Chapter 23 Exercises: Gender, Sexuality, and Scripts

Exercise 23.1: Script Inventory (Individual Reflection)

Time: 20–30 minutes | Format: Written reflection

Take stock of the courtship scripts you carry. Think of a romantic or attraction-related interaction you have had in the past year — a moment of initiating, responding to interest, or navigating ambiguity in a romantic context.

Without editing for what you "should" have felt or done, write briefly about:

  1. What did you assume was your role in that situation? Who was supposed to initiate? Who was supposed to decide where things went?
  2. Where do you think those assumptions came from? Can you trace them to specific sources — family, media, peers, religion?
  3. Did you follow the script, deviate from it, or feel the pull of both at once? What were the consequences?
  4. Looking at Gagnon and Simon's three levels (cultural, interpersonal, intrapsychic): which level felt most powerful in shaping that interaction?

This is not graded for the "right" answer. It is graded for honest, specific reflection.

Exercise 23.2: Script Observation in Media (Analysis Exercise)

Time: 45–60 minutes | Format: Written analysis, 400–600 words

Select a romantic scene from a film or television show released in the past five years. The scene should involve heterosexual characters, and it should include some element of initiation, pursuit, or resistance.

Watch the scene at least twice. Then analyze:

  1. Role assignment: Who initiates? Who regulates? How explicitly are these roles marked?
  2. Desire asymmetry: Whose desire is foregrounded? Is one character's wanting presented as more legitimate or more legible than the other's?
  3. The persistence structure: Does the scene present persistence as romantic or problematic? How do you know? What signals does the scene use?
  4. Script violation moments: Is there any point where a character acts against their assigned script role? How is that moment framed — as comedy, as threat, as empowerment?
  5. What this teaches: If a young person were learning courtship norms from this scene alone, what would they learn?

Be specific — cite actual moments in the scene rather than summarizing generally.

Exercise 23.3: The Costs Debate (Small Group Discussion)

Time: 25–35 minutes | Format: Structured discussion in groups of 4–5

Setup: In Chapter 23, Jordan's paper argues that the traditional courtship script imposes costs on both men and women, though of different kinds. Some critics of this framing argue that emphasizing men's costs risks deflecting attention from more severe structural costs women face.

Discussion question: Does acknowledging the costs of the initiation burden for men strengthen or weaken a feminist critique of courtship scripts? Can both be true simultaneously?

Each group should try to: - Articulate the strongest version of the "emphasizing men's costs is deflection" argument - Articulate the strongest version of the "understanding men's costs is necessary for reform" argument - Identify what they agree on, where genuine disagreement remains - Propose at least one piece of empirical evidence that would help adjudicate

Report back the point of genuine disagreement — not resolution, but precision about what is actually being disputed.

Exercise 23.4: Cross-Cultural Script Comparison (Research Exercise)

Time: Outside class, 60–90 minutes | Format: Short written comparison, 300–400 words

Using at least two peer-reviewed sources (not internet summaries), research courtship initiation norms in one non-Western cultural context of your choosing.

Answer: 1. What are the normative initiation expectations in that context (who initiates, how, through what channels)? 2. How are those expectations enforced? What are the consequences for violation? 3. How have those norms changed in the past fifty years, and what drove the change? 4. What caution would a researcher need to exercise to avoid generalizing from their own cultural context when studying this community?

Be specific about the cultural context you chose — do not generalize across broad regions.

Exercise 23.5: Rebuilding the Script (Creative-Analytical Exercise)

Time: 30–40 minutes | Format: Written exercise

Jordan's paper ends with "the minimum conditions for script revision." Your task: write a concrete scenario — a first-date scenario between two fictional heterosexual characters — in which both parties are operating from a revised script that avoids the costs identified in the chapter.

The scenario should be realistic, not utopian. It should include: - At least one moment where a traditional-script impulse arises and is handled differently - Explicit indication of how initiation and desire are managed mutually - A specific moment of communication that would not appear in the traditional script

Then write a brief paragraph (150–200 words) analyzing what cultural changes would have to precede this scenario for it to feel normal rather than awkward or unusual.

Time: Outside class, 45 minutes | Format: Discussion board post

Read Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh (1988) and at least one subsequent response or critique of that paper (available through your library database). Post 250–350 words addressing:

  1. What did the original study actually find, and what did it not claim?
  2. How has the finding been misrepresented in popular discourse?
  3. What methodological limitations does the original study have?
  4. What is the most ethical communication norm for navigating the ambiguity that the study describes?

Respond to at least one classmate's post with a substantive engagement (not just agreement).