1Surveys on the place where people meet their life partner have been conducted for almost fifty years in France. Both Alain Girard in Le choix du conjoint (1964) and Michel Bozon and François Héran in Population (1989), have shown that these places are by no means random, partly because the settings of sociability vary across social groups. In France, as in many other countries, sexual debut is increasingly disconnected from entry into union, and it is increasingly rare for the first life partner to be the first sexual partner. The survey on the context of sexuality in France conducted by INED and INSERM in 2005-2006 provides a means to explore the two key life events of sexual debut and first entry into union, and to compare the circumstances and settings in which individuals meet their first sexual partner and first life partner. In this article, Michel Bozon and Wilfried Rault analyse these first encounters by sex, according to the specific features of first intercourse and the social characteristics of the individuals concerned, and explore individual trajectories between the two life events. They reveal that women deploy strategies in the search for a partner more frequently than men, and that these strategies vary by social background.

2Individuals do not choose their life partners by pure chance. A first explanation for this is that people with similar social profiles are more likely to meet because they frequent the same types of places and avoid those frequented by people who are different from them. It is worth taking a new look at these observations made by the authors of the 1987 survey on couple formation, to examine how the situation has evolved in the first decade of the twenty-first century (Bozon and Héran, 1989). In an era of Internet, mobile phones and instant messaging, one may wonder, for example, whether individuals still rely so strongly on physical encounters in social settings to find a new partner. Another change concerns the much longer time that now elapses between meeting a first sexual partner and forming a first union. The first sexual partner is no longer the future life partner. This means that the place where people meet their first spouse may be very different from the place where, many years previously, they met their first sexual partner. Do individuals change their social environment between these two events? We perhaps need to look more closely at the “social spaces” frequented during youth.

3Data on the meeting places of dating partners have been collected in French surveys since the late 1950s (Bozon, 2009). Surveys on the choice of spouse (Choix du Conjoint, 1959) and on couple formation (Formation des Couples, 1983-1984), retraced the stages involved in meeting a future spouse, while the survey on sexual behaviour in France (Enquête sur les Comportements Sexuels des Français, 1970), led by Pierre Simon, described the circumstances of sexual debut (Simon et al., 1972). The survey on the context of sexuality in France (Contexte de la Sexualité en France, 2006) adopted an original approach by exploring both events – sexual debut and couple formation – as well as sexual and dating relationships more generally during youth (Bajos and Bozon, 2012). Attention was focused on both the first sexual partner and the first life partner because these two stages have become separate for the immense majority of individuals.

4While 68% of women and 34% of men born between 1936 and 1945 had a first sexual partner who was or became their spouse, this is now only the case for 19% of women and for 10% of men born after 1981 (Toulemon, 2012). The change is especially marked for women. This reflects two combined trends: earlier sexual debut for women (Bozon, 2008), and later entry into first union for both men and women (Prioux, 2003). Young men and women now experience a period of “sexual youth” during which they engage in sexual relationships with one or more partners, but without any long-term commitment. This period is much shorter for women (4 years and 4 months on average) than for men (6 years and 10 months), suggesting that relationship trajectories, and more broadly the sexual norms governing male and female behaviours, remain strongly differentiated (Maillochon, 2010).

5Are sexual partners chosen in the same way as a life partner? The context of these two choices is not the same, since an individual’s social environment changes between sexual debut at the end of adolescence – when life still revolves around family and secondary school – and entry into union, which coincides with an expansion of the social universe to include colleagues in the workplace, a widening circle of friends and more independent leisure time (Galland, 2011). Moreover, this change does not occur in the same way for individuals from different educational and social backgrounds. In some cases, a change of social universe may be the result of a deliberate decision. The search for a life partner may involve a more active or premeditated process than the search for a sexual partner, which can more easily be left to chance. Additionally, men and women may not make the same distinction between meeting a sexual partner and meeting a future spouse. While the gender gap in age at sexual debut has narrowed, men’s and women’s trajectories remain quite distinct. Girls’ social life, and their sexuality more generally, are still more closely supervised than is the case for boys (Bozon and Villeneuve-Gokalp, 1995; Clair, 2010). Their first sexual partner, and their (first) spouse still tend to be older than them (Bozon, 1991; Lagrange and Lhomond, 1997), and their relationship with their first sexual partner always lasts longer than is the case for boys (Bozon, 2012a, p. 133; Maillochon, 2012). The social norms whereby sexuality must be associated with romantic love are more strongly internalized by women (Bajos and Bozon, 2008), and they choose their partners more carefully from the very start of their sexual life. By examining young people’s meeting places, we can thus address the old question of the degree of strategic planning applied to the search for a sexual partner or spouse (Bozon and Héran, 2006).

6The questionnaire of the 2006 survey on the context of sexuality in France included a section on sexual debut comprising 25 questions: age at first intercourse, characteristics of first partner, relationship with him/her, circumstances of first meeting, conditions of first intercourse, use of protection or contraception. Alongside the question on the place of first meeting, a further question concerns the place of sexual debut and how it was experienced. In a later section, concerning the period between sexual debut and first union, questions were asked about where and when the respondent met his/her first life partner (using the same vocabulary as for the first sexual partner), [1] and about the number of sexual partners between sexual debut and entry into first union. The survey was conducted by phone on a random population sample aged 18-69 comprising 12,364 individuals (6,824 women and 5,540 men). The respondents were born between 1937 and 1988, and their sexual debut occurred between the late 1950s and the early 2000s. [2]

I – Change and continuity in meeting places between the 1960s and the 2000s

First sexual partner: the rise of the educational setting

7The place where men and women meet their first sexual partner changed radically between the 1960s and the 2000s (Figure 1, Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2). Recall that over this same period, women’s age at sexual debut fell by around two years while that of men barely changed. By the mid 2000s, the difference was just a few months, with a mean age at sexual debut of 17.6 years for women and 17.2 years for men. In the 1960s, the five main settings where men met two-thirds (67%) of their first sexual partners (though no single setting truly dominates) were: at school or university, at a public dance (bal), at a party with friends, in a public place, in the neighbourhood. The same was true for women (65%), but for them public dances played a much more important role. Thirty years later, some meeting places had declined, but not in the same way for both sexes: public dances were no longer mentioned at all, and the neighbourhood rarely so (especially by men); fetes and fairs, clubs/societies and the family (especially for women) had also fallen out of favour. Most encounters with sexual partners now take place in just four types of setting: at school or university, at parties, in public places and in holiday resorts (71% for men and 62% for women). Encounters at places of study have increased the most, but not to the same extent for men and women. In the 1990s, 39% of men and just 26% of women met their first sexual partners at school or university.

Figure 1

Meeting place of first sexual partner (%) by date of first intercourse (1960-2006) and by sex

Meeting place of first sexual partner (%) by date of first intercourse (1960-2006) and by sex

8A divergence between men and women, barely visible in the 1960s, has now become firmly established. The settings where women meet their sexual partners are more varied, and while their presence in places of study is equivalent to that of men – since they are practically all school or university students at the time of their sexual debut – the place of study is far from ranking highest in their choice of meeting place: they avoid their closest peers and look for a partner farther afield, at private parties (16%) or in nightclubs (9%). As we will see later, this choice is not independent of the fact that half of women’s first sexual partners are two or more years older than them (Bozon, 2012a, p. 146).

First life partner: public dances supplanted by private parties with friends

9The settings where individuals meet their first sexual partner tended to stabilize from the mid-1980s, and the couple formation survey (1983-1984) shows a similar pattern with regard to the first life partner. While the survey conducted in 1983-1984 revealed major changes since the 1960s in the place where individuals meet their first life partner – with far fewer respondents mentioning public dances and many more citing parties with friends (Bozon and Héran, 1989) – the two following decades followed a relatively homogeneous pattern (Figure 2, Appendix tables A.3 and A.4), with public dances now purely marginal, and nightclubs gaining ground. Parties with friends now became a key meeting place, along with the place of study (although not to the same extent as for the first sexual partner). In this new environment, the importance of public places also increased, becoming the third most frequently cited meeting place after the place of study and private parties.

Figure 2

Meeting place of first life partner (%) by date of couple formation (1960-2006) and by sex

Meeting place of first life partner (%) by date of couple formation (1960-2006) and by sex

II – Meeting places in the context of the second wave of development in mass education (1984-2006)

10This relative and recent stability in the settings where men and women meet their first sexual partner and first life partner calls for a closer look at the period 1984-2006 as a whole. The change in meeting places reflects a change in young people’s sociability, which has become increasingly detached from the adult world. Is this transformation in the physical context of partner seeking associated with a narrowing of the gender gap in behaviours? With regard to friendships, longer schooling has not led to a convergence of trajectories: boys’ networks extend more widely beyond the school environment than those of girls (Maillochon and Mogoutov, 1997). Does the same apply for dating relationships?

11The fact that the place of study is the main meeting place for the first sexual partner is without doubt a consequence of the rise in mass education (Table 1). But this does not explain why more men meet their partner in this context than women.

Table 1

Meeting place of the first sexual partner and first life partner by gender (1984-2006)

Sexual partner First meeting place Life partner Men Women Men Women 38.7 24.9 Place of study 15.0 14.3 10.5 15.1 Party with friends 18.0 18.4 1.0 1.4 Club/society 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.9 Public dance 3.6 3.7 6.8 8.8 Nightclub, disco 11.1 10.6 1.1 2.1 Fete or fair 1.9 2.1 3.3 5.1 Family 4.7 7.0 11.6 12.0 Public place 15.6 14.1 9.6 8.4 Holiday resort 4.0 4.9 2.4 2.4 Private home 3.9 2.6 6.3 7.8 Neighbourhood, district 5.0 6.1 2.8 4.5 Work 10.5 9.6 0.1 0.2 Agency, advertisement 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.6 Internet 0.5 0.8 2.4 3.4 Other 0.9 1.8 1.1 0.5 Don’t know 3.0 1.9 2,794 3,447 Number 2,568 3,175

Meeting place of the first sexual partner and first life partner by gender (1984-2006)

Population: Men and women who experienced sexual debut between 1984 and 2006 (on left) / formed a first union between 1984 and 2006 (right).

12Only two other types of places – parties with friends and public places – account for more than one in ten encounters. The first presents a reverse symmetry with respect to the place of study, with women more frequently meeting their partner at parties (15%) than men (11%). Similar proportions of men and women meet their partner in a public place (12%). While public dances play only a marginal role, many encounters take place in open places where dancing is the main activity: the public dance/nightclub/fete or fair set of meeting places accounts for around one-tenth of encounters, as do holiday resorts.

13A clear trend emerges: men more than women tend to meet their first sexual partner in a less private environment. Daily living spaces (place of study, workplace, public places and neighbourhood) account for more than 60% of encounters for men and less than 50% for women. This difference is closely linked to the gendered manner in which the search for a partner takes place. Women’s lesser use of daily living spaces is associated with men’s tendency to make do with the partners encountered by chance. Revealingly, when men and women were asked how they saw their first sexual partner when they first met, a much higher proportion of men than women (30% versus 10%) saw them as a “friend or casual partner” and a much lower proportion saw them as a “future life partner” (13% versus 26%); 56% of men and 63% of women saw them as a “boy/girlfriend or steady partner”. [3]

14These differences in both meeting place and perception of the first sexual partner reflect and reproduce a gendered socialization which tends to discourage women from dissociating sexuality and couple formation, while encouraging men to see sexuality as a more individual, sometimes recreational, experience.

15Compared with the meeting places of the first sexual partner, those of the first life partner are much less differentiated by gender. Meeting the first life partner in school or university is equally frequent for men and women (14%). The reverse asymmetry of parties with friends disappears (18%), and these parties become an important meeting place for both sexes. No major difference is visible between the genders, and all daily living spaces (workplace, place of study, public places, neighbourhood) are mentioned equally by men (46%) and women (44%).

16First life partners are often met in open places where dancing is the main activity, which account for more than one in six encounters. Likewise, while the neighbourhood is less frequently mentioned than in the periods studied by Alain Girard (Le choix du conjoint, 1964, reissued in 2012), it has been largely replaced by “public places”. The neighbourhood-district/public places set of meeting places accounts for one-fifth of encounters (ahead of parties with friends). This reflects a rearrangement of life partner meeting places rather than a profound transformation.

III – From places to relationships: brief encounters and lasting attachments

17The place and time where people meet their first partner are among the structuring components of sexual and dating relationships. Tables 2A (men) and 2B (women) show the meeting place of first sexual partners, the chronological sequence of sexual and conjugal relationships and the characteristics of the first partners. They reveal morphological similarities and differences between these meeting places, which vary in turn by sex.

Table 2A

Meeting place of first sexual partner and characteristics of sexual debut between 1984 and 2006 for men^{(*), (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f)}

Meeting place Sample Mean age at first intercourse Had known first partner less than one month(a) (%) Had known first partner for more than one year(a) (%) One-night stand(b) (%) Relationship lasted more than 6 months after first intercourse(c) (%) N % School or university 1,080 38.7 16.8 8.4 31.7 24.1 47.9 Party 322 10.5 18.8 29.9 11.3 24.9 51.8 Club/society 32 1.0 19.5 22.1 28.4 15.8 73.5 Public dance 58 1.8 17.3 20.8 12.2 21.0 54.3 Nightclub, disco 202 6.8 18.5 37.5 6.1 31.6 40.0 Fete or fair 32 1.1 17.9 30.6 11.2 31.5 46.0 Family 81 3.3 17.9 16.3 42.9 21.8 52.0 Public place 301 11.6 18.1 33.1 15.5 26.4 42.6 Holiday resort 284 9.6 16.9 60.8 13.4 42.0 26.4 Private home 59 2.4 19.0 17.5 27.9 16.8 65.8 Neighbourhood, district 153 6.3 17.0 21.3 40.2 22.2 48.7 Work 81 2.8 19.6 34.6 10.0 25.9 54.2 Agency, advertisement* 2 0.1 20.6 – – – – Internet* 16 0.5 21.6 – – – – Other 65 2.4 18.2 29.2 10.4 30.6 47.0 Don’t know 26 1.1 17.0 22.4 5.4 38.7 39.5 Overall 2,794 100.0 17.6 24.0 22.8 26.5 45.9

Meeting place of first sexual partner and characteristics of sexual debut between 1984 and 2006 for men^{(*), (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f)}

(*) Not presented due to small sample size.
Note: The significant percentages far above the mean are in bold, those far below the mean in italics.
The places are presented in the order in which they were listed by the CSF interviewers when recording answers to the question: Where did you meet for the first time?
[Instruction to interviewers: if the respondent asks the meaning of “meet for the first time”, reply “the first time you ever talked to each other”].
^(a) How long had you known each other when you first had sexual intercourse? Answer in days/months/years.
^(b) Did you have sexual relations with this first partner again? Yes/No.
^(c) How long (altogether) did the relationship last after this first sexual intercourse?
^(d) What was your educational status at that time? 1. You were a student; 2. You had completed your education and had a job; 3. You had completed your education and were unemployed; 4. No answer.
^(e) What was his/her educational status at that time? 1. He/she was a student; 2. He/she had completed his/her education and had a job; 3. He/she had completed his/her education and was unemployed; 4. No answer.
^(f) How did your relationship with “first name” [of first partner] develop? 1. You never lived together; 2. You lived together, but later; 3. You were living together at the time you had this first intercourse.
Population: Men reporting first sexual intercourse between 1984 and 2006.

Table 2A (cont’d)

Meeting place of first partner and characteristics of sexual debut between 1984 and 2006 for men

Meeting place No longer in education at time of first intercourse(d) (%) Partner no longer in education at time of first intercourse(e) (%) Two or more years older than partner (%) Time between first intercourse and first entry into union (median) First sexual partner becomes first life partner(f) (%) School or university 3.6 1.6 4.6 7 yrs 4 months 12.0 Party 29.3 22.7 21.6 5 yrs 9 months 25.6 Club/society 33.2 39.1 27.9 4 yrs 39.1 Public dance 31.0 33.1 11.0 5 yrs 7 months 22.6 Nightclub, disco 36.8 24.5 12.9 6 yrs 10 months 15.0 Fete or fair 36.4 20.7 29.0 5 yrs 33.3 Family 25.9 31.9 22.7 5 yrs 1 month 29.7 Public place 33.2 25.8 17.8 6 yrs 9 months 17.7 Holiday resort 12.5 10.8 11.0 7 yrs 3 months 8.8 Private home 41.7 42.6 30.5 4 yrs 7 months 29.5 Neighbourhood, district 23.5 23.0 15.0 7 yrs 2 months 17.5 Work 51.3 54.3 14.7 4 yrs 6 months 29.3 Agency, advertisement* – – – – – Internet* – – – – – Other 37.8 29.0 29.0 6 yrs 1 month 25.5 Don’t know 30.3 25.1 19.7 8 yrs 4 months 20.4 Overall 19.5 16.0 12.4 6 yrs 10 months 16.9

Meeting place of first partner and characteristics of sexual debut between 1984 and 2006 for men

Table 2B

Meeting place of first partner and characteristics of sexual debut between 1984 and 2006 for women^(*)

Meeting place Sample Mean age at first intercourse Had known first partner less than one month(a) (%) Had known first partner for more than one year(a) (%) One-night stand(b) (%) Relationship lasted more than 6 months after first intercourse(c) (%) N % School or university 881 24.9 17.5 6.7 33.0 16.3 63.3 Party 537 15.1 18.3 14.2 14.7 15.6 64.4 Club/society 52 1.4 19.3 5.3 40.4 2.4 79.0 Public dance 106 2.9 18.4 8.5 26.5 17.8 71.6 Nightclub, disco 312 8.8 18.3 21.3 5.6 15.0 63.3 Fete or fair 72 2.1 17.9 9.3 12.1 15.0 77.8 Family 158 5.1 19.0 6.9 44.6 9.6 80.1 Public place 404 12.0 18.1 17.8 18.5 14.8 69.9 Holiday resort 307 8.4 17.9 36.3 22.6 24.6 49.5 Private home 77 2.3 17.9 12.6 25.3 12.6 60.6 Neighbourhood, district 235 7.8 17.8 6.9 37.9 16.7 61.0 Work 146 4.5 20.8 10.6 16.7 16.0 65.8 Agency, advertisement* 5 0.2 21.3 – – – – Internet* 17 0.6 20.7 – – – – Other 121 3.4 19.3 9.3 29.8 21.1 60.1 Don’t know 17 0.5 16.7 23.6 38.2 41.2 29.0 Overall 3,447 100.0 18.2 13.5 24.5 16.3 64.3

Meeting place of first partner and characteristics of sexual debut between 1984 and 2006 for women^(*)

(*) Not presented due to small sample size.
Note 1: The significant percentages far above the mean are in bold, those far below the mean in italics.
Note 2: The questions are listed under Table 2A.
Population: Women reporting first sexual intercourse between 1984 and 2006.

Table 2B (cont’d)

Meeting place of first partner and characteristics of sexual debut between 1984 and 2006 for women

Meeting place No longer in education at time of first intercourse(d) (%) Partner no longer in education at time of first intercourse(e) (%) At least five years younger than first sexual partner (%) Time between first intercourse and first entry into union (median) First sexual partner becomes first life partner(f) (%) School or university 4.9 10.0 3.3 5 yrs 2 months 23.1 Party 17.9 48.0 21.6 4 yrs 8 months 31.1 Club/society 25.0 52.1 17.6 3 yrs 57.9 Public dance 38.4 72.0 36.1 2 yrs 6 months 57.7 Nightclub, disco 24.8 65.1 23.3 4 yrs 1 month 30.4 Fete or fair 24.9 67.2 19.1 3 yrs 4 months 44.9 Family 38.7 67.9 36.8 2 yrs 63.5 Public place 24.9 58.6 27.4 4 yrs 2 months 34.8 Holiday resort 12.5 38.2 20.6 5 yrs 2 months 21.9 Private home 29.4 60.6 23.0 4 yrs 6 months 38.5 Neighbourhood, district 26.5 57.9 24.9 4 yrs 6 months 30.2 Work 61.0 85.6 34.8 2 yrs 8 months 38.8 Agency, advertisement* – – – – – Internet* – – – – – Other 25.9 56.3 29.4 3 yrs 10 months 43.5 Don’t know 29.4 65.7 33.6 5 yrs 2 months 4.1 Overall 21.1 45.9 20.1 4 yrs 4 months 32.7

Meeting place of first partner and characteristics of sexual debut between 1984 and 2006 for women

18Some settings correspond to sexual experiences in adolescence, at age 17 or earlier. For men and women alike, the place of study, but also holiday settings and the neighbourhood, all fall into this category. Conversely, people who meet their first partner at work or in a club have a much later sexual debut, at around age 20. The first type of meeting is more adolescent, the second more adult. In the other types of meeting place studied, ages are closer to the average.

19Observing the sexual behaviour of young people, it is generally verified that the time to sexual intimacy (i.e. the time between first encounter and first intercourse) is proportional to the length of the relationship after first intercourse (Levinson, 2001). In other words, when first intercourse occurs soon after the first meeting, the ensuing relationship tends to be short-lived. Conversely, a long period of dating before intercourse generally presages a more lasting relationship. But can the contexts of meeting be classified in such a clear-cut way?

20In certain places frequented by young people on a daily basis (place of study, neighbourhood, family), the time to sexual intimacy is quite long and the process is gradual. The same applies to meetings in clubs. Among persons who met their first sexual partner in this way, the proportions who took more than a year to “take the plunge” are much higher than in other places. Conversely, there are settings where, for both men and women, a meeting leads swiftly to sexual intercourse. These are places frequented on a temporary, one-off basis, associated with rapid romance, such as nightclubs and holiday resorts. For men only, this also applies to meetings at the workplace, parties with friends, and public places, but probably for different reasons. Men who meet their first partner at work are relatively older than their partner at the time of sexual debut. Less constrained by “the controlling eye” of family or friends, they are able to act more swiftly.

21However, the settings where time to sexual intimacy is short give rise to short-lived relationships (often barely beyond the sexual encounter itself) only in the most predictable cases, i.e. in a holiday resort and, for men only, in a nightclub. And in settings where the process is more gradual, the outcome is not necessary a long-term relationship. This is very clearly the case for meetings through the family and in clubs (for women), but less so for meetings in the neighbourhood, and even less so for the place of study. In fact, the correlation between time to sexual intimacy and length of the subsequent relationship is only clearly visible in extreme cases: holiday encounters at one extreme, and encounters through the family at the other, in line with standard social representations.

22In our study cohorts, the first sexual partner is less and less often the first life partner: in one-third of cases for women and one-sixth for men. Certain settings are particularly unfavourable in this respect, notably holiday resorts and places of study, probably because respondents had a low average age at the time of the encounter. Meetings in the neighbourhood are more favourable, however, even though the age at meeting also tends to be low. Conversely, certain contexts of sexual debut result in relatively high proportions of lasting couple relationships. For women, they include meetings through the family, through a club or society, at a public dance or at a fete or fair (which do not all take place at later ages), and for men, meetings through the family, through a club, at the workplace or in a private home. For women, the list is slightly different to that of men.

23The time that elapses between first intercourse and first entry into union [4] is still longer for men than for women (6 years 10 months versus 4 years 4 months). Some meeting places of the first sexual partner are associated with quite long periods of sexuality without conjugal commitment: more than 7 years for men when the first meeting was in school, on holiday or in the neighbourhood, and more than 5 years for women in the first two places. These long durations are logically associated with encounters at a relatively young age (see above). On the other hand, short periods of sexuality without commitment correspond to encounters at older ages (clubs, work) but not necessarily so (fetes or fairs, public dances). For women, as expected, meetings through the family more rapidly lead to union formation after first sexual intercourse.

24Encounters in school or university, which are the most frequent (39% of men and 25% of women), have paradoxical features, very distinct for each sex. Their main characteristic is the similarity of partners’ ages, both for men and for women. This reflects what can be termed as an ecological constraint effect, due to the way in which students of the same age are grouped together. In all other meeting places, a woman’s first partner is often much older than her. This is the case for parties with friends, but the largest age differences are found for meetings at work, at a public dance or through the family. At parties with friends, women, of whom 82% are still students, meet sexual partners who in half of cases (48%) have completed their education. Indeed, the place of study is the only setting where practically all sexual partners met by women are students; in all other places the majority have completed their education. The situation is very different for men’s first sexual partners. Men still have a greater tendency to meet women while they are students, either in the place of study itself or outside, with the exception of meetings in the workplace. For a woman, choosing to meet a sexual partner outside the place of study increases her chances of meeting an older man who has completed his education, a profile which corresponds to women’s requirements for a future life partner (Bozon, 1991; Maillochon, 2001).

IV – Large disparities in meeting places: sociability and social groups

25The distribution of meeting places by sex, be it for the first sexual partner or the first life partner, varies considerably according to individuals’ social characteristics. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the main meeting places – first sexual partner on the left and first life partner on the right – by educational level, and Table 3 by the father’s occupation. The composite variable used to measure educational level comprises four levels – no qualifications or basic level, lower intermediate, full intermediate, higher – which take account of changes in educational levels over time (Appendix 2). Using an education variable to proxy the social status of individuals provides a means to capture their personal trajectory and the way in which they are exposed (or not) to certain contexts of sociability, those of school or university in particular. The father’s occupation indicates social origin, the departure point of each trajectory. We isolated three groups: farmers’ children (a shrinking social group, but with very marked characteristics), children of executives and persons in higher-level occupations, and children of manual workers (with no distinction between skilled and unskilled workers). Public dances, nightclubs and fetes or fairs are grouped in the “open places with dancing” category. Neighbourhood and public places form the “open places without dancing” category. Places of study and holiday resorts, with their specific features, are also shown.

Figure 3

Main meeting places of first sexual partner and first life partner (between 1984 and 2006) and variations by educational level

Main meeting places of first sexual partner and first life partner (between 1984 and 2006) and variations by educational level

Population: Men and women reporting a first sexual partner / entering a first union between 1984 and 2006.

26The main meeting place of a first sexual partner varies widely across educational levels. The place of study is a much more frequent meeting place for the most educated men, accounting for 45% of first encounters for the two most educated groups, versus around 30% for the least educated. Similar disparities are found for women, but the proportions are different, in line with the gender differentials already noted (more than 30% of meetings for the most educated, 15% for the least educated). These large differences across educational levels are not surprising, since the least educated are less exposed to a meeting in a place of study, having, by definition, completed their education at an earlier age.

27With smaller differences between the genders than for a first sexual partner, the places where respondents meet the first life partner are also correlated with educational level, as observed recently in Great Britain by Richard Lampard (2007). For the least educated, who have left school earlier than the others, few first life partners are met in a place of study (6% for both men and women), while for the most educated this is the main meeting place (27% and 25%, respectively). The school or university becomes the preserve of an increasingly limited population of students as they move up the educational ladder, and is an important meeting place for these groups. Conversely, public spaces of daily life (neighbourhood, public places) or open spaces with dancing (bar, nightclub, fete or fair) account for a dominant share of encounters with the first life partner among the least educated: 44% for both men and women, versus 21% and 24%, respectively, for the most educated.

28There is also a strong divide between the meeting places of the highly educated – conducive to friendly sociability – and those favoured by the least educated, which serve more directly to find a partner (Kalmijn and Flap, 2001).

29There is one frequent meeting place whose importance varies little across different educational levels, that of “parties with friends”, which accounts for one-fifth of meetings with a first life partner. However, like other private places (family, private home, etc.), a party with friends means different things to different people, as its composition and characteristics vary considerably across groups. The most notable observation is that this method of meeting a partner has spread to groups among which it was previously very rare. In the early 1970s, parties with friends accounted for 15% of meetings with first life partners for the most educated, versus just 5% among the least educated. A trend towards greater relative independence from one’s parents and increased importance of peer networks is common to young people in all social groups.

30The places where future sexual and life partners first meet also vary considerably by social origin, reflecting the close links between social groups and forms of sociability (Table 3). Public dances and nightclubs (open places with dancing) are preferred by farmers’ children (for meeting first sexual partner and first life partner), and are also frequented by manual workers’ children (notably to meet the first life partner), but are less popular among the children of people in higher-level occupations. Conversely, more than 14% of the sons of people in higher-level occupations met their first sexual partner on holiday, versus just 1% of farmers’ sons, who rarely go away on holiday during adolescence. For the children of people in higher-level occupations, parties with friends are a more frequent meeting place for the first sexual partner, and likewise for all social groups for the first life partner. Analysis by social origin confirms the analysis by educational level. We observe a similar pattern of sociability with contrasting effects: it widens the gaps between certain social groups, but may also create temporary rapprochements.

Table 3

Types of meeting place by father’s occupation (%)^(*)

Meeting place of first sexual partner Meeting place of first life partner Men Women Men Women School or university 21.5 20.7 Farmer 10.4 11.5 43.2 32.5 Higher-level occupation 23.3 24.1 37.9 18.6 Manual worker 11.2 10.6 38.9 24.9 Mean* 15.0 14.3 Party with friends 7.0 11.9 Farmer 17.4 23.2 20.6 16.7 Higher-level occupation 17.7 17.8 9.6 15.0 Manual worker 18.3 15.5 10.5 15.1 Mean* 18.0 18.4 Holiday resort 0.9 4.8 Farmer 2.4 2.4 14.4 10.2 Higher-level occupation 6.0 5.9 7.6 7.1 Manual worker 3.8 4.3 9.6 8.4 Mean* 4.0 4.9 Open with dancing (public dance, nightclub, fete or fair) 27.0 29.0 Farmer 29.0 30.2 5.3 7.9 Higher-level occupation 8.4 9.3 10.9 16.5 Manual worker 19.4 19.0 9.8 13.8 Mean* 16.6 16.4 Open without dancing (neighbourhood, public place) 20.0 17.8 Farmer 17.1 13.4 15.1 14.9 Higher-level occupation 20.4 17.8 19.7 25.7 Manual worker 21.7 23.5 17.8 19.8 Mean* 20.7 20.1 Number 147 206 Farmer 156 207 535 668 Higher-level occupation 469 595 944 1,096 Manual worker 862 1,049 2,797 3,451 All 2,568 3,175

Types of meeting place by father’s occupation (%)^(*)

(*) Mean for the meeting place based on the replies of all survey respondents. Only 3 of the occupational categories are represented, the others being: self-employed, intermediate occupation, clerical/sales worker, never worked.
Interpretation: 21.5% of men whose father is or was a farmer met their first sexual partner at school or university, and 43.2% of men whose father is or was in a higher-level occupation.
Population: Men and women reporting a first sexual partner / entering a first union between 1984 and 2006.

V – Individual trajectories through the relationship universe. Are sexual partners and life partners found in separate settings?

31The settings where the first sexual partner and first life partner are met can now be compared in order to study individual trajectories from sexual debut to entry into union. In this section, we will focus exclusively on respondents whose first life partner is not their first sexual partner. This was the case for 82% of men and 64% of women who met their first life partner between 1984 and 2006.

32In theory, 225 trajectories can be constructed from the 15 different places listed in the CSF questionnaire. But such a large number of combinations would produce confusing results, so the most similar types of place need to be grouped together. To this end, the composite typology constructed to analyse meeting places in the Formation des Couples survey of 1983-1984 can be used (Bozon and Héran, 1989, pp. 101-103). It distinguished between public places “open to all, with no form of selection other than a modest entrance fee”, and select places to which access is limited. Selection may take various forms: financial, relational, educational, or via “institution-specific codes of behaviour”. In these places, partners with similar social traits come together via selection mechanisms based on forms of co-optation, cultural affinity and practices which are more characteristic of some social groups than of others. A third category is that of private places, access to which is governed mainly by sociability between friends or family members.

33This typology needs to be updated however, to take account of recent changes in the types of meeting place, notably with regard to three specific points (Table 4). Given that a majority of young people now stay in school until age 18 and that many first sexual partners are now met in the place of study, this meeting place should be separated from the other select places, especially as it represents a starting point for highly specific dating trajectories, as we have seen. It is thus less “select” than the other select settings. Moreover, between the encounters with first sexual partner and with first life partner, its status changes. As the latter occurs much later, it takes place in a more selective context, restricted to persons pursuing a degree in higher education.

Table 4

Meeting places of first life partner, grouped by type of place

School ? Select Party with friend ? Private Club ? Select Public dance ? Public Nightclub ? Public Fete or fair ? Public Family ? Private Public place ? Public Holiday resort ? Select Private home ? Private Neighbourhood ? Public Workplace ? Select Agency, ad. ? Select Internet ? Select

Meeting places of first life partner, grouped by type of place

34The emergence of Internet as a “virtual” meeting place must also be taken into account. While dating sites are designed in theory to bring together people who would never meet under other circumstances, they employ a system of user filtering and selection (Bergström, 2011) and have certain characteristics (fees charged for certain services, hardware and software requirements) that tend to place them in the category of select places.

35Last, between the Formation des Couples survey (1983-1984) and the CSF survey (2006), one type of meeting place – the nightclub – went through a change of status. From being relatively selective in the 1960s and early 1970s, nightclubs have since opened up to new population groups while gradually losing their wealthier clientele.

36An analysis of trajectories serves several purposes. First, it provides a means to identify changes of environment between first sexual partner and first life partner, and to see whether these transitions differ for men and for women. This approach also reveals forms of avoidance or, conversely, of attachment to certain environments, by sex and educational trajectory. One example is public spaces, used frequently by persons with a low educational capital, as we have seen.

37The time between sexual debut and entry into first union differs markedly by sex, being much longer for men (6.7 years on average) than for women (5.1 years). But it varies little across trajectories (between 6.2 and 7.3 years for men, and between 4.7 and 5.9 years for women).

38Men’s and women’s trajectories are different, but not radically so (Table 5). As observed previously, men more frequently meet a partner in the place of study. School is considered as a public setting for meetings with the first sexual partner, which occur at an age when the vast majority of individuals are still in education (Table 1) thereby placing school in an intermediate position between “open” and “closed” spaces. There are no clearly dominant settings, however, and the most frequent trajectories are not markedly different for women and for men: in both cases, two successive public settings (18% of trajectories for women, 15% for men), followed by the transition from school to a select place (11% for women, 15% for men). The third most frequent trajectory is different for men and women, however, with a public place followed by a private place for women (8%), and school and a public place for men (13%). In other words, the range of potential meeting places grows wider for men, while becoming narrower for women. Moving beyond the study of meeting places of a first sexual partner, this observation suggests a more general hypothesis: men’s trajectories tend to widen, while those of women more frequently narrow.

Table 5

Trajectory from sexual debut to first union

Men Sexual partner place ? LIFE PARTNER PLACE Women  % Mean age (years)  % Mean age (years) Sexual debut First union Sexual debut First union 15.2 17.6 23.8 Public ? PUBLIC 17.6 17.5 22.2 12.8 16.4 23.1 School ? PUBLIC 7.3 17.0 22.2 4.9 16.5 23.8 Select (excl. school) ? PUBLIC 3.3 17.2 22.2 4.2 17.6 24.2 Private ? PUBLIC 5.9 17.4 22.4 5.7 17.7 23.9 Public ? SELECT incl. school 8.0 17.6 22.8 14.8 16.8 23.4 School ? SELECT incl. school 11.0 17.4 22.7 5.6 17.2 23.2 Select (excl. school) ? SELECT incl. school 7.7 18.2 23.9 4.1 17.2 23.3 Private ? SELECT incl. school 4.8 17.5 23.4 6.9 17.8 24.6 Public ? PRIVATE 8.4 17.5 22.4 9.4 16.9 24.2 School ? PRIVATE 7.9 17.2 22.4 3.7 16.3 23.3 Select (excl. school) ? PRIVATE 3.8 18.0 23.4 6.1 18.0 24.1 Private ? PRIVATE 8.1 17.9 22.6 6.6 17.4 24.6 Non-response, other 6.4 17.7 22.4 100.0 17.1 23.8 Total 100.0 17.5 22.6 1,544 Number 1,648

Trajectory from sexual debut to first union

Interpretation: 5.6% of men met their first sexual partner and first life partner in a “select place”. This category (“select space”) excludes school for the former, but includes it for the latter for reasons explained in the text.
Population: Men and women who had their sexual debut in 1984-2006 and entered a first union with a different partner.

39In sum, four main types of trajectory can be identified according to the continuities and discontinuities in the places frequented (Table 6). The first two are characterized by continuity. A first trajectory corresponds to a succession of relatively open settings (set of “public” spaces). A second displays the same continuity, but between places involving social selection (select or private).

Table 6

From sexual debut to first union. Typology of possible trajectories

Sexual partner place ? LIFE PARTNER PLACE Type of trajectory Public ? PUBLIC Continuity “open” settings School ? PUBLIC Widening Select (excl. school) ? PUBLIC Widening Private ? PUBLIC Widening Public ? SELECT incl. school Narrowing School ? SELECT incl. school Narrowing Select (excl. school) ? SELECT incl. school Continuity “closed” settings Private ? SELECT incl. school Continuity “closed” settings Public ? PRIVATE Narrowing School ? PRIVATE Narrowing Select (excl. school) ? PRIVATE Continuity “closed” settings Private ? PRIVATE Continuity “closed” settings

From sexual debut to first union. Typology of possible trajectories

40Two configurations involve discontinuity: either through a widening (first sexual partner met in a private or select place, first life partner in a public space) or a relative narrowing (first sexual partner met in an open space, but not first life partner). Strict continuity concerns only a minority, but the pattern differs for men and women. First, it is less frequent for men (35%) than for women (42%). It is also of a different nature, with a relatively higher frequency of continuity of “closed” settings for women than for men, reflecting a more strategic approach to the search for a sexual partner or life partner. Likewise, the discontinuities are of different types for men and women, with “widening” being slightly more frequent for men than for women (22% versus 16%). The disparities already observed in the previous section also suggest that trajectories are differentiated both by sex and by educational level (Table 7, Appendix Tables A.5 and A.6).

Table 7

Types of trajectory by gender and educational level (%)

No qualifications or basic level Lower intermediate Full intermediate Higher education Overall Men Continuity “open” settings 22.3 20.4 12.0 06.0 15.2 Continuity “closed” settings 17.9 16.4 19.6 24.8 19.5 Widening 22.2 26.3 20.6 16.5 21.9 Narrowing 26.5 31.6 41.1 46.8 36.8 Other 11.1 05.3 03.7 05.9 06.6 Women Continuity “open” settings 23.4 21.2 21.8 09.4 17.5 Continuity “closed” settings 20.4 20.7 23.0 30.4 24.4 Widening 12.3 21.1 14.3 14.0 16.5 Narrowing 37.5 30.8 33.4 40.0 35.3 Other 04.4 06.2 07.5 06.2 06.3

Types of trajectory by gender and educational level (%)

Population: Men and women who had their sexual debut in 1984-2006 and entered a first union with a different partner.

41This breakdown shows first that while the frequency of continuous trajectories varies by gender, it is much more differentiated by educational level, for men and women alike. The form of continuity differs across groups, with a strong divide between the most educated (higher education) and the others. One-third of women’s trajectories and one quarter of men’s trajectories in this group are characterized by continuity of non-open settings, versus just 20% (men) and 18% (women) for the least educated (no qualifications or basic level). Conversely, continuity in open settings is relatively more frequent among the least educated (more than one-fifth) and more marginal for both sexes in the highest educated group (6% and 9%).

42The breakdown of discontinuous trajectories also differs by sex. Widening (from a non-open to an open setting) is more characteristic of men, while narrowing (from an open to a non-open setting) concerns men and women about equally (slightly more than one-third in both cases). This difference by gender reinforces a difference by level of education. The widening and narrowing processes occur in relatively similar proportions for both men and women in the most highly educated group, but among the most low-educated, widening concerns 22% of men, but just 12% of women. Narrowing, for its part, concerns almost 40% of women in both the least educated and most educated groups, but just one-quarter of the least educated men. This contrasts strongly with the most educated men, of whom almost half have a “narrowing” trajectory.

43A progressive contraction of the “dating territory” thus appears to be more characteristic of highly educated men and women, as is a continuity of “closed” settings. Conversely, “public” trajectories, and widening are infrequent in this group. Continuous trajectories in private settings are more characteristic of women than of men.

VI – When the first sexual partner becomes the first life partner: varied profiles

44In the 1950s, for women at least, the first sexual partner was generally also the first life partner. According to the Simon survey (1970), 68% of women aged over 20 had only ever had one sexual partner in their lifetime. Only a minority of women are in that situation today. Among persons who had their sexual debut after 1983, only one woman in three entered a union with her first sexual partner, and fewer than one man in five. This experience corresponds to a singular trajectory, and may perhaps be specific to certain populations.

45One characteristic of these individuals is an above-average age at sexual debut. The men concerned had their first intercourse at age 19.8 years (versus 17.6 years when the first sexual partner is not the first life partner) and women at age 19.2 (versus 18.2). The difference in timing of sexual debut is especially marked for men, for whom the experience of forming a union with the first sexual partner is more uncommon: it only concerns “late starters”, who have been shown to have more traditional attitudes towards sexuality. [5] However, union formation is by no means rapid, as it takes place 2.5 years, on average, after sexual debut (2 years 4 months for men, 2 years 8 months for women). Even if the sexual partner becomes a life partner, sexual relations begin well before entry into union. Sexual debut no longer coincides with marriage.

46The social characteristics of persons whose first life partner is also their first sexual partner are not identical for men and women. We compared them with persons whose first sexual partner and first life partner were different (Table 8). While for women, the population concerned includes a slightly higher proportion of low-educated individuals, this does not apply to men, who more often have a degree in higher education. The women are most often the daughters of manual workers, while among men, there are slightly more sons of farmers and self-employed. However, both men and women of this category in the study population more often have mothers who never worked. Women more often come from non-European families, while this is not the case for men. Last, in terms of religious affiliation, we note that for both sexes, committed Christians are over-represented while persons with no religion are under-represented. The Islamic faith is over-represented among women but not men.

Table 8

Social characteristics when first sexual partner and first life partner are the same or different, by sex

Women Social characteristics when first sexual partner and first life partner are the same or different Men Same Different p Same Different p 19.2 18.2 Mean age at sexual debut (years) 19.8 17.6 2 yrs 4 months 4 yrs 4 months Mean interval between sexual debut and first union 2 yrs 8 months 6 yrs 10 months ** Educational level (%) *** 14.2 10.1 No qualifications, basic level 15.2 16.2 34.8 33.0 Lower intermediate 32.0 39.1 23.4 26.6 Full intermediate 19.5 23.3 25.3 28.6 Higher education 29.4 20.0 2.3 1.7 Other, don’t know 4.9 1.4 *** Mother’s socio-occupational status, 8 categories (%) ** 5.2 4.2 Farmer 6.9 3.9 5.7 5.7 Self-employed 7.3 4.9 6.0 9.0 Higher-level occupation 6.6 7.6 8.3 11.4 Intermediate occupation 10.6 12.0 33.9 40.5 Clerical, sales worker 28.2 35.4 7.2 5.9 Skilled manual worker 9.1 9.3 11.3 10.5 Unskilled manual worker 11.9 13.8 19.8 11.4 Never worked 17.8 12.1 2.6 1.4 Don’t know 1.6 1.0 *** Father’s socio-occupational status, 8 categories (%) * 6.9 5.5 Farmer 7.2 4.8 10.9 11.7 Self-employed 15.2 10.7 13.2 19.0 Higher-level occupation 15.0 18.2 8.2 10.3 Intermediate occupation 12.8 11.8 17.9 18.8 Clerical/sales worker 13.0 15.3 23.4 19.6 Skilled manual worker 20.0 23.3 15.3 11.8 Unskilled manual worker 15.6 13.1 0.4 0.2 Never worked 0.0 0.2 3.8 3.1 Don’t know 1.2 2.6 *** Parents’ place of birth (%) 77.4 84.2 Both in Europe 84.9 81.5 2.2 3.1 One in Europe, other elsewhere 2.1 2.6 20.4 12.6 Both elsewhere 13.0 16.0 *** Religion (%) *** 25.4 19.6 Committed Christian 20.8 11.8 9.2 3.4 Committed Muslim 5.7 6.5 2.0 1.1 Other religion 1.9 1.7 29.7 34.9 Uncommitted Christian 31.6 32.4 0.9 0.7 Uncommitted Muslim 0.5 1.1 32.5 40.1 No religion 37.7 45.8 0.3 0.3 Non-response 1.8 0.7 1,157 2,186 Number 530 2,196

Social characteristics when first sexual partner and first life partner are the same or different, by sex

Note 1: For the “Religion” variable, committed Christians and Muslims are those who report that “religion is important in their life” while uncommitted Christians and Muslims report that “religion is not important in their life”.
Note 2: The figures in bold indicate significant differences between the “same” and “different” groups.
p: Chi² test: * p > 0.05; ** p > 0.01; *** p > 0.001.
Population: Men and women reporting first sexual intercourse between 1984 and 2006. The “different” category includes persons whose first life partner was not their first sexual partner, and those whose relationship with the first sexual partner is over.

47All in all, a strong link between sexual debut and choice of life partner selects populations that are specific but less homogeneous than one might imagine, and that differ by sex. A slightly larger share of the women concerned have a working-class background, and an above-average proportion are committed Christians or Muslims. The men more frequently have a high level of education, do not have a very marked social profile, and are more often committed Christians.

48The settings in which they meet the first sexual partner and future life partner are not specific to this group (Table 9). Again, the place of study is important, more clearly so for men (27%) than for women (18%), but to a lesser extent for both sexes than the majority group whose first sexual partner is not the first life partner. Likewise for a meeting at a holiday resort, which is only half as frequent.

Table 9

Meeting place of first sexual partner according to whether or not he/she becomes the first life partner

Women Meeting place of first sexual partner Men First sexual partner and first life partner First sexual partner and first life partner Same (%) Different (%) Same (%) Different (%) 17.6 28.3 School or university 27.4 40.9 14.4 15.1 Party 15.8 9.4 2.4 0.9 Club/society 2.2 0.7 5.0 1.8 Public dance 2.5 1.8 8.2 9.5 Nightclub, disco 6.0 6.9 2.9 1.9 Fete or fair 2.2 0.9 9.9 2.8 Family 5.9 2.8 12.8 12.0 Public place 12.1 11.5 5.7 10.1 Holiday resort 5.0 10.8 2.8 1.9 Private home 4.1 2.1 7.2 8.0 Neighbourhood, district 6.5 6.2 5.4 3.9 Work 4.8 2.4 0.4 0.1 Agency, advertisement 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.3 Internet 0.5 0.5 4.5 2.8 Other 3.6 2.1 0.0 0.6 Don’t know 1.3 1.0 100.0 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 1,157 2,186 Number 530 2,196

Meeting place of first sexual partner according to whether or not he/she becomes the first life partner

Note: The figures in bold indicate significant differences between the “same” and “different” groups.
Population: Men and women reporting first sexual intercourse between 1984 and 2006. The “different” category includes persons whose first life partner was not their first sexual partner, and those whose relationship with the first sexual partner is over.

49Conversely, other settings appear to be more characteristic of this group: the workplace, parties (for men), and above all the family, are clearly over-represented. One-tenth of women in this group meet their first sexual partner and future life partner through the family, three times more than in the majority group.

50As is the case for persons whose first life partner is different from the first sexual partner, meeting places vary notably by educational level and sex: for the least educated, “open” settings (see definition given above) represent a large share of meeting places (42% for men and 44% for women), but are only marginal for the most educated (27% and 14%), with a reverse contrast for meetings in school or university (35% and 41%, respectively, for the most educated women and men versus 9% and 12%, respectively, for the least educated).

51Both in terms of social characteristics and meeting place of the first sexual partner, the men and women in this group are not very different from the others. The contrasts by sex and educational level are quite similar.

Conclusion

52The way in which individuals meet their life partner has changed over the last three decades. As the choice of life partner now occurs later, we must consider a second type of amorous encounter, that of the first sexual partner. The strong increase in the proportion of encounters that take place in the place of study is clearly linked to the generalization of secondary schooling and the expansion of higher education. In addition, meetings during parties with friends, and the virtual disappearance of the public dance (bal) as a meeting place show a strong trend towards privatization of sociability that is affecting all social groups. Respondents report few meetings (with first sexual partner or first life partner) via the Internet. At a time when almost one-third of young adults aged 18-24 report having visited a dating site (Bozon, 2012b), this low frequency can be interpreted in several ways. It may be partly because respondents are embarrassed about using a dating service which is often talked about but not highly thought of, preferring to report the place where they met their first partner “in the flesh”. Moreover, encounters via the Internet less often appear to result in long-term relationships (Bergström, 2012), so are not frequently mentioned in surveys on first sexual partners or first life partners.

53Beyond these changes, these findings shed light on the role of strategy in dating practices.

54In the publications based on the 1983-1984 survey of couple formation, we indicated that the first life partner was “discovered” rather than explicitly sought. The simple fact of frequenting places of daily life and leisure was sufficient for individuals to meet up with persons presenting similar social and cultural characteristics. People who enjoy the same leisure occupations in the same settings are socially similar. The notion of deliberate strategy was not needed to explain the social diversity of meeting places and the processes that lead to homogamy.

55The data from the 2006 survey on the context of sexuality in France confirm the strength of the inegalitarian social game of sociability, but also suggest that certain strategies must be deployed to meet a partner. The questionnaire focuses on two distinct moments in young people’s dating career: the meeting with the first sexual partner and with the first life partner. When one of these encounters occurs in a place qualified as open, and the other in a closed or select place (see definitions above), there is a form of discontinuity. Conversely, continuity is observed if both places belong to the same category. Whatever their social background (proxied here by educational level), far fewer than half of young people have a continuous trajectory, and a large majority have a discontinuous one. The continuous trajectories reflect the weight of social and cultural differences in sociability: among both men and women, the most educated meet more frequently in closed or select places, and the least educated in open places. These findings are consistent with those of earlier surveys. By contrast, the discontinuous trajectories imply spatial mobility which is more difficult to interpret. We note that in cases of discontinuity, a narrowing of the range of meeting places, that can be interpreted as a progressive targeting of places and partners, is more frequent among women, but also among highly educated men. Conversely, a widening (from a select or private place to an open one) is more frequently observed among men, notably low-educated men, and can be interpreted as a strategy for increasing opportunities to meet up with a potential partner.

56A large share of young people thus use strategies to find a partner, and they take different forms depending on the person’s sex and social background. The simple fact that women much more frequently find their first sexual partner outside the educational setting indicates a desire on their part to move beyond their immediate peer group. The ways in which individuals meet their first sexual partner and first life partner are a contributing factor in the shaping of gender relations. While social representations, family expectations and internalized preferences encourage women to be active and socially aware in the stages of their life leading to couple formation, men can more easily allow themselves to be guided by circumstance.