![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eftychia at 08:30am on 2005-01-20I could've sworn I'd written about this before, but a few 'grep' commands show that I don't seem to have gotten around to doing so in my own journal yet. Since it came up recently, I'll copy and paste (with minor edits) from email I sent to a friend who wrote to me:
In YYYY's experience, a woman can't be friends with a man; he's having trouble with the fact that XXXX's closer friends tend to be male.
Ah, yeah, that ties into an observation I made ten or twenty years ago about what I call "homosocial" and "heterosocial" groups, but I've never been sure whether the appropriate groups to measure are communities, subcultures, or generations. (I noticed it as a generational thing but wasn't sure whether age was the key or the fact that my friends are fannish and my parents' friends mundane was the relevant datum.)
In (mostly-heterosexual) homosocial groups, men hang out with male friends, women hang out with female friends, and couples hang out with other couples. Anything else feels awkward and/or raises eyebrows. Men and women can be friends, but they don't do things together outside of large-group activities, or act as close friends unless there's a romantic or sexual component or they're exploring the potential for one. Couples socialize with other couples; individual members of a couple may also socialize separately with single same-sex friends, though there seems to be a strong trend of singles mostly losing touch with their just-married friends as the married couple shifts gears socially to mostly interacting with other couples. And if a man and a woman meet for dinner, spend a lot of time on the phone, or attend a cultural event together, others assume that they're starting to date ... Or, if either or both is dating or married to someone else, suspicion of cheating is aroused and gossip starts up. Some amount of friendly non-romantic interaction is stifled to preserve the appearance of propriety. This seems to be how my parents' social group, most of my aunts and uncles, and the writers and characters of most pre-1990 sitcoms and movies process social interaction and gender.
In heterosocial groups (mostly-heterosexual or containing a diverse assortment of orientations), all bets are off regarding who might hang out with whom as non-romantic friends. Many women have mostly male friends, men are likely to invite a female buddy to an event just for company with no eyebrows being raised, people meet with dinner partners of either gender just to catch up, couples continue to hang out with their single friends, married couples operate socially as individuals as well as jointly, and nobody assumes that secret (or budding) romance is involved until much stronger clues than "they've been seen together a lot" are provided. Uh ... and folks in heterosocial environments are often rather confused about "dating", because when a romantic interest does develop, nobody's quite sure what constitutes a "date" as opposed to how friends hang out; and because there are no clear lines between dating and hanging out, inviting someone out and seeing whether they accept isn't a reliable way to find out whether they're as romantically interested in you as you are in them, unless the intent is made pretty clear in the invitation. There are couples who really don't know how long they've been couples, because their romance developed out of an existing friendship and it's not clear when that magical line got crossed. And there are adults with solid romantic histories who are not really sure whether they've ever "been on a date".
An interesting side effect of heterosocial patterns of interactions and assumptions is that (as far as I can tell) a het man is more likely to be comfortable going to dinner, a movie, or a concert with an openly gay male friend than in a homosocial social structure. Since nobody would make any assumptions if he were there with a non-romantic female friend, he doesn't feel as though people are going to question his orientation because of his hanging out with an openly gay male friend. But I probably need to collect more data on this point, and I could be wrong about the cause (it may just be that the heterosocial groups I've observed happened to be less homophobic than the homosocial ones by mere coincidence).
I do not have sufficient data to make any observations about mostly-homosexual or mostly-bisexual social groups. And polyamoury adds another layer to all this, but I'll ignore it for the moment.
When folks from homosocial and heterosocial backgrounds interact, there's an uncomfortable dissonance, as each person's assumptions about or interpretations of the others behaviour and speech lead to judgemental and usually incorrect conclusions.
As I said, I've long wondered whether this is a generational difference, or a fannish/mundane one, or some other division. But I have observed the existence of both patterns of behaviour and social expectations.
(no subject)
I seem to notice that your real concern is the "protectiveness" of the couples in question. Again I don't see how this is all that bad a thing. Time often equals interest and amount of time spent with others can often show were your heart really is. If you wife/husband is spending large amount of time with somebody who is of a gender that they may be sexually interested in, then it is natural to start to wonder why is he/she spending some much time with that person and not with me his/her wife/husband. Seldom does this reaction take place from one movie night. It is natural to want to protect ones relationship (even though it is also impossable to force it to stay together). This protection only seems to work for the "I didn't know I was starting to stray" relationships. It does not work against the "I just don't love you any more" or "I fell in love with the other person" relationship which nautrally doom the foundation couples relationship.
I think it is both normal and fine.
Married....Without Children
"...why is it married couples tend to link up with other married couples? ....they have less in common to talk about with their single friend. [Married people] find "go out" to socialize with other singles to possibly "hook up" as just out of the question....While the single person seldom is interested in what the new baby is doing or what repairs you plan to do on your house or how you plan to save for college for your child."
It might work that way for some people, but I'm married, and most of the friends I socialize with are single--there are many advantages, foremost of which is we're all unchilded, so *nobody* has to listen to "what the new baby is doing" :-D
Remember, not all married folx have (or even want) children....
DP
Re: Married....Without Children
exactly. once a couple has children, it becomes more problematic for them to socialize with singles -- for instance, my apartment is very, very child-unsafe for a variety of reasons. people with young children often find it difficult to discuss anything else -- being child-focused is a natural thing, and has an obvious evolutionary advantage, but many singles really don't want to hear it. i've discussed this extensively with a close friend as we've analyzed how our relationship has changed since she had children, and how her social habits in general have changed. one of hers is in school now, and we've theorized how things may change again once they both are. the main thing we've determined is that the reason we're still so close is that we live 1000 miles apart -- so we haven't 'drifted apart' because her kids aren't really a major factor in our friendship. (and when i visit, she's sensitive to my relative cluelessness in re small children.)
on the other hand, i know one married, childed couple who seem actually offended that i don't want to socialize with their school-aged child as well, and try to force me into situations where i'll have to. this is really difficult for me, since i have a foul mouth and a rather... uninhibited sense of humor, and i find it stressful to have to constantly watch what i'm saying. so far none of my attempts to explain my POV have gotten through, so i end up not hanging around with them anymore.
it's rough being a single person when literally all your local friends are coupled off, and even more so once they start having children...
Re: Married....Without Children
"I'm married, and most of the friends I socialize with are single--there are many advantages, foremost of which is we're all unchilded, so *nobody* has to listen to 'what the new baby is doing'"
You replied:
"exactly. once a couple has children, it becomes more problematic for them to socialize with singles.... people with young children often find it difficult to discuss anything else -- being child-focused is a natural thing, and has an obvious evolutionary advantage, but many singles really don't want to hear it."
Which is true, but misses the point I was trying to make: for some people the axis isn't "Married/Single" but "Childed/Unchilded." I know singles that looooove to talk about babies and children, and married folks that would rather talk about anything in the world but that :-)
(I s'pose that I should have mentioned first that Spouse and I choose our friends first for hobbies/interests in common. The fact that almost all of them are unchilded is gravy :-D)
Cheers--
DP
(no subject)
i see no reason to make value judgements regarding which is "better" -- would you make the same judgement regarding sexual orientation? is heterosexuality "better" than homosexuality?
people are different. they socialize differently. i personally prefer a heterosocial environment, and i suppose i feel a certain dislike for homosocial environments -- i'm a macho chick, and the only thing i can really talk to a homosocial woman about is cooking or gardening -- but that doesn't mean my way is "better". in some subcultures, there may be real value in sticking to homosocialization; monks and nuns, for example. women who have been sexually assaulted by men may prefer not to socialize with them because they feel unsafe. (despite my heterosocialization, i am very cautious about ever being alone [in a non-public venue] with a man i don't know very, very well, and on one occasion even that didn't help... but let's not go there.)
(no subject)
Actually, I avoided asking or answering that particular question -- it's probably obvious which environment I personally find more comfortable, but that does not imply that one is implicitly better. (That is an interesting question, but not one I feel ready to try to answer.) From what I've seen, each seems to mostly work, feel like "the natural order" to those operating within it, and seem perplexing and wrong to folks from the other camp. Being aware of these differences might make it easier to mentally tag someone else as "from a foreign subculture" instead of "neurotic and overly posessive" or "immoral and a threat to others' relationships".
Much of your first paragraph and some your second betrays -- in fact only makes sense within -- the framework of a homosocial mindset. (For contrast, failing to admit the existence of "I didn't know I was starting to stray" potential in the abstract case would be one sign of a serious heterosocial bias.)
As for my concern being the protectiveness of the primary relationship, well that is what brought the topic to the conversation, but I attempted here to explain that the observed phenomenon (as viewed by a heterosocial person) is not "merely" jealousy or insecurity, but a different set of internalized social assumptions.
(no subject)
When I was single my focus was on myself. What I was feeling or wanting to do. My main focus was my desires to be with others and to "date" or "find myself".
As for spending time, a married or coupled person with a person outside the couple, I think it boils down to time spent. The amount of time you spend with a person shows, to a degree, the amount of interest you have in them (sexual or not). A good example is the football widow, who's mate nearly abandons them in preferance to the football game and his football friends. Likewise it is possable for a person to "drift" appart from a mate by spending too much time away from them. (think the trouble military families suffer). Throw in to the mix your mate spending more time with a person with whome they could become involved with and you and even more problems. It may start a innocent visits but can grow to be something more. Thusly each culture and each person has a "internal clock" on how much time is ok and how much is a threat.
Think about it... don't you have friends who if they got together more often without you would make you feel left out? Or even if you are with them you notice they talk more often with each other then you.. and again you feel left out? This is all the same route emotion. The source of the "protective" behavior. Just think of all the "social drama's" we all encountered in fandom.. how many of them relate to time spent and who with?
From my exerience a good deal of them relate to that very topic. Now I am in a open relationship. So I understand that the time I spend with others and the time my wife spends with others needs to monitored and not allowed to grow to the point were fear and jealiously come about. Even then it has had it's bad times.
(no subject)
I think that the singles losing touch with just-married friends has less to do with homosocializing than the tendency of newly married to be pretty infatuated with each other. It's easy to feel like a third wheel in these situations, even if you're friends with both of them. If you're only close to one, then you have a different social dynamic to deal with. The spouse may be a cool person, but you don't know them as well.
(no subject)
He does? I totally forgot that. Dang. Time for a re-read.
(no subject)
The excluding-nearly-all-others because of being "pretty infatuated with each other" is often a temporary effect, as NRE is for just-started-dating couples (one hopes that the intensity of the bond doesn't diminish, but the ability to start looking at the rest of the world usually reappears after a while). I'm thinking of the longer-term effect, where the married couple winds up reestablishing connections with other couples but not so much with their single friends.
One thing I hadn't thought of is the possibility that "couples associate with couples" is an effect, rather than a fundamental defining characteristic, of homosocial groups. It makes sense that in a heterosocial setting, single friends are more likely to already be friends with both members of a couple than in a homosocial setting where a single friend is only going to be close friends with the same-sex member of the couple, and it's plausible that this would explain "couples with couples" based on your observation that if you're only close to one member of a couple, dealing with both at once can be a funny dynamic.
Need More Data!
(no subject)
(no subject)
I have some mostly male friends, and I have some mostly female friends... :)
(no subject)
For me, it would be odd to select friends on the basis of gender, when I don't use that as a filter for partners.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Anecdotal evidence against it being purely generational: a happily-married male friend who's a couple years older than me socializes a lot with women. When he and I both worked in the same part of the city, we'd meet for lunch once a week. He had a couple other female friends with regular lunch appointments on other days. Because his schedule was more constrained than mine, we almost always ate at the sandwich joint across the street from his building, where many of his coworkers also ate.
Many of his coworkers (of approximately his age) commented to him about his gross behavior: not only was he obviously cheating on his wife, but he was also cheating on each of his several mistresses! The vast majority of these coworkers also think the SCA is "weird" and strive to live "normal" lives.
My friend points out that his behavior would also be unacceptable in the community in which he grew up (rural, religiously-conservative). He was the first person in his family to go to college, and he went off to MIT where (from his community's point of view) he became thoroughly warped. I think "warped" in this case really means "exposed to a broader cross-section of cultures and ideas".
(no subject)
Naaaah. Just warped. ;)
Presuming he's >30yo, he was at MIT at a time when his female classmates necessarily were living either enormously constrained social lives.... or were heterosocial. If you are female and want to have friends at a school where 2/3rd (or more, depending on your major) of your classmates are male, you have male friends. And your male friends get used to the idea of your not being available (statistically more of them aren't dating you than are.
I think MIT disproportionately attracts women who are naturally heterosocial -- or did in those days. It was so manefestly obviously a boy's playground, that you didn't go without thinking that was at least acceptible, if not downright groovy.
(no subject)
I think the trouble I have with this is that you are say one thing and then another. Let me explain.
"but I think it has a lot to do with "broader thinking" or open-mindedness in general."
This statement in of itself can be considered narrow minded or closed minded. Since in it the percieved idea is to think traditionally is wrong. Which is closed minded to the traditional values. Hence closed minded. In truth it is ONLY open minded and Boarder thinking by acceptance of the non-traditional and the rejection of the traditional.
To be truely "open minded" one must also accept that the traditional values have equal value to the "non-traditional" values. Now those who are traditionalist are traditionalist because they feel it brings greater security and form to their lives. While I myself am in a untraditional marriage (open marriage) I recognize that this aspect of my marriage is the most dangerous one. I know it has been a death tool to many marriages who play with the openness thing. As such I see the value of the traditional while recognizing the good and bad of both the traditional and the non-traditional.
(no subject)
Most of my friend's relatives are not willfully narrow-minded; it's just that they haven't lived in a diverse multi-cultural multi-sexual society, so to them his having a close friendship with a woman is suspect. (Imagine if he were polyamorous!) I'm not saying they're stupid; they obviously know at some level that such things exist. But there's a difference between knowing something intellectually and being immersed in it.
I don't know if that's any better, but there's my attempt to clarify.
(Oh, and nowhere did I say that being heterosocial is better than being homosocial.)
(no subject)
What I have learned is the the traditional system has a great deal of merit. It give people a good sense of security, and avoids many of the things that can lead to feelings of insecurity. I have seen many a "new" system of relationship fail. (and one or two that were traditional fail). The conclusion I have is that no system is perfect. Each have value and as such none are better. These untraditional relationship introduce all sorts of new risk and problems. SOme I have encountered personnally. Others I have witnessed.
But I have admitted to being conservative and as such I have a natural preferance to the traditional and am more suspect of the new or inventive systems. Even though in some ways I am not following a traditional path.
(no subject)
And also, a homosocial woman is more comfortable going to dinner etc. with an openly gay male friend, as there are no assumptions there either.
I would describe myself as a homosocial woman, but I don't think that it makes me less open-minded. I prefer to have the well-defined boundaries. I like knowing when was the "first date." I don't insist that my boyfriends not spend time with women one-on-one, but I'm wary of it, because of that problem with blurred boundaries.
It is rare when a married couple can hang out with a single friend, but not unheard-of. I think it takes a certain level of maturity. Personally I have one such couple in my life. There is another couple I know of that hangs out with my male gay friend and has no problem with it, but they seem uncomfortable doing it with me and often invite another person along to even out the numbers.
Thanks for a thought-provoking post!
There may be a more plausible explanation
There may be a more plausible explanation. Both dglenn and Paul Fussel notice that there are some groups that arrange themselves homo-socially and others that arrange themselves hetero-socially. The question each tries to answer is why does this occur. Paul Fussel posits, from his observations, that it occurs as a result of one's position on the "social ladder". Possibly he means economic social status, badmagic didn't say.
Humans are social animals. We gather together in groups to fend off the evils of the world. I personally am a member of a number of "social groups" some of which are homo-social and some of which are hetero-social. To qualify my remarks I should also state that I'm a heterosexual married male. We are also in an upper income bracket and in the upper percentile in terms of intelligence.
In each of the groups of which I am considered a member, it is more important to think of what the group members have in common than what generation they are in or what their social class is.
Families, for example, would be, on average, a hetero-social grouping. It would contain members from both sexes, both married and single, from multiple generations and income levels all of which gather together occasionally for no other reason than that they are all related in some way. Some social groupings tend to lean more toward homo-social arrangements, simply because of the interest or activity involved. An auto club, or sports fans tend to be homo-social simply because the opposite sex isn't interested in the conversation or the activity involved. Anonymous states that this is the case with married couples because singles and couples tend to have different interests and activities.
I think you need to look at the social group's "reason for being" rather than other social markers such as education level, or economic status. In a sense what I'm suggesting is that all social groups, in a sense, are "fannish" in some way. If the activity or interest that brings the group members together is "gender neutral", then you're more likely to find a hetero-social grouping. If the activity is "gender charged", that is, if it is associated in the particular culture with a certain gender, then you'll find homo-social groupings. In the cases of "gender charged" activities you'll also find social pressure to remain homo-social. This is, unfortunately, a function of culture.
Re: There may be a more plausible explanation
You mean car clubs and sports fans are mostly comprised of women? Because I'm not interested in either of those activities, though my girlfriend is. I'd be more likely to join a sewing circle than a basketball team.
I think all your examples are pretty suspect. The distinction isn't purely functional like extended families being heterosocial and soccer clubs being homosocial. I don't think you're even talking about the same thing. Especially when you talk about "gender charged" activities; the subject is more about your social circle as a whole, not a specific hobby.
The homosocial/heterosocial divide, if there is one, definitely relates to sociocultural distinctions of some kind. From my experience, it's mostly about educational differences, though economic status may also be a factor. You could say that they divide along the same lines as traditionalist/conservative versus progressive, but that's also a bit of a stretch. There are clearly other contexts where these apply, but just because they can't be defined by one or two simple factors doesn't mean the distinction isn't there.
I find this homosocial/heterosocial concept pretty interesting, and personally relevant. I see that it causes problems in my current relationship that I'm accustomed to being more heterosocial and she's (mostly) homosocial. She's more likely to try arranging a "girls' night out" to watch hockey, and I'm more likey go to the movies with a mixed-sex group, or one woman friend. Going out with other couples isn't really a compromise, either.
(no subject)
Guess I'm in the misfit group -- AGAIN!
I'm trying to figure out how D'G fits into this structure. She was a guy when we hung out together....not one now (?) and I was always 'one-of-the-guys' despite organs to the contrary.
All my life I've had many guy-friends and few women-friends. I'm not terribly girly...can't talk about hairstyles for minutes, let alone hours on end. One of the few things I have in common with large groups of women: having been pregnant, had children, and being a mom now. Otherwise, people are people to me, not a chromosomal pair.
Re: Guess I'm in the misfit group -- AGAIN!
Re: Guess I'm in the misfit group -- AGAIN!
(no subject)
In a way, it has come at a very convenient time. Much like The Jargon File, this has served to inform me that I am not a lone warrior battling against the masses of insanity, but that I do have comrades in arms and stuff.
(no subject)
And remember: Ugol's Law provides hope; search engines make it easier do something useful with the answer Ugol's Law supplies. :-)
(Ugol's Law: If you ever find yourself asking a question that starts, "Is there anybody else who...", the answer is "Yes.")
(no subject)
social groups composed largely of intellectually curious people (the sort who are constantly accumulating knowledge on a broad range of topics -- fen are a good example) tend to be heterosocial simply because at some point it becomes uncomfortable to socialize with the less knowledgeable (unless you tend to the taciturn) -- they're constantly expressing amazement at your cleverness, or they assume you're showing off.
likewise groups of people with specialized interests -- if there are only a limited number of people who share your interest, you can't afford to discriminate. if you're any sort of "geek": physics geek, computer geek, astronomy geek, etc. -- you're probably oriented to the heterosocial.
(no subject)
Frankly, I don't want to do anything the way my parents did it. Their lives are mediocre, too well funded for their intrinsic worth, bigoted, and too traditional. I don't really care to be like them. (Just so you know, I'm not a spleeny teenager; I'm within a month of my thirtieth birthday and I've spent a lot of time thinking about just precisely how my parents' straightjacketed attitudes have been pissing me off for the last three decades or so.)
I got a lot of grief for being heterosocial, which I've been for a long time. In elementary school, I had some male friends, and I got yelled at for having them. When I got into high school, my mother informed me that I could no longer telephone my male friends, because "girls don't phone boys; it's not right," and it's literally taken my mother years (if she actually has) to figure out that I haven't actually been sleeping with all of my male friends. I'm not sure my father has an opinion one way or the other. (The fact that I'm also the kind of person who has a habit of sleeping with her friends and still keeping the relationship on the level of "friendship" probably shouldn't enter into this discussion, because I don't like to talk about my sex life with my parents, for obvious reasons.) My mom especially can't distinguish between "boyfriend" and "boy friend."
Granted, my mother would never make that assumption about any female friends I introduced to her, even if I were sleeping with them. That's probably a good thing, because I don't want to have to explain bisexuality (among other things) to her, and I don't even want to get into gender issues (I'm not exactly cisgendered either, and that's probably got something to do with what siderea mentions -- I tend toward gynandry) and all that kind of stuff, either. (This is the same woman who once told me "I don't hate black people, I just think white people are better." I've pretty much written her off.)
Call me rebellious if you must. I just consider that I'm not wired to be like them.
(no subject)
I dunno. I was just pondering my fannish activities, which mostly revolve around livejournal slash communities, and slash is *definitely* homosocial. This is interesting, because I think my usual comfort zone is more heterosocial.
(no subject)
It is oft observed in high-IQ circles that high-IQ people are more likely to tend to androgeny in their gender performance. From my (quasi-)Jungian perspective, I've noted that a lot of the young men I met at MIT seemed to have their Anima much more consciously available to them than their age-peers in the general population; of course, in such a masculinity-dominated environment, it should come as no surprise that the young women there had their Animus well at hand, but that the young men should be less exaggerated in their male performance and identification in a testosterone-heavy environment (exactly the opposite of what is attributed to frat houses and all-male militaries) seems especially noteworthy.
Similarly, there's a discussion going on over on
Since (as per above) MIT is (well, was, in my experience) a ragingly heterosocial environment, it makes me wonder about whether heterosocialism is a product of natural, inborn gender-expression/identification: maybe people who naturally don't identify extremely strongly with their gender are more comfortable in a heterosocial environment, and naturally behave that way. When there are more of them than the strongly gender-identifying crowd, heterosocialism wins out and becomes socially normal.
I suppose it's hard to be homosocial if you don't really buy into the fundamental categories of "Men" and "Women". :)
(no subject)
And to take a slight tangent from your final observation: in addition to what you said about the ramifications of not buying into binary gender categories as fundamental, even if one buys into those categories as dominant (neither fundamental nor all-encompassing, but still noticed as significant), being in neither category makes things interesting in a homosocial environment.
Some people interact with me as male; others treat me as sort of "female with an asterisk"; and several react to me as a "third sex". (And there are some who don't obviously alter how they interact with someone based on gender, so the question is moot with them.) In a heterosocial setting, this affects body language, choice of conversation topics, communication style, but little else most of the time. In a homosocial social setting (a workplace is a special case), I am sometimes placed with people I fail to identify with or excluded from the company of those it feels natural to join, while other times how I am treated aligns with my internal state, and still other times I find myself being the bridge between male and female subgroups within the larger social group.
I don't think it's the whole reason I find heterosocial environments more comfortable, more natural-feeling, but it does add a whole 'nuther level of confusion when I'm interacting with a homosocial group.
(no subject)
This tracks with my experience. I'm solidly heterosocial and more of my friends are male than female. I never had the "conventional girly interests". Common interests/affiliations, lack of children, and intellect (and the ability to express it) are much stronger attractors for me than gender. (Marriage is only relevant if you insist on doing everything as a couple and I don't care for the company of your spouse.) Frankly, I would only care about your gender if I were interested in dating you, and I'm not. :-) (Married monogamist here.) I find communities with enforced gender segregation to be maddening.
Perhaps ironically, I am solidly heterosexual; while I consider gender to be basically irrelevant in social relationships, I have zero interest in sleeping with women (even if I were available). That's the one case where it matters to me.
Oh, and yes, I'm generally regarded as being INTJ. :-)
(no subject)
I was raised in a strictly homosocial household; I can't think of any instance where either of my parents had an opposite-sex friend. I could have ended up the same way; my high school friends, who I'm still in touch with but not close to, seem to be that way. However, I'm very heterosocial, I think a lot of other heterosocial people came out of homosocial households, so I don't see that as being determining. I think I came to it mostly through gaming, fandom, and college, but I have no way of knowing how I would have gone without those influences.
I agree that some "geek" and intellectual pursuits encourage heterosociality now, but that's also a generational thing. It wasn't that long ago that many of those things were pretty "gender-charged." Heck, I can easily remember a time when female computer, physics, or gaming geeks were vanishingly rare, and it was a stereotype that those interests were populated mainly by males who were uncomfortable with the opposite sex.
My impression is that in my parents' generation (married in the 50s, just to establish which generation I'm talking about), you had to be pretty fringe, like theatre and literary professionals, to be heterosocial, but that's just a guess, really. I think change in gender balance of occupations and such has made more people heterosocial, but I don't know how much more.
As for couples, I tend to agree that (at least among us heterosocials) children are the big dividing line, not marriage. I've been married longer than any of my friends, and the people I socialize with are other childless couples (some married and some in long-term relationships) an singles. I think the disconnect is that the childless are much more spur-of-the-moment. I usually don't know in advance what I'm doing on a Friday or Saturday night. I call up a childless friend and ask them if they want to get together or go to a movie, and there's a good chance they'll say yes. If I call up a friend with children, they can't possibly arrange things quickly enough. I can adapt to that, but only so much, and so we rarely see each other.
An anecdote
I met R under in a different but very heterosocial group and we got involved (though with a well defined first date). R was clearly also heterosocial. We frequently spent time with the above mentioned friends. One night R was very tired and wanted them to leave so that she could go to bed. I suggested she just go as I had no problem spending time with my two old friends. To my surprise R displayed a strong discomfort with breaking the gender balance. She felt it was very important to be there to interact with the wife of the pair (despite her being better friends with the husband). Someone, my heterosexual gf had strong homosexual expectations but only in a small couple environment.