminal justice perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon

Emery, B. C. (1982). Factors contributing to violence in dating relationships. Unpublished masters thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Emery, B. C., Lloyd, S. A., & Castleton, A. (1989, November). Why women hit back: A feminist analysis. Paper presented at National Council on Family Relations An- nual Meeting, New Orleans.

Estrich. S. (1987). Real rape. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. R., Polek, D. S., & McNeill- Hawkins, K. (1988). Factors associated with patterns of dating violence toward college women. Journal of Family Violence, 3, 169-182.

Garrett-Gooding, J., & Senter, R. (1987). Attitudes and acts of sexual aggression on a university campus. Sociological Inquiry, 57, 348-371.

Glick, P. C. (1984). Marriage, divorce and living arrangements. Journal of Family Issues, 5, 7-26.

Gwartney-Gibbs, P., & Stockard, J. (1989). Courtship aggres- sion and mixed-sex groups. In M. Pirog-Good & J. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 185-204). New York: Praeger.

Henton, J. M., Cate, R. M., Koval, J. E., Lloyd, S. A., & Christopher, F. S. (1983). Romance and violence in dating relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 4, 467-482.

Huston, T. L., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (1986). When the honeymoon's over: Changes in the marriage relationship over the first year. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 109-132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jacobson, N. S., & Margolin, G. (1979). Marital therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Kanin, E. J. (1957). Male aggression in dating-courtship rela- tions. American Journal of Sociology, 10, 197-204.

Kanin, E. J., & Parcell, S. R. (1977). Sexual aggression: A second look at the offended female. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 67-76.

Kelly, C., Huston, T. L., & Cate, R. M. (1985). Premarital rela- tionship correlates of the erosion of satisfaction in mar- riage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 167-178.

Kilpatrick, D. G., Best, C. L., Saunders, B. E,, & Vernon, L. J. (1988). Rape in marriage and dating relationships: How bad is it for mental health? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 528, 335-344.

Korman, S. K., & Leslie, G. R. (1982). The relationship of feminist ideology and date expense sharing to percep- tions of sexual aggression in dating. Journal of Sex Research, 18, 114-129.

Koss, M. P. (1988). Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and vic- timization in a national sample of students in higher education. In A. W. Burgess (Ed.), Rape and sexual assault II (pp. 3-25). New York: Garland Press.

Koss, M. P., Dinero, T. E., Siebel, C. A., & Cox, S. L. (1988). Stranger and aquaintance rape: Are there differences in the victim's experience? Psychology of Women Quarter- /y, 12, 1-24.

Koss. M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457.

Lamanna, M. A., & Reidman, A. (1985). Marriages and famil- ies. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Lane, K. E., & Gwartney-Gibbs, P. A. 1985). Violence in the context of dating and sex. Journal of Family Issues, 6, 45-59.

Laner, M. R., & Thompson, J. (1982). Abuse and aggression in courting couples. Deviant Behavior, 3, 229-244.

Lloyd, S. A. (1987). Conflict in premarital relationships: Differential perceptions of males and females, Family Relations, 36, 290-294.

Lloyd, S. A., & Cate, R. M. (1985). The developmental course of conflict in dissolution of premarital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2,179-194.

Lloyd, S. A., Koval, J. E., & Cate, R. M. (1989). Conflict and violence in dating relationships. In M. Pirog-Good & J. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 126-144). New York: Praeger.

Lundberg-Love, P., & Geffner, R. (1989). Date rape: Preva- lence, risk factors and a proposed model. In M. Pirog- Good & J. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 169-184). New York: Praeger.

Makepeace, J. M. (1981). Courtship violence among college students. Family Relations, 30, 97-102.

Makepeace, J. M. (1983). Life events stress and courtship violence. Family Relations, 32, 101-109.

Makepeace, J. M. (1989). Dating, living together and court- ship violence. In M. Pirog-Good & J. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 94-107). New York: Praeger.

Malamuth, N. M. (1981). Rape proclivity among males. Jour- nal of Social Issues, 4, 138-157.

Margolin, L., Moran, P. B., & Miller, M. (1989). Social approval for violations of sexual consent in marriage and dating. Violence and Victims, 4, 45-56.

Messerschmidt, J. W. (1986). Capitalism, patriarchy, and crime. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & Linton, M. (1987). Date rape and sex- ual aggression in dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34,186-196.

Notz, M. P. (1984). Fantasy-testing--assessment: A pro- posed model for the investigation of mate selection. Family Relations, 33, 273-282.

O'Leary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263-268.

Pirog-Good, M. A., & Stets, J. E. (1989). The help-seeking behavior of physically and sexually abused college students. In M. Pirog-Good & J. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 108-125). New York: Praeger.

January 1991 FAMILY RELATIONS 19

Robins, E., & Huston, T. L. (1984, November). Testing com- patibility testing. Paper presented at the National Coun- cil on Family Relations Annual Conference, San Fran- cisco.

Roscoe, B., & Benaske, N. (1985). Courtship violence ex- perienced by abused wives: Similarities in patterns of abuse. Family Relations, 34, 419-424.

Roscoe, B., & Callahan, J. E. (1985). Adolescents' self-re- port of violence in families and dating relationships. Adolescence, 20, 545-553.

Rothman, E. K. (1984). Hands and hearts: A history of court- ship in America. New York: Basic Books.

Rouse, L. P., Breen, R., & Howell, M. (1988). Abuse in in- timate relationships: A comparison of married and dating

college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 414-429.

Rubin, Z., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1981). Loving and leaving: Sex differences in romantic attachment. Sex Roles, 7, 821-835.

Russell, D. (1984). Sexual exploitation. Beverly Hills: Sage. Skolnick, A. S. (1987). The intimate environment. Boston:

Little Brown. Stein, P. (1976). Single. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Stets, J. E. (1988). Domestic violence and control. New York:

Springer-Verlag. Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1987). Violence in dating

relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 237-246. Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1989). The marriage license as a

hitting license: A comparison of assaults in dating, co- habiting and married couples. In M. Pirog-Good & J. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 33-52). New York: Praeger.

Walker, L. (1979). The battered woman syndrome. New York: Harper & Row.

Waller, W. (1937). The rating and dating complex. American Sociological Review, 2, 727-734.

Waller, W. (1951). The family: A dynamic interpretation. New York: Dryden.

Warshaw, R. (1988). I never called it rape. New York: Harper & Row.

Willbach, D. (1989). Ethics and family therapy: The case management of family violence. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 15, 43-52.

CALL FOR PAPERS

Family Relations will feature a special collection of papers on "Innovative Ways and Controversial Issues in Teaching About Families". The collection will include articles on new methodology in teaching about families in early childhood programs, elementary school, high school, undergraduate and graduate education, adult and community education, and articles that address the uniqueness of family studies pedagogy and the challenge of teaching about families. The collection might include issues like teaching small versus large classes, teaching across disciplines or from a multidisciplinary or multicultural perspective, feminist pedagogy, family life education in diverse settings, or the challenge of teaching about families as part of a liberal education curriculum or in a department where family courses are not taught traditionally. Manuscripts need to be grounded in literature, and preference will be given to manuscripts demonstrating empirical support. Manuscripts should be no longer than 20 pages, double-spaced, and follow American Psychological Association style. All manuscripts will be reviewed anonymously. Manuscripts must be postmarked by March 1, 1991. Send manuscripts to: Margaret Crosbie-Burnett, Department of Counseling Psychology, 321 Education Bldg., 1000 Bascom Mall, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 (608/262-0461), or Katherine Allen, Department of Family and Child Development, 104 Wallace Annex, Virginia Tech, Blacksurg, VA 24061-0416 (703/231- 6526).

20 b FAMILY RELATIONS January 1991