Who invites, Who Pays? Gendered Dating Scripts and Everyday Intimacy in Mexico City and Oaxaca

Melissa García Meraz; Rubén García-Cruz; Charlynne Curiel

Authors

Melissa García Meraz Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7761-8069
Rubén García-Cruz Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo
Charlynne Curiel Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca

Keywords:

gender scripts, romantic narratives, university students, cultural differences, text mining

Abstract

This study explores gendered dating scripts among university students from Mexico City (CDMX) and Oaxaca, analyzing both idealized and real-life romantic narratives. Eighty participants (40 women and 40 men) were asked to narrate their first and ideal romantic dates. Through thematic coding and Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), we examined patterns of gender, region, and the symbolic and emotional components embedded in romantic scripts. The results revealed that men’s narratives, especially in CDMX, often emphasized spatial and temporal structures such as walking, eating, and transitions between public and private spaces. In contrast, women’s narratives focused more on emotional connection, communication, and affective elements such as laughter, physical contact, and mutual conversation. Common rituals included going out for coffee, visiting parks or museums, and sharing food. LDA analysis confirmed these gendered patterns, offering deeper insights into dominant narrative structures and emotional tones. Regional differences also emerged: CDMX narratives tended to be more structured and urban-oriented, while Oaxaca narratives exhibited more fluid and interactional qualities. Thematic saturation indicated a persistence of heteronormative expectations, although women showed more variation in agency and emotional expression. This research contributes to the understanding of romantic scripts within specific cultural and educational contexts, integrating qualitative and computational methods to reveal the symbolic constructions of intimacy and gender

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Publication Facts

This article

Author statements

Data availability

N/A

16%

External funding

No

32%

Competing interests

N/A

11%

This journal

Other journals

Articles accepted

71%

33%

Days to publication

203

145

Indexed in

DOAJ
GS

Editor & editorial board: profiles
Academic society: N/A
Publisher: Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo

Author Biography

Melissa García Meraz, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

References

[1] Rose S, Frieze IH. Young single’s scripts for a first date. Gender & Society. 1989; 3(2): 258-68.

[2] Rose S, Frieze IH. Young singles’ contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles. 1993; 28: 499-509.

[3] Simon W, Gagnon JH. Sexual scripts: permanence and change. Arch. Sex. Behav. 1986; 15(2): 97-120.

[4] Metts S, Spitzberg BH. Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: A script-based approach. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 1996; 19(1): 49-92.

[5] Barron A. “I’ll get it”: Payment offers, payment offer sequences and gender on first dates. J. Pragmat. 2025; 235: 4-25.

[6] Amiraian DE, Sobal J. Dating and eating. Beliefs about dating foods among university students. Appetite. 2009; 53(2): 226-32.

[7] Amiraian D, Sobal J. Dating and eating. How university students select eating settings. Appetite. 2009; 52(1): 226-9.

[8] Hooks B. The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. 1st ed. New York, USA: Atria Books; 2004.

[9] Bartoli A, Clark MD. The dating game: Similarities and differences in dating scripts among college students. Sex. Cult. 2006; 10: 54-80.

[10] Rivadeneyra R, Lebo MJ. The association between television-viewing behaviors and adolescent dating role attitudes and behaviors. J Adolesc. 2008; 31(3): 291-305.

[11] Timmermans E, Van den Bulck J. Casual sexual scripts on the screen: A quantitative content analysis. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2018; 47(5): 1481-96.

[12] Qian Y. Disruption or reproduction? Nativity, gender and online dating in Canada. Internet Research. 2022; 32(4): 1264-87.

[13] Cameron JJ, Curry E. Gender roles and date context in hypothetical scripts for a woman and a man on a first date in the twenty-first century. Sex. Roles. 2020; 82: 345-62.

[14] Kendrick S, Kepple NJ. Scripting sex in courtship: Predicting genital contact in date outcomes. Sex. Cult. 2022; 26(3): 1190-214.

[15] Laner MR, Ventrone NA. Dating scripts revisited. J. Fam. Issues. 2000; 21(4): 488-500.

[16] Morrell-Serewicz MC, Gale E. First-date scripts: Gender roles, context, and relationship. Sex. Roles. 2008; 58: 149-64.

[17] Masters NT, Casey E, Wells EA, Morrison DM. Sexual scripts among young heterosexually active men and women: Continuity and change. J. Sex. Res. 2013; 50(5): 409-20.

[18] Mongeau PA, Carey CM. Who’s wooing whom II? An experimental investigation of date-initiation and expectancy violation. West. J. Commun. 1996; 60(3): 195-213.

[19] McLaren HJ. Adult women groomed by child molesters’ heteronormative dating scripts. Women’s Stud. Int. Forum. 2016; 56: 66-73.

[20] Marques AS, de Oliveira JM, Nogueira C. Sexual double standard in friends with benefits relationships: A literature review. Women’s Stud. Int. Forum. 2024; 105: 102940.

[21] Shaughnessy K, Byers ES. Contextualizing cybersex experience: Heterosexually identified men and women’s desire for and experiences with cybersex with three types of partners. Comput. Human Behav. 2014; 32: 178-85.

[22] Belk RW. Possessions and the Extended Self. J. Consum. Res. 1988; 15(2): 139–68.

[23] Goffman E. The Presentation of Self Everyday Life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh; 1956.

[24] Bourdieu P. La Distinción: Criterios y Bases Sociales Del Gusto. Buenos Aires: Taurus; 2002.

[25] Fetterolf JC, Rudman LA. Gender Inequality in the Home: The Role of Relative Income, Support for Traditional Gender Roles, and Perceived Entitlement. Gend. Issues. 2014; 31: 219-37.

[26] Kimura A, Wada Y, Goto S, Tsuzuki D, Cai D, Oka T, et al Implicit gender-based food stereotypes. Semantic priming experiments on young Japanese. Appetite. 2009; 52(2): 521-4.

[27] Zhu L, Brescoll VL, Newman GE, Uhlmann EL. Macho nachos: The implicit effects of gendered food packaging on preferences for healthy and unhealthy foods. Soc Psychol. 2015; 46(4): 182-96.

[28] Curley CM, Johnson BT. Sexuality and aging: Is it time for a new sexual revolution? Soc. Sci. Med. 2022; 301: 114865.

[29] Banaji MR, Greenwald AG. Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. Delacorte Press; 2013.

[30] Berlant L. Cruel optimism. In: Berlant L, ed. Cruel optimism. 1 st ed. USA: Duke University Press; 2011.

[31] Choi S. Love’s cruel promises: Love, unity and North Korea. Int. Fem. J. Polit. 2015; 17(1): 119-36.

[32] Fox B. Feminism on family sociology: Interpreting trends in family life. Can. Rev. of Sociol. 2015; 52(2): 204-211.

[33] Brahnam S, De Angeli A. Gender affordances of conversational agents. Interact. Comput. 2012; 24(3): 139-53.

[34] Lagarde M. Los cautiverios de las mujeres: Madresposas, monjas, putas, presas y locas. 3rd ed. México: UNAM; 1996.

[35] Díaz-Loving R, Rivera-Aragón S, Reyes-Lagunes I, Rocha-Sanchez TE, Reidl-Martinez LM. Etnopsicología mexicana: Siguiendo la huella teórica y empírica de Díaz-Guerrero. México: Trillas; 2007.

[36] Amuchástegui A. Virginidad e iniciación sexual en México. Experiencias y significados. México, Edamex : Population Council, 2000. Estudios Demográficos Y Urbanos. 2002; 17(2): 425-31.

[37] García-Meraz M, Vizzuetth-Herrera A, González-Fragoso CM, Jiménez-Rodriguez D. Construcción y validación de una escala de roles de género tradicionales masculinos en las citas. In: Díaz-Loving R, Reyes-Lagunes I, Rivera-Aragón S, Hernández-Sánchez JE, García Falconi R, eds. La Psicología Social En México, Vol. 16. México: AMEPSO UNAM; 2016.

[38] Eaton AA, Rose S. Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35-year review using sex roles. Sex. Roles. 2011; 64: 843-62.

[39] Eaton AA, Rose SM. Scripts for actual first date and hanging-out encounters among young heterosexual hispanic adults. Sex Roles. 2012; 67: 285-99.

[40] Timmermans E, De Caluwé E. Development and validation of the Tinder Motives Scale (TMS). Comput. Human Behav. 2017; 70: 341-50.

[41] Hagg LJ, Merkouris SS, O'Dea GA, Francis LM, Greenwood CJ, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, et al. Examining analytic practices in Latent Dirichlet Allocation within psychological science: Scoping review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2022; 24(11): e33166.

[42] Núñez-Noriega G. Just Between Us: An Ethnography of Male Identity and Intimacy in Rural Communities of Northern Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press; 2014.

[43] Crenshaw K. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Rev. 1991; 43(6): 1241-99.