Going steady
[1] Growing in prevalence in the United States after World War II, this pattern became mainstream in high schools and colleges in the 1950s.
[3] A survey of college students in 1955 found a distinction between "going steadily" with someone, which indicated dating the same person repeatedly, and "going steady" which indicated a formalized or explicit agreement.
"[7] Before World War II, high school and college students generally dated multiple people, colloquially called "playing the field".
[3] In 1937, sociologist Willard Waller, based on a study at Penn State College, described it as a "Rating and Dating Complex" in which males and females were rated in popularity by themselves and their peers on characteristics such as having money and good clothes, belonging to the best sorority or fraternity, and dating the "right" people,[8] although later researchers question whether Waller's observations reflected as widespread a pattern as he implied and note that some individuals chose to pair off exclusively before it became the style.
[3] Sociologist Wini Breines characterizes it as "a routinized sexual system that controlled and punished female spontaneity and ensured that young women followed the prescribed steps to marriage".
Another syndicated columnist, Doris Blake wrote "It's simply a pernicious habit grown out of we-don't-know-what that has fostered this ridiculous custom of a couple of 16, 17, or 18 year olds pairing off to the exclusion of everyone else on the dance floor.
Reliable data on teen sexual behavior pre- and post-war is sparse, and historians argue whether the rate of premarital intercourse rose gradually or sharply through the 1960s.
Rates of premarital pregnancy and data about venereal disease in teens over the years suggest that increasing numbers of teenagers were engaging in sexual intercourse.
[20] Littauer states "Being in love and going steady was more significant to a young woman's decision to have sex than was class, education, religion, or any other factor.
[21] Experts warned that going steady would limit one to inadequate experience getting to know different people and could result in bad choices.
According to Herman, "quantity and variety of experience is not necessarily a good substitute for quality, in the sense that going steady may allow more thorough and penetrating learning processes to occur.
