1

Ideological Correlates of Sexual Behavior: Linking political ideology, religiosity, and gender ideology with orgasm and desire Emily Ann Harris Bachelor Arts/Science (Honours I)

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2018 School of Psychology

2 Abstract

Ideologies provide a set of norms and values that guide our attitudes and behavior in times of uncertainty. Given the private nature of sex, we may be particularly reliant on our pre-existing ideas about the world to guide our actions in the bedroom. Previous research on the influence of social values on sexual behavior has typically focused on group-level processes, for example, research on the cultural suppression of female sexuality (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002). Scholars in the social sciences have discussed the ways in which we internalize social norms and values, and how these might influence our experience of sex, for example through sexual scripts (Gagnon & Simon, 1973). There is, however, limited empirical work testing the association between worldviews, or ideologies, and sexual behavior at the individual level. The aim of the present thesis is to investigate whether ideologies are predictive of sexual behavior. I focus on three ideologies, namely, political ideology, religiosity, and gender ideology, and three aspects of sexuality: orgasm (Chapter 3), faking orgasm (Chapter 4), and sexual desire (Chapter 5). In Chapter 3, I present findings from two surveys of women (N = 662) showing that traditional gender ideology is indirectly linked with frequency of orgasm. I find that women who endorse a benevolently sexist worldview (i.e., a traditional gender ideology) are more likely to believe that men are sexually selfish. This belief then predicts decreased willingness to ask for sexual pleasure, which in turn predicts less frequent orgasms. This study provides the first evidence that traditional gender ideology constrains sexual pleasure (though indirectly). In Chapter 4, I show that hostile and benevolent sexism are predictive of lifetime frequency of faking orgasm in women. Women high in benevolent sexism faked their orgasm less frequently, whereas women high in hostile sexism faked their orgasm more frequently. The studies presented in Chapters 3 and 4 show that women who endorse a traditional gender ideology may not actively pursue sexual pleasure, or feel the need to exaggerate their sexual pleasure. Where previous work has shown that benevolent sexism has negative consequences for women in social and relationship contexts, the findings presented in Chapters 3 and 4 show that benevolent sexism also has implications for women’s lives. These studies contribute to an existing literature that has sought to identify and challenge the ways in which patriarchal values shape women’s sexuality. In general, feminist scholars and social scientists have emphasized the ways in which women’s sexuality is socially determined. Far less work has been done on the social influences on men’s sexuality. Relatedly, academic and lay theories of sexuality propose that women’s sexuality is more sensitive to the social environment relative to men’s sexuality (Baumeister, 2000; Regan & Berscheid, 1995). We tested this assumption in Chapter 5 by measuring men and women’s sexual desire over time in order to assess variation in desire, and the degree to which desire is associated with social and psychological factors. We found that the patterns of sexual desire between men and women are remarkably 3 similar. We found no gender differences in sexual desire variability, nor did gender moderate any of the effects of social and psychological factors on desire. In Chapters 4 and 5, I find no effect of political ideology or religiosity on women’s likelihood of faking orgasm, or men and women’s levels of sexual desire. In both studies, neither political ideology nor religiosity comes close to reaching significance. Thus, these two ideologies may be too psychologically distal to have a meaningful impact on sexual outcomes. Further, the relevance of political ideology and religion with regards to sexuality may have faded over time, or at least narrowed to specific domains of sexuality, such as sexual orientation and gender identity (Aosved & Long, 2006). Gender and gender ideology, on the other hand, emerge as consistent themes across my three studies. As such, when it comes to ideology, it is our ideas about men and women in society that are most likely to guide our sexual behavior. I discuss the implications and future directions of these findings in Chapter 6. 4 Declaration by author

This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.

I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.

I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.

I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought permission from co-authors for any jointly authored works included in the thesis.

Emily Harris December, 2018

5 Publications included in this thesis

Harris, E. A., Hornsey, M., & Barlow, F. K. (2016). On the link between benevolent sexism and orgasm frequency in heterosexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1923- 31. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0780-9

Submitted manuscripts included in this thesis

Harris, E. A., Hornsey, M., Larsen, H., & Barlow, F. K. (Submitted) Beliefs about Gender Predict Faking Orgasm in Women. Under review at Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Other publications during candidature

Peer reviewed journal articles

Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., & Fielding, K. S. (2018). Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations. Nature Climate Change, 8, 614-620.

Hornsey, M. J., Bain, P. G., Harris, E. A., Lebedeva, N., Kashima, E., Guan, Y., González, R., Chen, S. X., & Blumen, S. (2018). How much is enough in a perfect world? Cultural variation in ideal levels of happiness, pleasure, freedom, health, self-esteem, longevity, and intelligence. Psychological Science, 29, 1393-1404.

Hornsey, M. J., Greenaway, K. H., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G. (2018). Exploring cultural differences in the extent to which people perceive and desire control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1-12.

Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Fielding, K. S. (2018). The psychological roots of antivaccination attitudes: A 24-nation investigation. Health Psychology, 37, 307-315.

Harris, E. A., Hornsey, M., & Barlow, F. K. (2016). On the link between benevolent sexism and orgasm frequency in heterosexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1923- 31. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0780-9

Harris, E. A., Thai, M., & Barlow, F. K. (2016). Fifty shades flipped: Effects of reading erotica depicting a sexually dominant woman compared to a sexually dominant man. The Journal of Sex Research, 54, 386-397.

Connor, P.* & Harris, E. A.,* Guy, S., Fernando, J., Shank, D. B., Kurz, T., . . . Kashima, Y. (2016). Interpersonal communication about climate change: How messages change when communicated through simulated online social networks. Climatic Change, 136, 463-476. * These authors contributed equally to this work 6 Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6, 622-626.

Sherlock, J. M., Sidari, M. J., Harris, E. A., Barlow, F. K., & Zietsch, B. P. (2016). Testing the mate-choice hypothesis of the female orgasm: Disentangling traits and behaviours. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 6.

Conference abstracts

Harris, E. A., Hornsey, M., & Barlow, F. K. (2018). Does women’s sexual desire fluctuate more than men’s? A test of the Erotic Plasticity Hypothesis. The 19th annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Atlanta, U.S.A. Harris, E. A., Hornsey, M., & Barlow, F. K. (2018). Does women’s sexual desire fluctuate more than men’s? The 47th annual meeting of the Society of Australasian Social Psychology. Wellington, New Zealand. Harris, E. A., Hornsey, M., & Barlow, F. K. (2017). On the link between benevolent sexism and heterosexual women's orgasm frequency (2017). The 43rd annual meeting of the International Academy of Sex Research. Charleston, U.S.A. Harris, E. A., Hornsey, M., & Barlow, F. K. (2017). The role of benevolent sexism in women’s sexual experiences. The 46th annual meeting of the Society of Australasian Social Psychology. Melbourne, Australia. Harris, E. A., Hornsey, M., & Barlow, F. K. (2016). On the link between benevolent sexism and orgasm frequency in heterosexual women. The 15th annual conference of the APS Psychology of Relationships Interest Group. Brisbane, Australia. Harris, E. A., Hornsey, M., & Barlow, F. K. (2016). Exploring the link between benevolent sexism and orgasm frequency in women. The 45th annual meeting of the Society of Australasian Social Psychology. Brisbane, Australia. Harris, E. A., Thai, M., & Barlow, F. K. (2015). Does it matter who’s dominant? The impact of different types of written erotica on arousal, partner preferences, sexism, and rape myth endorsement. (2015). The 44th annual meeting of the Society of Australasian Social Psychology. Newcastle, Australia. Harris, E. A., Thai, M., & Barlow, F. K. (2014). Guilty Pleasures: The effects of reading submission and dominance erotica on arousal and gender beliefs. (2014). 17th General Meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

7 Contributions by others to the thesis

My principal supervisor, Professor Matthew Hornsey, and associate supervisor, Associate Professor Fiona Kate Barlow, provided guidance on theory, study design, and data analysis, and commented on all chapters included in this thesis.

Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree

No works submitted towards another degree have been included in this thesis.

Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects

The University of Queensland Human Ethics Committee approved the research reported in Chapters 3 (10-PSYCH-PhD-17-JM) and 4 (16-PSYCH-PHD-28-AH).

The Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee approved the research conducted in Chapter 5, GU Ref No: 2015/901.

8 Acknowledgements

I feel like the Peter Pan of PhDs, refusing to grow up from my academic childhood, clutching tight to Neverland with my puny fists (that are now quite strong from typing). I have spent the last four years with two of my favourite people, so writing these acknowledgements is hard because it means loosening my firm grasp on them.

Matthew Hornsey – you have been the perfect mentor. When I first heard you speak as an undergraduate, I felt a surge of energy. I wanted to tell everybody about the reciprocity principle, but it was like repeating comedy, it just wasn’t the same when I said it. Lucky for me, I got to soak up your unrivalled story-telling, wisdom, and wildly fun sense of humour first hand for the past four years. I sometimes worry that my guffaws from your office scare the birds. Thank you for making my PhD a pleasure, Matthew. But know that you’ve made it devastatingly hard to leave.

Fiona Barlow – to borrow your words, you might be the love of my life, and I know I’m not yours, but that’s ok. Together, we have tackled questions like who’s a stud and who’s a slut? What makes a woman orgasm? And do sexist men fart in bed? You are always ten steps ahead, Fi, and I suspect, always have been. Your understanding of the world is so sophisticated that you could easily be bored and dismissive of those around you, but you are one of the most inclusive people I know. I sometimes wonder whether you are super-human – are you a wizard, Barlow?

While the biggest chunk of the gratitude pie must go to Matthew and Fiona, so many people in my life deserve their own sizeable chunks. Thanks go to my dear friends from the early days –

Michael Thai, Sean Murphy, Lydia Hayward, Anthony Lee, Jo-Maree Ceccato, Jon Redshaw,

Helena Radke, and Alex Hall. Michael – you are the kindest of souls, and I owe you a great deal for welcoming me into this group. And my current campus buds – Charlie Crimston, Zoe Walter, Zahra

Mirnajafi, Cassandra Chapman, and Tarli Young. I love you all very much. Thank you for patiently joining me on my many quests for ice-cream.

Finally, I would like to thank my family – my brothers Christopher and John, sisters-in-law

Meagan and Lyndy, my late Father whom I miss every day, and my Mum, Moira Harris. Mumsie, you’re the best person I know. 9 Financial support

This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Keywords benevolent sexism, hostile sexism, political ideology, religiosity, orgasm, faking orgasm, sexual desire, gender, sex, experience sampling

10 Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC)

ANZSRC code: 170113, Social and Community Psychology, 60% ANZSRC code: 170105, Gender Psychology, 40%

Fields of Research (FoR) Classification

FoR code: 1701, Psychology 100%

11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT 2

LIST OF FIGURES 12

LIST OF TABLES 13

CHAPTER 1 PERSPECTIVES ON ORGASM AND DESIRE 14 Clinical Psychology 15 Relationship Science 18 Evolutionary Psychology 20 Social Perspectives 23

CHAPTER 2 LINKING IDEOLOGY AND SEX 28 Political Ideology 28 Religiosity 31 Gender Ideology 34

CHAPTER 3 ON THE LINK BETWEEN BENEVOLENT SEXISM AND ORGASM FREQUENCY IN HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN 38

CHAPTER 4 BELIEFS ABOUT GENDER PREDICT FAKING ORGASM IN WOMEN 59

CHAPTER 5 DOES SEXUAL DESIRE FLUCTUATE MORE AMONG WOMEN THAN MEN OVER 7 DAYS? 86

CHAPTER 6 GENERAL DISCUSSION 105 Summary of findings 105 Theoretical & practical implications & future directions 107 Limitations 112 Concluding remarks 114

REFERENCES 116 APPENDICES 129 12 LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 3

Figure 1. Path analysis from Study 2. Hostile sexism and masturbation frequency were included as covariates in the model. 50

CHAPTER 5

Figure 1. Sexual desire and desire variability. 95

Figure 2. Psychological and sociocultural factors associated with sexual desire. 97

13 LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 3

Table 1. Means, SDs, and Inter-correlations among Variables in Study 1. 46

Table 2. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Orgasm Frequency in Study 1. 47

Table 3.

Means, SDs, and Inter-correlations among Variables in Study 2. 50

CHAPTER 4

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of outcome and predictor variables in the full sample. 70

Table 2. Intercorrelations among variables for entire sample. 71

Table 3. Hierarchical logistic regression predicting likelihood of faking orgasms with a current partner. 73

Table 4. Hierarchical linear regression predicting the frequency of faking orgasms with a partner. 74

Table 5.

Hierarchical logistic regression predicting lifetime likelihood of faking an orgasm. 76

Table 6.

Hierarchical linear regression predicting lifetime frequency of faking orgasms. 77

14 CHAPTER 1

CLINICAL, EVOLUTIONARY, RELATIONSHIP, AND SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON ORGASM AND DESIRE

In 1982 my late father completed his theology dissertation on ‘The Place of Human Sexuality in Four Religious Systems.’ I was quietly delighted to found this out after I had started my own Ph.D. on sexuality and ideology. It seems I have unwittingly inherited my father's interest in sexuality, and his desire to find a way to bring sex under the academic microscope. In the present thesis, I bring together my two great loves – social psychology and sex research – to understand how ideological factors shape sexual behavior. Social psychology teaches us that we absorb information from our environments to guide our attitudes and behavior. Since what happens in the bedroom is often kept private, we are likely to rely on discussions with close others, the information we pick up from the media, and our experience with previous sexual partners to inform our sexual attitudes and behavior. For example, a sexually uninitiated teenager may consume numerous blogs about how and when someone should have sex, and their actions may follow the advice they read. This is an example of a proximal source of influence on sexual behavior. This absorption of information is, of course, not passive. We actively remember, forget, and change the information that we receive about sex depending on how well it fits with our pre- existing worldviews. I seek to take a step back from the proximal influences on sexual behavior to consider how distal psychological factors may operate in the background to shape how we act in intimate settings. The central aim of my Ph.D. is to investigate how ideologies – specifically political ideology, religiosity, and gender ideology – influence sexual behavior. The top-down influence of social values on sexual behavior is typically discussed at the population level. Historical and cultural differences in sexuality are well documented. As societies become more or less conservative, religious, or restrictive in their views of gender, sexual behavior changes at the population level. In my short(ish) life, social changes have led to decreased homophobia, the diminishing of the sexual double-standard, and globally available tutorials targeted at female sexual empowerment (Crawford & Popp, 2003; McCormack, 2011). Hence, while sex is a biological imperative for humans, how we experience sex is socially determined. Historical trends are helpful for tracking changes at the population level, yet they cannot tell us about how ideologies might influence sexual behavior at the individual level. Each person within a society will have their own ideological positions, and so to the extent that a person is politically conservative, religious, or 15 traditional in their views of gender, their sexual behavior may be different from their neighbor who holds opposing worldviews. Sexuality and ideology are not a new pairing by any means, but quantitative research on how ideology is associated with everyday sexual behavior is surprisingly scarce. In this chapter, I will discuss what we know about sexuality from clinical, evolutionary, relationship, and social psychological research. I will focus on three elements of sexuality: orgasm frequency, faking orgasms, and sexual desire. In Chapter 2, I will describe political conservatism, religiosity, and traditional gender ideology, and briefly discuss why they might be important predictors of sexual behavior. Chapter 3 is the first empirical chapter in this thesis; it focuses on the role of benevolent sexism in predicting orgasm frequency in women. This first set of studies provides preliminary evidence that gender ideology may be associated with sexual attitudes and behavior. In Chapter 4, I report findings from a study on the ideological determinants of faking orgasms. In this chapter, gender ideology emerges as a significant determinant of women’s willingness to fake their orgasms. Across the two studies, we see that women who endorse traditional gender ideology appear to be less motivated to ask their partners for sexual pleasure, and are also less likely to fake orgasm. These findings are consistent with the idea that traditional gender ideology de-emphasizes women’s sexual pleasure. In addition, these findings question the assumption that women who endorse a traditional gender ideology may be particularly motivated to orgasm in order to satisfy their male partner. Chapter 5, my final empirical chapter, discusses findings from an experience sampling study on sexual desire. This final study samples both men and women, and focuses on gender differences in desire, as well as ideological correlates of desire. My conclusion is that, when it comes to the ideological determinants of orgasm, faking an orgasm, and sexual desire, ‘it is all about gender.’ I extrapolate on how I reached this conclusion, as well as important caveats in Chapter 6. The scope of this thesis will be limited to ‘everyday’ and consensual sexual behavior; I will not be investigating sexual health, sexual violence, or sexual identity. There will also be a heteronormative tone to this thesis since my samples are largely heterosexual and I will be discussing theories of gender ideology that presume a heterosexual relationship. This is an unfortunate limitation of my research, and due to the practical difficulties in obtaining large enough samples of non-heterosexual participants for analysis, our conclusions are specific to heterosexuals in the West. I am excited by the possibility of conducting future research investigating gender ideology in non-heterosexual samples, where there is plenty of work to be done! Research from clinical psychology 16 Clinical psychologists mainly rely on a deficit model when approaching sex research – what are people having difficulty with in the bedroom and why? Orgasm and desire are two of the most common issues that are discussed. Laumann and colleagues (1999) published a seminal piece on sexual dysfunction in the United States, which has now been cited over 5,000 times. This article provides a comprehensive overview of demographic and lifestyle factors associated with sexual difficulty, but it should be noted that it has been criticized for pathologizing sexual behavior (Bancroft, Loftus, & Long, 2003). Sexual desire problems were the most prevalent of the sexual dysfunctions, with 27-32% of women and 13-17% of men reporting that they lacked interest in sex in the past 12 months. Estimates of orgasm difficulty were also high: 22-28% of women and 7-9% of men were unable to achieve orgasm in the previous 12 months. In terms of demographic factors associated with dysfunction, for women, age was associated with a decreased risk of sexual problems (except for trouble lubricating). For men, however, age was associated with an increased risk of sexual problems. Being married, educated, and socioeconomically advantaged were associated with lower risk of dysfunction. Black women were more likely to report low desire compared to White women. Regarding lifestyle factors, emotional problems, stress, and poor physical health were associated with higher dysfunction. Perhaps most relevant to the current thesis, conservative attitudes about sex were associated with an increased likelihood of sexual arousal problems in women.1 The major concern with this paper is that it may exaggerate the prevalence of sexual dysfunction in the population. Measurement of sexual dysfunction in this study was dichotomous, for example, a person was categorized as lacking desire over the past 12 months or not. The variation across a continuum of sexual functioning, therefore, is reduced to a binary outcome. Second, the criteria for categorizing a sexual dysfunction were not appropriate. A diagnosis of sexual dysfunction requires some above or below average sexual functioning with associated distress (Bancroft et al., 2003). Hence, while a dichotomous measure of sexual dysfunction is not necessarily a methodological problem, it becomes an issue when the classification criteria are inappropriate. In this case, a dichotomous measure provided a neat way of identifying clinical and non-clinical populations, but it was a problem because non-clinical populations were incorrectly categorized as clinical.

1There is disagreement among researchers on the best way to define sexual desire and sexual arousal. Qualitative studies showed that people struggle to distinguish between the two (Goldhammer & McCabe, 2011; Mitchell, Wellings, & Graham, 2014). For the purpose of the present thesis, I define sexual desire as a subjective psychological experience whereby a person may have sexual thoughts, fantasies, or urges. According to this definition, sexual desire is distinct from sexual arousal, which describes a physiological response to sexual stimuli (Regan & Berscheid, 1995). 17 Since the publication of Laumann and colleagues’ (1999) paper, more modest prevalence estimates have been put forward. For example, studies by Fugl-Meyer and Fugl-Meyer (2002), Hayes et al. (2008), and Shifren et al. (2008) - with a combined sample size of over 33,000 women - studied sexual dysfunction by assessing both sexual difficulty and associated distress. These studies found that 10-15% of women could be diagnosed with sexual desire disorder (around half the number estimated by Laumann and colleagues, 1999), and 5-10% of women could be diagnosed with orgasmic disorder (less than half the number estimated by Laumann and colleagues). Hence, sexual problems may be better categorized as ‘clinical’ and ‘sub-clinical’, to better capture the range of sexual problems. In addition to estimating the prevalence of sexual dysfunctions, clinical research is interested in the causes and treatments of these dysfunctions. I will first discuss the factors associated with orgasmic disorder, followed by research on desire disorders. I address research on the factors associated with lower levels of functioning, including both dysfunctional and sub- clinical levels of dysfunction. Since women are significantly more likely to report low desire and difficulty reaching orgasm compared to men (Frederick, John, Garcia, & Lloyd, 2018; Fugl-Meyer & Fugl-Meyer, 2002; Laumann et al., 1999), the bulk of the research on orgasm and desire dysfunctions has focused on women. Difficulty reaching orgasm in women has been linked with feelings of anxiety across a number of studies (see Van Minnen & Kampman, 2000). For example, women with an anxious attachment style - that is, a tendency to be preoccupied with fears of abandonment - report fewer orgasms during sex (Birnbaum, 2007; Costa & Brody, 2004). Birnbaum (2003) found that the major difference between women with Female Orgasmic Disorder and sexually functioning women was that the former group were more likely to define sex as aversive and a source of fear, anxiety, estrangement, dissatisfaction, and frustration. In their recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of female orgasmic disorder, Meston and colleagues (2004) note that “Anxiety can serve as a distraction that disrupts the processing of erotic cues by causing the woman to focus instead on performance related concerns, embarrassment, and/or guilt” (p. 68). Anxiety may therefore place a woman at greater risk of orgasmic disorder because it can lead to more proximal concerns about sex, including how to ‘perform’ sex correctly. Stress, low relationship satisfaction, low sexual intimacy, and limited sexual communication have also been shown to predict lower orgasm frequency in women (McCabe & Giles, 2012). Similar themes of anxiety and insecurity emerge in research on low desire in women. Hartmann and colleagues (2002) measured personality and other psychological traits of women with and without sexual desire disorder. They found that women with desire disorder had lower self-esteem, higher anxiety, and were more introverted and conventional relative to sexually 18 functioning women (Hartmann, Heiser, Rüffer-Hesse, & Kloth 2002). Given the strong relationship between anxiety and sexual disorders, Brotto et al. (2010) recommend screening for anxiety disorders in patients presenting with sexual desire disorder. In sum, research from clinical psychology finds significant overlap in the factors associated with orgasm and arousal disorders. Low mood, anxiety, low self-esteem, and relationship functioning are consistently found to impact desire and orgasm functioning in women. Research from relationship science In their special issue “The sexing of relationship science”, Impett and Muise (2018) make a compelling case for why sexuality should be a focus in the current era of relationship science. There is a strong and positive association between relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction (Byers, 2005). In the past, this has been the extent of the collaboration between relationship science and sex, and the study of relationships has grown independently from the study of sex (Impett & Muise, 2018). However, the authors note that this is quickly changing, with an increasing number of papers that link relationship science with sexuality. Here, I will briefly summarize work that speaks to the interplay between relationship factors, orgasm frequency, and desire. In their analysis of responses from over 13,000 young women, Armstrong and colleagues (2012) found that women in relationships were significantly more likely to orgasm during sex compared to women having ‘hook-up sex’, that is, sex outside of a committed relationship. Of the women in relationships, 67% had an orgasm during their last sexual encounter, compared to 24% of women who had sex with someone for the first time (Armstrong, England, & Fogarty, 2012). This difference is striking, and can be explained in part by the different sexual practices that were engaged in during hook-up sex versus sex in a relationship. For example, women having hook-up sex were less likely to use their hand to self-stimulate, to be stimulated by their partner’s hands, and to receive oral sex. Gender differences in orgasm frequency may therefore be moderated by relationship status, such that men and women may orgasm at similar rates when they are having sex with a long-term relationship partner compared to a new sexual partner (Conley, Moors, Matsick, Ziegler, & Valentine, 2011). In their follow-up qualitative study of men and women’s beliefs about sex, Armstrong and colleagues (2012) found that women’s orgasm rates may be lower during hook-up sex because of a sexual double standard. Men and women believed that women are entitled to sexual pleasure during sex with a relationship partner, but both men and women question women’s entitlement to pleasure during ‘hook-up’ sex. Additional relationship factors associated with lower rates of orgasm in women include attachment anxiety, a tendency to detach from a partner during sex, and a perception that a partner only cares about their own sexual needs (Birnbaum, 2007). Overall, we see that orgasm rates are 19 closely tied to pragmatic factors such as the types of sexual activities people engage in with their partner, and psychological factors such as anxious attachment styles and perceptions of a partner. A woman’s orgasm during sex may, therefore, be contingent on the dynamics between herself and her partner. Sexual desire, like orgasm, is typically social in nature, such that we experience sexual desire for another person. However, sexual desire is arguably more psychological than orgasm, since it does not require physical stimulation or a physiological response. As such, sexual desire for a partner may be particularly likely to vary as a function of relationship factors. Low sexual desire is often thought to be an inevitable outcome for people in long-term relationships (Sims & Meana, 2010). Sexual desire and sexual satisfaction has been shown to peak in the early stages of a relationship, and then steadily decline (Schmiedeberg & Schröder, 2016; Sprecher & Regan, 1998; for review, see Impett, Musie, & Peragine, 2014). McCall and Meston (2006) suggest that a decline in desire may be due to diminished sensitivity to ‘cues’ in the environment that stimulate sexual desire. The authors found that non-married women were more likely to say that positive feelings towards their partner led to sexual desire compared to married women. Married women also scored lower on the broader measure of environmental cues that lead to desire compared to non-married women, suggesting that married women may have habituated to cues that previously incited desire or ‘turned them on’ (McCall & Meston, 2006). Additional research suggests that desire may decline over the course of a relationship due to feelings of institutionalization in the relationship, overfamiliarity, and the de-sexualization of roles (Sims & Meana, 2010). For example, one participant discussed her sense of changing roles in the relationship as the reason for her low desire, stating that “I think we are so comfortable in our relationship after so many years that it’s like, “Why bother?” Let’s try to make money and try to satisfy our career goals and that’s it.” Additional factors that have been implicated in low desire and orgasm difficulties include medication, childbirth, disease, and partner sexual dysfunction (for reviews, see Basson, 2006; Brotto et al., 2004; Mah & Binik, 2001; Meston et al., 2004). Recent research has, however, found hope that declines in desire over the course of a relationship are not inevitable (Impett, Strachman, Finkel, & Gable, 2008; Muise, Impett, Kogan, & Desmarais, 2013). A longitudinal study tracking couples over a 4-month period found that people who are highly motivated to meet their partner’s sexual needs did not show declines in sexual desire (Muise et al., 2013). A second protective factor against the decline of sexual desire is having strong approach relationship goals, that is, the motivation to pursue positive experiences with a partner. Across three studies, people with strong relationship-oriented approach goals were more likely to maintain consistent levels of desire over time (Impett et al., 2008). This effect was mediated by sex- oriented approach goals, such that people with strong approach relationship goals had higher approach sexual goals, leading to heightened sexual desire (Impett et al., 2008). 20 A third way that couples can guard against declining sexual desire is to engage in self- expanding activities – activities that feel novel, exciting, and challenging, and that involve an element of broadening one’s sense of self. Drawing on over 8 000 daily diary entries, Muise et al. (2018) found that when people experienced more self-expansion in the context of their relationship, they felt greater sexual desire, which then predicted greater likelihood of having sex with their partner, and increased sexual and relationship satisfaction. In a follow-up experiment, the authors showed that couples who engaged in self-expanding activities together reported significantly higher levels of sexual desire and relationship satisfaction compared to couples who did not engage in self- expanding activities. In sum, research from relationship science highlights the fact that most sexual behavior involves a physical and psychological interaction between two people. As such, when talking about sexual outcomes, it is helpful to look at individual, partner, and relationship factors, and the degree to which each of these is associated with sexual behavior. Research from evolutionary psychology Evolutionary psychologists study how human attitudes and behavior are shaped by our underlying drive to survive and improve our ‘genetic fitness' (Geher, 2013). In other words, humans may be predisposed to act in certain ways because these behaviors have been historically more likely to lead to survival and the propagation of our genes. When it comes to sexuality, evolutionary theory has focused largely on gender differences in sexual behavior. Due to differences in men and women’s reproductive systems, the sexual strategies that are adaptive for men may be different from those that are adaptive for women. Of key relevance to the current thesis is work on women’s orgasm, ovulatory shifts in sexual desire, and gender differences in desire. While a man's orgasm produces sperm that are required to fertilize an egg and reproduce, women's eggs are released regardless of whether or not a woman has an orgasm. Women's orgasms, therefore, appear to be unnecessary for reproduction, and in evolutionary terms, they appear to have no obvious adaptive value. This gender difference in anatomy may explain gender differences in orgasm rates whereby 75% of heterosexual men orgasm consistently during sex, compared to 33% of heterosexual women (Frederick et al., 2017), and approximately 10% of women never orgasm (Fugl-Meyer & Fugl-Meyer, 2002). The ‘by-product’ hypothesis states that women have developed the capacity to orgasm because the evolutionary pressure for men to orgasm is strong, and because there is overlap in the way male and female embryos develop, female orgasms are a non-adaptive ‘by-product’ of men’s orgasm (Lloyd, 2005; Wallen & Lloyd, 2008). Elizabeth Lloyd is one of the strongest proponents of the by-product hypothesis and has published a highly cited book on the topic (Lloyd, 2005). 21 An alternative to the by-product hypothesis is the ‘mate-choice’ hypothesis. According to the mate-choice hypothesis, a woman's orgasm may be functional for two reasons: 1) it may facilitate fertilization, and 2) it may signal partner quality, that is, partners who will confer desirable genetic traits to their offspring (Puts & Dawood, 2006). Hence, a woman may be more likely to orgasm with a high-quality male partner in order to facilitate reproduction, whereas she may be less likely to orgasm with a low-quality partner to inhibit reproduction, and signal poor-mate quality (Puts, 2006; Puts & Dawood, 2006; Puts, Dawood, & Welling, 2012; Puts et al., 2012). The ‘pair- bonding’ hypothesis similarly argues for the adaptive function of women's orgasm but it emphasizes the interplay between orgasm, intimacy, and commitment that facilitates biparental care (Morris, 1967). These accounts therefore emphasise the role of partner characteristics in predicting women’s likelihood of reaching orgasm. A functional account of female orgasms is supported by research showing that women are more likely to orgasm with male partners who are high in anatomical symmetry (Thornhill et al., 1995) and are more masculine and attractive (Puts et al., 2012; Shackelford et al., 2000), which are indicators of genetic quality. Studies testing the assumptions of the by-product hypothesis have, however, failed to find support for this theory (Zietsch & Santilla, 2013). The debate surrounding whether or not the female orgasm is an adaptation or a by-product is by no means settled. Some studies have found no support, or only partial support for the mate-choice hypothesis (Lloyd & Wallen, 2008; Sherlock et al., 2016; Thornhill et al., 1995; Zietsch et al., 2011), and theoretical debates continue (Lloyd, 2006; Puts, 2007; Wallen, 2006). At best, previous research and theory hint at the possibility that a woman's likelihood of experiencing an orgasm may be related to her partner’s characteristics. Since men’s orgasms are necessary for the propagation of the species, men’s motivation to have an orgasm is of almost equal importance to survival. Two review articles on gender differences in sexuality and sexual desire have concluded that men’s sexual desire is reliably and consistently higher than women’s sexual desire (Baumeister et al., 2011; Peplau, 2003). These reviews highlight differences between men and women’s willingness to make sacrifices for sex, desired frequency of sex, and frequency of sexual thoughts, sexual fantasies, masturbation, and porn use (Baumeister et al., 2011; Peplau, 2003). Furthermore, a large-scale cross-cultural study of gender differences in sex drives found evidence that men are universally higher in their drive for sex compared to women, and that this gender difference is likely biologically determined (Lippa, 2007). Thus, there is compelling evidence for a gender difference in sex drives. According to Buss and Schmitt (1993), men typically have higher sex drives compared to women because the cost of sex and reproduction is lower for men. Theoretically, men can have sex, ejaculate, and pass on their genes without necessarily any need for parental investment. Women, on 22 the other hand, risk a 9-month gestation period and years of parental investment when they have sex. Given the higher potential cost of sex for women, an adaptive sexual strategy for women is to focus on ‘quality' over ‘quantity,' and limit sexual encounters to those with the best possible partner(s) (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). The benefits of being ‘choosy’ and selective about whom a woman has sex with and when, may explain why women tend to have lower sex drives relative to men (Baumeister, Cantanese, & Vohs, 2001; Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Gender differences in sexuality have primarily been studied using cross-sectional research which has compared men and women’s sexual biodata. Baumeister (2000) proposed that, in addition to differences in the number of sexual partners, orgasm frequency, and sex drive, there may also be differences in the degree to which men and women's sexuality changes over time. Baumeister (2000) reviewed research on three dimensions of sexuality: attitudes, behavior, and desire. The theory, termed ‘female erotic plasticity’, was supported by research showing that women’s sexual attitudes and behavior were more sensitive to environmental changes than were men’s, including changes in cultural context, education, politics, religion, and family life. A later study of socio-sexuality (i.e., personal proclivity for sexual promiscuity) across cultures found further support for the theory, such that women’s socio-sexuality was more sensitive to cultural factors than men’s (Schmitt, 2005). These studies provide a strong case for gender differences in the variability of sexual attitudes and behavior, such that women’s sexual attitudes and behavior appear to be more variable than men’s. However, there is little research testing gender differences in the variability of sexual desire, and so to date the hypothesis that women’s sexual desire is more variable than men’s remains largely untested. In Chapter 5, I present research addressing this gap. One of the most studied factors contributing to variation in women’s sex drives is ovulation (for reviews, see Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver-Apgar, 2005; Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014; Wood et al., 2014). According to an evolutionary account of sexual behavior, women’s sexuality is likely to shift as a function of their fertility, such that during women’s ‘fertile window’, in the middle of their ovulation cycle, they are likely to be more interested in sex, particularly with high quality partners (Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver, 2002; Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver- Apgar, 2005). A recent large-scale study of women’s sexual desire over the ovulatory cycle finds that during the fertile phase of ovulation, women reported increased desire for their partner, self- perceived desirability, and increased extra-pair desire and behavior (Arslan, Schilling, Gerlach, & Penke, 2018). While this line of research sheds some light on temporal variability in women’s sexual desire over time, it exclusively samples women, and so cannot speak to whether or not there are gender differences in desire variability. While there is some research suggesting changes in men’s sexual desire as a function of hormonal shifts (Dabbs, 1990; Gupta et al., 2000), no studies have 23 assessed whether women's sexual desire is more variable than men's as a function of hormonal changes. In the present thesis, I will focus on subjective measures of desire, not hormonal changes, and so the question of whether variation in men and women’s desire as a function of hormonal shifts remains open. The field of evolutionary psychology is rife with debates, which has the benefit of encouraging rigorous science, but the disadvantage of a confused and somewhat conflictual field. However, there appears to have been a positive shift in the field in the past ten years, such that theories of human sexuality are becoming more nuanced and more widely accepted (Miller, 2013; Stewart-Williams & Thomas, 2013). The social versus biological determinants of sexuality and gender differences in sexuality have, in the past, been considered a ‘winner takes all’ debate (Eagly & Wood, 1999). Instead, the vast majority of social and evolutionary theorists would now acknowledge the influence of both biological and social forces on sexual behavior. In the next section, I will focus on the other source of influence: how do social forces impact men and women’s orgasm functioning and sexual desire? Social perspectives on sex and gender The socialization of sexuality has received considerable research attention within the fields of social psychology, sociology, gender studies, and feminist scholarship. Interestingly, both social science and evolutionary approaches to sexuality seek to understand gender differences in sexuality, yet the disciplines themselves are somewhat gendered. Where the male-dominated field of evolutionary psychology focuses primarily on biological determinants of sexual behavior, the more female-dominated social sciences focus on the social determinants of sexual behavior, often from a feminist perspective. In order to gain a well-rounded picture of men and women's sexual behavior, it therefore seems especially important to consider research from both perspectives. According to a social constructionist approach to sex, social factors including religion, politics, race, and social class inform our understanding of gender and sexuality, and how we should think and act in the bedroom (Byrne, 1976; Reiss, 1967; Reiss, 1986). In one of the earliest large-scale studies of sexuality, Kinsey et al. (1948; 1953) presented evidence that societal level factors were associated with sexual behavior. For example, they found that highly educated and wealthy professionals were more likely to masturbate than people with lower levels of education and a lower socio-economic background. One mechanism through which broad social structures, such as religion and politics, are thought to influence the private, intimate realm of sex is via the development of ‘sexual scripts’ (Gagnon & Simon, 1973). According to script theory, behavior is to some degree ‘performed,’ such that each individual is like an actor being directed by a collective – that is, by society (West & Zimmerman, 1987). As such, people develop concepts around what sex 24 should look like based on the social behavior and attitudes that they observe outside of the bedroom (Gagnon & Simon, 1973). The content of sexual scripts is studied by qualitative researchers, who seek to identify underlying themes in men and women’s discussions of their sexual experiences. Most of these studies explicitly or implicitly discuss sexual scripts in reference to gender, such that a person’s sexual script depends on whether they are a man or a woman (Gagnon & Simon, 1973; McCabe, Tanner, & Heiman, 2010). McCabe et al., (2010) found that participants relied heavily on gender stereotypes to make meaning of their own sexuality. When discussing general topics relating to sex, participants would discuss (unprompted) how sex was fundamentally different for men and women. Participants expressed their beliefs that that sex was more physical for men and emotional for women, sex was very important for men, physical appearance was particularly important for women, and that women’s sexual desire and pleasure was rarely afforded any attention (McCabe et al., 2010). While most participants seemed confident in their beliefs about men and women, their reports of their own experiences all diverged from their gender scripts at least once. For example, one interviewee stated that he believed that sex is more emotional for women, and physical for men. But he also stated that ‘Mood has a lot to do with sexuality, I think. Again through personal experience, if I’m in a bad mood and especially if I’m mad at my partner, the last thing I want to do is want to have sex or be intimate at all … Typical man [chuckles]’ (p. 256). This participant notes that his desire for sex is influenced by his mood, and laughs at the contradiction between his gendered view of sex and his own experience. Due to the private nature of sex, the gap between what is thought to be the typical sexual experience, and a person’s own sexual experience, may be particularly large. In other words, people may underestimate the variability in sexual experiences because they rely heavily on stereotypes rather than direct observation. An overarching issue discussed in reference to women’s sexuality is the pressure that women feel to suppress their sexuality (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002; Rudman, & Fetterolf, 2014). Simon and Gagnon (1986) note that “part of the historical record of sexism is the fact that women rarely have been “selected” for sexual roles on the basis of their own interest in sexual pleasure. Indeed, the very idea of female interest in or commitment to sexual pleasure was, and possibly still is, threatening to many men and women” (p. 107). The general aversion to female sexual pleasure has been discussed as a major factor in contributing to the ‘orgasm gap,' whereby women orgasm less frequently than men (Frederick et al., 2018). The orgasm gap is difficult to explain purely in terms of biological differences between men and women, since the gender difference in orgasm rates diminishes, or disappears, in certain cultural contexts (Marshall, 1971), and in non- heterosexual relationships (Frederick et al., 2018). As such, social factors, including the historical 25 suppression of women’s sexuality, are likely contributing to women’s lower rates of orgasm compared to men. Second wave feminist scholars challenged the idea that the orgasm gap was a function of biology, and emphasized the importance of recognizing the clitoris as a source of women’s pleasure (Koedt, 1973). During this early period of women’s sexual empowerment, women were told that they had a right to orgasm (Fahs, 2014). However, more recently, women have expressed that they feel pressure to orgasm during sex, and that if they do not orgasm, they are disappointing their partner (Fahs, 2014; Nicholsen & Burr, 2003). The expectation that a woman will orgasm may even contribute to the maintenance of the orgasm gap. As a result, some feminist scholarship has shifted focus from fighting for women’s right to experience an orgasm, to women’s right not to orgasm (Jeffreys, 1990). The fact that women’s sexuality is, to a degree, dictated to by society is a major concern in the field (Fahs, 2016). The pressure that women feel to orgasm is evidenced by the high prevalence of faking orgasms. Consistent with sexual script theory, women may perform their orgasms because they feel that their orgasm is an expected component of sex (Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010). A dominant theme in qualitative and quantitative work on faking orgasms is that women fake their orgasm for partner-centered reasons (e.g., Cooper, Fenigstein, & Fauber, 2014; Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010; Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). Feminist scholars have termed faking orgasm ‘emotion work’, which is a 'complex emotional response to the intensely patriarchal culture in which women have sex’ (Fahs, 2011, p. 63). In other words, women are socialized to prioritize their partner’s sexual experience over their own, and the fact that most women have faked an orgasm at least once (Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010; Goodman, Gillath, & Haj-Mohamadi, 2017) speaks to the question of ownership over women’s sexual pleasure (Frith, 2015). Some of the cultural messages about women’s sexuality include: women should orgasm as a symbol of gender equality; women should orgasm to please their partner; and women should suppress their sexuality in order to avoid negative social consequences, or to conform to traditional sexual scripts. There is an antagonism between traditional sexual scripts of female modesty and purity, and feminist discourse on sexual freedom of expression. As such, a woman's sexuality is likely to be influenced by the worldviews she adopts. The impact of social forces on women's sexuality has been addressed in theory pieces and qualitative work; however, there is a paucity of quantitative work on how women's gender beliefs impact their frequency of orgasms, and their willingness to fake their orgasms. In Chapter 3, I present research on women’s gender ideology, operationalized as benevolent sexism, and how it relates to orgasm frequency. In Chapter 4, I look at faking orgasm, and how worldviews such as gender ideology, political ideology, religiosity, and specific gender beliefs about sex, predict women’s willingness to fake their orgasms. 26 Sexual desire, though much more private and internal than other forms of sexuality, is not necessarily immune to the process of socialization. A prominent finding and gender stereotype relating to sex is that women’s sex drive is lower than men’s (Baumeister & Vohs, 2001; Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010). Cross-cultural research consistently finds gender differences in sex drive, such that men are more interested in sex than women, which suggests a universal and largely biologically determined gender difference in sex drives (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Schmitt, 2005). While biological factors, such as testosterone levels, certainly play a role in men and women's sexual desire (Regan, 1999), the gender difference in sex drive may be exaggerated by social and methodological factors. For example, gender differences in sex drive may be exaggerated due to biased reporting, such that women tend to under-report, and men over-report, their sex drive (Alexander & Fisher, 2003; Conley, 2011; Meston et al., 2003; McClelland, 2011). In a study using a ‘bogus pipeline’ paradigm, women reported lower frequencies of masturbation and use of pornography when answering a pen and paper questionnaire compared to when they were ostensibly attached to a lie-detector (Alexander & Fisher, 2003). Women also tend to perceive a woman who accepts an offer of casual sex as ‘sexually desperate’, and promiscuous (Conley, Ziegler, & Moors, 2013). Women in these studies, therefore, seem to perceive a high sex drive (or at least, a high drive for sex outside of a committed relationship) as socially undesirable. Consistent with the idea that a high sex drive may be socially punished, women report feeling guilt and shame in response to their feelings of sexual desire (Woo, Brotto, & Gorzalka, 2011). As such, women’s sex drive may be diminished due to an association between sexual feelings and negative feelings such as guilt and fear of punishment (Hartmann et al., 2002). Thus far, I have discussed two somewhat contradictory accounts of women’s sexuality as a function of social pressures. On the one hand, I have discussed the possibility that women have a lower sex drive than men because they are socialized to supress their sexuality. On the other hand, I have discussed research showing that women feel pressure to orgasm, to the extent that most women have faked an orgasm at least once (Goodman et al., 2017). Further, one of the most common sexual problem reported by women is that they feel lower levels of desire that they would like (Hayes et al., 2008). The contradiction in social pressures can be understood as a battleground of ideas, where there are some vocal proponents of female sexual empowerment, and some equally vocal proponents of chastity and abstinence. Some researchers have noted that women’s thoughts surrounding sex and desire in part reflect these contradictory pressures, and they point to a ‘missing discourse of ambivalence’ (Fine, 1988; Muehlenhard & Peterson, 2005). While the societal denouncement of female sexuality is diminishing, such that evidence of a sexual double standard is becoming more elusive (Milhausen & Herold, 1999; Marks & Fraley, 2005), many women report a sense of unease and discomfort 27 regarding their sexual desire and behavior (Burkett, & Hamilton, 2012; Gill, 2008; Wood, Mansfield, & Koch, 2007). The concept of ambivalent sexuality mirrors what Gill (2008) terms ‘post-feminist sensibility’, whereby “notions of autonomy, choice and self-improvement sit side-by- side with surveillance, discipline and the vilification of those who make the ‘wrong’ ‘choices’” (p. 442). Hence, while societal standards of women’s sexuality have become less stringent, women’s sense of sexual freedom continues to be limited. A strong theme throughout my discussion of sexuality in the social sciences is that women's sexuality is culturally sensitive, and perhaps more so than men's sexuality. Since women hold a lower position in society, they may have less freedom to express their sexuality, whether it be sexual promiscuity or ‘frigidness,’ depending on the woman's social context. I have not discussed the social influences on men's sexuality partly because men's sexuality is not considered ‘dictated to’ by society to the same degree as women's sexuality. As such, current feminist scholarship and research in the social sciences have largely focused on identifying and challenging the ways in which women's sexuality is culturally suppressed. An alternative possibility is that social factors simply have less of an impact on men’s sexuality than women’s, because men’s sexuality is more closely tied to biological factors (Baumeister, 2000; Baumeister et al., 2001). Baumeister and colleagues reviewed research on biological and social predictors of desire, and concluded that each may be differentially impactful for men and women. For example, in a study of young boys and girls, boy's sexual behavior was best predicted by their hormone levels. In contrast, girls' sexual behavior was best predicted by social factors, including peer influences (Udry et al., 1985; Udry, Talbert, & Morris, 1986). Some clinicians also endorse the view that women's sexuality is more contextually sensitive than men's sexuality. For example; in his paper, ‘The nature of sexual desire: A clinician's perspective’, Levine (2003) notes that the "Female sexual drive, being weaker, is more easily ignored by women and eradicated by social circumstances” (p. 281). The idea that women’s sexuality is more culturally variable than men’s sexuality leads to the question of variability in women’s sexuality over time. If women’s sexuality is more strongly determined by social and cultural factors, perhaps because of patriarchal structures and biological differences between men and women, women’s sexuality would be more likely to vary over time. Hence, both social and evolutionary theories suggest that women’s sex drives should be more variable over time relative to men’s. This proposition is tested in Chapter 5.

References for Chapters 1 and 2 can be found on pages 116 to 118.

28 CHAPTER 2

LINKING IDEOLOGY AND SEX: POLITICAL ORIENTATION, RELIGIOSITY, AND GENDER IDEOLOGY

According to Hogg (2007), ideologies “arise under uncertainty and prevail to ward off uncertainty" (p. 103). Although I do not think Hogg (2007) was referring to uncertainty in the bedroom, this quote neatly illustrates why I think ideology may be particularly relevant to sexual behavior. Sex happens behind closed doors, and discussions about sex may only happen in specific contexts, such as outside of daylight hours, and after alcohol has been consumed (sex researchers not included). Ideologies may provide a way of creating some form of psychological certainty in the bedroom. The research presented in this thesis expands our current model of sexual behavior by investigating the role of political ideology, religiosity, and gender ideology in predicting sexual behavior – specifically orgasm, faking orgasm, and sexual desire. Below, I define each of the ideologies of interest and discuss why they might relate to sexual behavior. Functions of Ideology Before discussing the individual ideologies relevant to this thesis, I consider how ideologies are functional at both the individual and societal level. As hinted at above, ideology provides individuals with a sense of meaning, certainty, and belonging. We use categories to help organise the world, and we use ideologies to ascribe meaning to those categories. Looked at another way, ideology helps to ward off a sense of instability and psychological discomfort. There are two lines of research showing that, when faced with a psychological threat, people turn to ideologies to buffer against that threat. First, a series of studies showed that when we perceive a threat to a social structure, such as political instability, our beliefs in another structure are strengthened, such as our belief in God (Kay, Shepherd, Blatz, Chua, & Galinsky, 2010). These studies demonstrate that, 1) a threat to social order is psychologically uncomfortable, and 2) that we manage that discomfort by seeking a sense of order in other ways, such as through increased faith in the political system, or increased faith in God. Related to this research, there is a second line of work showing that when death is made salient, ideological beliefs become strengthened (e.g., Arndt, Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1997; Arndt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, & Simon, 1997). According to a terror management perspective, remembering one’s own mortality is intensely aversive, and so one way of managing that psychological discomfort is to cling more closely to our worldviews to restore a 29 sense of order and meaning (Arndt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, & Simon, 1997). Nail and colleagues (2009) found that reminding people about death led political liberals to become more pro-capital punishment, anti-abortion, and anti-homosexuality, to the degree that political liberals matched political conservatives in their attitudes towards these issues. Importantly, in all of these cases, conservative ideology is the source of psychological comfort. When certainty is threatened, or fear of death is instilled, the psychological need for certainty is best met with the structure and order that is inherent to conservative ideologies. This line of thinking is central to theorizing around the psychology of political conservatism, largely thanks to Jon Jost and colleagues. They theorized that political conservatism, rather than political ideology per se, was a form of ‘motivated social cognition’ (e.g., see Jost et al, 2007). As such, people adopt a politically conservative ideology in order to meet their own psychological needs. The original model of political conservatism as motivated cognition focused largely on the individual differences between political liberals and conservatives. Political conservatives, for example, express higher needs for certainty and structure, are less tolerant of ambiguity, and perceive the world as more threatening and dangerous compared to political liberals (Jost et al., 2003). Hence, the order and structure associated with a politically conservative worldview are particularly appealing for people with these dispositions. Now, it is also clear that political liberals also experience discomfort in the face of threat, and that people can shift to become more conservative in response to threats (Nail et al, 2009). Thus, for individuals, ideology, and conservative ideologies in particular, function to meet basic psychological needs for order and meaning. One consequence of endorsing a particular ideology is that it brings about a sense of group membership. At the group level, ideology functions to bring about social change, or attempts to maintain the status quo. The intersection between ideology at the individual level and the group level is illustrated in the study discussed above, where social attitudes, such as attitudes towards capital punishment, abortion, and homosexuality, have implications for the way society is structured. Ideologies allow groups of people with shared values to bring about, or resist, social change. Thus, at the collective level, ideologies can function to maintain order by defending the status quo, but they can also bring about social change. A discussion of ideology and group-processes is outside of the scope of this thesis, but it is important to note that ideologies are not purely social, or individual, and that they function at both levels to influence behaviour. In the present thesis, I treat ideological variables as individual differences, and consider how these operate at the individual level to influence sexual behaviour. Having outlined the broad function of ideologies, I will now outline theories specific to political ideology, religiosity, and gender ideology, and how each of these ideologies might relate to sexuality. Political Ideology 30 Political conservativism is characterized by a preference for structure, certainty, and discipline, and an acceptance of social inequality (Jost, Nosek, & Gosling, 2008; Thorisdottir, 2007). Jost and colleagues (2008) propose a model of political conservatism as motivated social cognition. According to this model, people adopt politically conservative worldviews because they satisfy their psychological needs (Jost et al., 2003). In the words of Jost, “people embrace political conservatism (at least in part) because it serves to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption, and ambiguity; and to explain, order, and justify inequality among groups and individuals” (2003, p.341). Liberalism is the opposite of conservatism; it is characterized by openness to change and a rejection of social inequality (Jost et al., 2008; Thorisdottir, 2007). In response to Jost et al. (2003), theorists have argued that political liberalism is similarly driven by underlying psychological needs (Greenberg & Jonas, 2003). Throughout this thesis, when I refer to political conservatism or liberalism, I am referring to the social rather than economic facet of political ideology. Of particular relevance to the current thesis are the components of political ideology relating to 1) openness to experience and 2) acceptance of inequality. First, differences in openness to experience are likely to have implications for the kinds of sexual behavior that people engage in. Since political conservatives are more wary of new experiences and ideas, it seems reasonable to suggest that conservatives may engage in more ‘vanilla’ sexual behavior compared to liberals. Some early research hints at a link between political conservatism and sexual conservatism. For example, conservatives were found to be less likely to volunteer for psychology studies that required openness to experience, including studies of sexual behavior (Joe, Jones, & Ryder, 1977). In another study by the same authors, conservatism correlated strongly with a measure of openness to experience that included the following subscales: Aesthetic Sensitivity, Openness to Theoretical or Hypothetical Ideas, Openness to Unconventional Views of Reality, and most notably, Indulgence in Fantasy (Joe et al., 1977). In a study of the personal preferences of liberals and conservatives, liberals expressed greater interest in novel activities, such as ethnic cuisine, travel, and film, and reported greater approval of uncommon forms of physical expression (e.g., tattoos), and hedonistic pursuits (e.g., sex, sexual media, and recreational drugs; Jost, Glaser, et al., 2003). The interpersonal qualities of liberals and conservatives also reflect differences in openness. Carney and colleagues (2008) assessed the interpersonal styles of liberals and conservatives and found that liberals were more likely to smile, orient their body towards their conversation partner, and appear engaged in conversation than conservatives. These findings paint a rather sad picture of conservative’s personal lives – as unsmiling, closed-off, and ascetic. However, this picture may be overly simplistic, and 31 more recent research suggests that political conservatism may be tied to higher sexual frequency and sexual satisfaction (Hatemi, Crabtree, & McDermott, 2017). Politically conservative ideology does not necessarily propose that sexual pleasure should be limited. Rather, there appears to be an emphasis on tradition, and the separation of public and private spheres. As such, it is easy to imagine a divide between political conservatives and liberals in the types of sexual behavior that they engage in, such as public displays of affection, participation in unconventional sexual activities, including kink behaviors, group sex, and pornography use. However, within the sphere of private sexuality, conservatives may be equally likely to enjoy sex within the scope of traditional sexual scripts. Hatemi and colleagues (2017) find that conservatives are more sexually satisfied than liberals. While liberals more frequently masturbate, engage in sadomasochistic behaviors, and have more sexual partners than conservatives, conservatives more frequently engage in conventional sexual behaviors, including missionary sex, mouth contact with breasts, feeling of breasts, kissing, genital touching, and face- to-face sex (Hatemi et al., 2017). The stereotype of bored and sexless conservatives, therefore, does not appear to be accurate. Openness to experience does not necessarily lead to a happier sex life, but it may influence the range of sexual activities that a person might engage in. The second element of political conservatism relevant to the current thesis is the acceptance of inequality. The acceptance of inequality may manifest in a tendency towards racism, homophobia, and sexism (Jost et al., 2003). Here, I will focus on the latter – does a politically conservative ideology oppose feminist values? And as a consequence, does a conservative ideology constrain female sexuality? From a conservative viewpoint, women’s sexuality may pose a significant threat to the social order, since traditional women are expected to be the sexual gate- keepers, responsible for taming men’s unrestricted sexuality (Glick & Fiske, 1996, Rudman, Fetterolf, & Sanchez, 2013). As such, conservatives should be motivated to value chastity in women as a way of maintaining order (i.e., by preventing a sexually rambunctious society). Given the links between conservatism and gender inequality, conservatives may also be motivated to suppress female sexuality as a way of perpetuating gender inequality, such that women’s traditional role in society is one of low power and passivity. As such, agency and dominance in the bedroom may be reserved for men, further reinforcing traditional gender roles and inequality. Previous research has found clear links between political ideology, gender, and attitudes towards gender equality. In a study of value orientations as a function of political ideology, one of the largest differences between liberal and conservatives was with regards to the traditional versus feminist axis (Jost et al. 2008). Conservatives had a strong implicit and explicit preference for traditional values, whereas liberals had a strong implicit and explicit preference for feminist values (Jost et al. 2008). Political conservatism and Social Dominance Orientation (the degree to which a 32 person endorses a hierarchical social system, whereby some groups have greater power than others), have both been linked with sexism and decreased support for women’s rights (Christopher, & Mull, 2006; Pratto, Sidanius, & Stallworth, 1994). Stereotypes of conservatism and liberalism map neatly onto male and female stereotypes (Janoff-Bulman, 2009). Conservatism and traditional masculinity are associated with ‘toughness’ and a desire to protect, whereas liberalism is associated with generosity and a motivation to provide (Janoff-Bulman, 2009). A desire to protect is interesting in the context of political conservatism. While it may reflect a desire to look after women (a group disadvantaged relative to men), it may nonetheless perpetuate gender inequality, such that the ‘protection racquet’ affords special treatment only to traditional women who conform to social norms (Glick et al., 2000). In this way, a politically conservative ideology may perpetuate gender inequality by rewarding women who adopt low-status positions and punishing women who challenge the status quo (Christopher, & Mull, 2006). In my review of the literature, I have found only a few studies linking political ideology, gender, and sexual behavior. One notable exception is a book chapter “Sexual politics: The gender gap in the bedroom, the cupboard, and the cabinet” by Felicia Pratto (1996). In this chapter, Pratto outlines the ways in which a patriarchal system maintains gender inequality. She notes that when it comes to sexual and reproductive behavior, the dominant group (i.e., men) are responsible for creating social structures that favor their interests; "more powerful people will have more social influence, resulting in social environments that favor their mating strategies" (p. 204). To the degree that men support social inequality, including gender inequality, the sexual system will be built in such a way that women are in a lower power position relative to men. Polygamy (men who have multiple female partners) is one example of how men may exert social power through sexual dynamics (Pratto, 1996). Pratto's work suggests that sexual behavior is political, in that it is both an outcome and a contributing factor to gender inequality. In making this argument, Pratto focuses largely on links between Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and sexual strategies, and these links are likely to be very similar when political conservatism is substituted for SDO. For example, men high in political conservatism may be motivated to reinforce traditional gender roles in the bedroom as a way of maintaining the status quo. Research on political ideology and sex role beliefs supports this idea (Lottes & Kuriloff, 1992). Political conservatives, compared to liberals, are more likely to hold more traditional attitudes towards female sexuality, justify male dominance, and have less support for feminism and homosexuality (Lottes & Kuriloff, 1992). Differences in sexuality between conservatives and liberals may be explained in part by differences in openness to experience, and attitudes towards inequality. Additional factors that have 33 been shown to mediate the relationship between political ideology and sexual behavior include disgust (Inbar, Pizarro, & Bloom, 2009; Tybur, Inbar, Güler, & Molho, 2015) and perceptions of harm (Turiel, Hildebrandt, Wainryb, & Saltzstein, 1991). In anticipation of the next section on religion, some scholars have suggested that religiosity precedes political ideology, and that the differences in liberal and conservative sexuality can be accounted for by differences in religiosity (e.g., Lottes & Kuriloff, 1992, Olson, Cadge, & Harrison, 2006). Religiosity Sex and sexual desire are typically considered morally suspect according to Western religious teachings. All major religions have explicit rulings against certain sexual practices, including pre-marital sex, contraception, masturbation, and homosexuality (LeVay & Valente, 2006). The development of the sexual code of conduct in most religions, including Christianity, has progressed over history. Sexual attitudes of early Christians were primarily influenced by two key figures - St Augustine and St Paul - both of whom condemned sex as a form of animal lust (Davidson, Darling, & Norton, 1995). Celibate friars, nuns, and ascetic monks were considered morally superior to non-celibate civilians (Bullough, 1976), and since the twelfth century, all Catholic clergy have been required to take an oath of celibacy. The first shift towards more progressive sexual attitudes occurred in the era of Thomas Aquinas, who supported procreative sex, as a sexual act intended by God. However, Aquinas denounced any kind of non-procreative sex, including sex between unmarried people (termed ‘fornication'), masturbation, and ejaculation during sleep (LeVay & Valente, 2006). Even within the limits of sex during marriage, sex was forbidden during and after menstruation and pregnancy, on Fridays, other holy days, and during Lent. In the past four decades, the Catholic Church has become more lenient in their rulings around sexuality, such that sex within a marriage is considered an important source of emotional intimacy and bonding, and not simply a necessary process for reproduction. Religions vary in their degree of sexual permissiveness, and the types of sexual acts that are forbidden. For example, Reform Judaism is particularly liberal in their rulings around homosexuality, and representatives from this group are actively pro-gay rights. Islam is traditionally more sex-positive than Catholicism. In Islam, sex is not purely for reproduction, but also pleasure (within certain limits). Hinduism is perhaps the most sex-positive major religion. The Kama Sutra, or ‘love guide,' encourages erotic pleasure and illustrates various ways in which people can engage in penetrative sex, oral sex, foreplay, and the use of sex toys. The author of the Kama Sutra, Vatsyayana, rejects the notion that sex is solely for reproduction, and highlights the fact that a key difference between humans and animals is that women have sex outside of their fertile period (Doniger, 2011). The sexual practice in contemporary India, however, does not necessarily reflect the eroticism described in the Kama Sutra. Sex lives in contemporary India may be more aligned 34 with Catholic sexual proscriptions, whereby sex is confined to married couples, and only during ten days of a woman's cycle when she is fertile and sex is culturally sanctioned (Nath & Nayar, 1997). Recent research finds mixed evidence for differences in sexuality as a function of religion. Reiss (1967) finds no marked differences in the degree of sexual permissiveness between Catholics, Protestants, or Jews. In contrast, Lottes and Kuriloff (1992) found that Jews were less supportive of traditional views of female sexuality and male dominance, and more supportive of feminist values compared to Protestants, and Catholics (though the differences between Jews and Catholics only reached significance for traditional views of female sexuality). The comparison of religions and sexual attitudes and behaviors is difficult as it is hindered by cultural confounds. For example, within Western culture, there may be different levels of acculturation between religious groups. Further, comparisons across countries and cultures confound religious and cultural influences on sexuality. An alternative way to study the effect of religion on sexuality is to measure the degree of religious adherence within a given culture. Religiosity has been associated with restricted sexuality across a wide range of measures. With regards to sexual behaviors, religiosity has been linked with greater sexual abstinence, fewer lifetime sex partners, and older age at first intercourse (Barkan, 2006; Cochran & Beeghley, 1991; Davidson et al., 1995). There are similar findings regarding sexual attitudes, whereby religiosity is associated with increased guilt associated with masturbation, negative attitudes towards oral and anal sex, a desire to marry a virgin, and opposition to premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, and sex without love (Ahrold et al., 2011; Ahrold & Meston, 2007; Davidson et al., 1995; Davidson, Moore, & Ullstrup, 2004). Given the negative relationship between religiosity and sexual attitudes and behaviors, it has been suggested that religious youths may be less likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors, and may be at lower risk of sexual health problems than non-religious people (Wallace & Forman, 1998). A study of over 3000 adolescent girls found that religiosity was associated with greater likelihood of having sex in a committed relationship and a greater perceived risk of HIV and pregnancy. However, religiosity was also associated with a decreased likelihood of using condoms during sex (Miller & Gur, 2002), a finding mirrored in two other studies (Sterk, Klein, & Elifson, 2004; Zaleski & Schiaffino, 2000). In a study of highly conservative religious youth, entitled “True love waits: Do Southern Baptists?”, more than 70% of participants had engaged in pre-marital sex, but more than 80% regretted it (Rosenbaum & Weathersbee, 2013). These findings suggest that religiosity is not necessarily protective against regrettable sexual decision making and poor sexual health. Consistent with the idea that religion constrains sexual pleasure and varied sexual expression, research has found that greater religious adherence is associated with lower levels of sexual satisfaction (Haavio-Mannila & Kontula, 1997; Hackathorn, Ashdown, & Rife, 2015; 35 Higgins, Trussell, Moore, & Davidson, 2010; Young, Luquis, Denny, & Young, 1998). In two studies, the relationship between religion and sexual satisfaction has been mediated by sex guilt, such that religious women report greater guilt associated with sexual pleasure, and as a result, experienced lower levels of sexual desire and sexual satisfaction (Hackathorn et al., 2016; Woo, Morshedian, Brotto, & Gorzalka, 2012). These studies, published relatively recently and using young samples, suggest that sexual guilt is still a relevant concern among religious people. The negative effect of religiosity on sexual pleasure may be particularly marked for women, such that religious women are especially likely to have less permissive attitudes, lower sexual satisfaction, and engage in sex less frequently (Ahrold & Metson, 2010; Laumann, et al., 1994; Meier, 2003; Rostosky, Regnerus, & Wright, 2003). Western religions emphasize self-control, discipline, and moderation (McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). Sex is considered a hedonistic pursuit, and as such, indulgence in sexual thoughts, fantasies, and behavior, has been actively discouraged in traditional religious rhetoric. While self-control and discipline may have benefits in other aspects of life, the research reviewed here suggests that drawing a tight moral boundary around abstinence and sex within marriage can have a host of negative consequences for sexual well-being. One possibility is that humans have a natural and innate drive for sex, and efforts to repress our sexuality inevitably lead to lower well- being. The regulation of sexual impulses may even have a backlash effect – the most religious states in America spend the most money on online pornography, and also have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy (Edelman, 2009; Strayhorn & Strayhorn, 2009). The study of religion and sex has a long history, especially in anthropology and sociology. Interestingly, Woo and colleagues (2012) note that “Whether religiosity is associated with sexual dysfunction has never been tested" (p. 1486). As such, there is still work to be done on the degree to which religiosity influences sexual functioning and the degree to which these effects may be moderated by gender, such that religion may have a stronger impact on women's sexual functioning compared to men's. Gender Ideology: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism Women, compared to men, are less aggressive, dominating, racist, homophobic, sexist, supportive of group hierarchy, and supportive of capital punishment (Aosved & Long, 2006; Shapiro & Mahajan, 1986; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994), and they are more generous, pro-social and supportive of climate change mitigation (Eagly, 2009; McCright, 2010; Eckel & Grossman, 1998). Many of these gender differences are nearly universal, in that they are consistent across cultures (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; Sidanius et al., 1994). As such, some have suggested that women are inherently more virtuous, passive, and prosocial than men (Konner, 2015). However, social psychological research has pointed to various ways in which gender 36 differences are socialized, whereby traits such as agreeableness and other mindedness are rewarded in women more so than they are in men. Social Role Theory posits that the stereotypes associated with men and women are drawn from the social roles that men and women occupy. Since women have traditionally taken on child- rearing duties and assistance roles, women are stereotyped to be nurturing, kind, and warm (Eagly, 1987). These positive stereotypes suggest that women are socially valued for their role as caregivers within a society. In some contexts, women receive ‘special treatment,’ whereby women are more likely to elicit help from strangers (Eagly & Crowley, 1986), receive protection during times of crisis, and they receive lighter court-based punishments, compared to men. This special treatment may reflect the fact that, when it comes to the continuation of the species, women are particularly important (e.g., a population of 100 women and one man would fare much better than a population of 1 woman and 100 men). These examples suggest that women’s lives may be more valued than men’s lives. However, the common theme running through these examples is that of protection, which implies that while women may contribute meaningfully to society, they are ultimately reliant on men for safety. While women may receive special care, there is a general consensus that men hold a higher status, and are more culturally valued compared to women in most, if not all, societies (Glick & Fiske, 2001; Pratto 1996; Rudman & Goodwin, 2004). Consistent with this claim, studies have found that a previously unknown man is more likely to be considered high status compared to an unknown woman (Banaji & Greenwald, 1995), men in positions of authority are more liked than women in the same position (Rudman & Kilianski, 2000), and men are more likely to become high- ranking politicians or CEOs than are women (Ridgeway, 2011). Within a family context, women are expected to replace their family name with that of their husband, children are more likely to be named after their fathers than their mothers, and parents are more likely to hope for a son than for a daughter (Jost, Pelham, & Carvallo, 2002). Hence, two seemingly opposing facts about men and women may be true: 1) women’s lives may be valued more than men’s lives, and 2) men are higher status and more powerful than women in society. Traditional intergroup theories of prejudice would suggest the higher power group (men) would exhibit prejudicial attitudes in the form of antipathy towards the lower status group (women). However, disdain for women is made difficult by the intimate and loving relationships that men inevitably have with the women in their lives, including their mothers, sisters, and romantic partners (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Previous theories of prejudice had largely ignored the possibility that a high- status group could have warm and loving feelings towards a low-status group (a notable exception is Jackman, 1994). Glick and Fiske (1996) identified this tension that is somewhat unique to sexism and developed a model of sexism, termed Ambivalent Sexism, that accounts for both men’s 37 antipathy toward women (hostile sexism) and their desire to protect and care for women while maintaining their higher status (benevolent sexism). Hostile sexism is conceptually simple – it is a dislike and distrust of women. Hostile sexism is paralleled by other forms of prejudice, such as racism, classism, ableism, and homophobia. Benevolent sexism is a less intuitive form of prejudice and has been a source of debate and criticism, especially in conservative circles (Stampler, 2011). Benevolent sexism places women on a pedestal above men in terms of their purity, moral virtue, and cultural refinement (Glick & Fiske, 1996). In doing so, it encourages a reverence towards women, and paternalistic protection of women (Glick & Fiske, 1996). The nonobvious downside of benevolent sexism is that it restricts women’s (and men’s) roles in society. “Pure” and “angelic” are not the characteristics of political or business leaders, and as such, women are stereotyped to fit into traditionally feminine roles. Benevolent sexism, therefore, may lead women to limit their career options. Hostile and benevolent sexism are typically moderately correlated, such that a person who endorses benevolent sexism is also likely to endorse hostile sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Glick et al., 2000). This does not necessarily mean that ambivalent sexism entails both hating and wanting to protect any given woman. Rather, non-traditional women are most likely to bear the consequences of hostile sexism, whereas traditional women are most likely to receive a benevolently sexist response in the form of paternalistic care (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Some of the damaging effects of experiencing benevolent sexism on women’s life outcomes include lower levels of task-related self-efficacy (Barreto, Ellemers, Piebinga, & Moya, 2010) and psychological well-being (Oswald, Baalbaki, & Kirkman, 2018), poorer task performance (Dardenne, Dumont, & Bollier, 2007; Jones et al., 2014), and higher levels of body shame and surveillance (Shepherd et al., 2011). Men and women who hold benevolently sexist attitudes are also more likely to attribute blame to female victims of sexual assault (Abrams, 2003; Chapleau et al., 2007; Viki & Abrams, 2002). Because benevolent sexism is shrouded in positivity, it is easier for women to internalize benevolent sexism than hostile sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Average rates of benevolent sexism are often equally high among men and women (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Glick et al., 2000), and women are more attracted to benevolently sexist men despite perceiving them as patronizing and undermining (Gul & Kupfer, 2018). Benevolent sexism is particularly strong among women who want their partners to invest more in their relationship (Gul & Kupfer, 2018; Hammond, Sibley, & Overall, 2014). Hence, benevolent sexism is pernicious (it is not always perceived as sexist), and it is alluring (women are motivated to endorse benevolent sexism, and match with relationship partners high in benevolent sexism). 38 Benevolent and hostile sexism prescribe general traits to men and women, whereby women should be pure, loving, and refined and men should be adoring, protective, and driven by their primal instincts. These traits then influence the types of roles men and women are expected to adopt. In the context of a romantic relationship, men and women are expected to take on complementary roles. Men provide financial and physical security (e.g., “Men should be willing to sacrifice their own well-being in order to provide financially for the women in their lives”), and women are expected to provide relational intimacy (e.g. “No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not really complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman”; Glick & Fisk, 1996, p. 512). A growing body of research has shown that hostile and benevolent sexism predict different relationship outcomes for men and women (for a review, see Overall & Hammond, 2018). Consistent with ambivalent sexism theory, men who have a female partner who endorses benevolent sexism are more likely to feel a sense of intimacy and positive regard in the relationship (Hammond & Overall, 2015). Hence, a benevolently sexist worldview has benefits for men in relationships. On the other hand, women who are partnered with men who endorse benevolent sexism feel less competent and a lower sense of positive regard in the relationship (Hammond & Overall, 2015). These findings neatly illustrate how a benevolently sexist worldview can perpetuate gender inequality by fulfilling men's needs for intimacy while simultaneously undermining women's power. I propose that benevolent sexism might also be implicated in sexual attitudes and behaviors. According to a benevolently sexist worldview, women are expected to provide their partners with intimacy while maintaining purity, refinement, and moral superiority. This means that women have a difficult balance to strike in terms of how they are expected to ‘perform’ sex (West & Zimmerman, 1987). To the extent that a woman endorses traditional gender views, she may think about sex as a service that she provides for her male partner (Durán, Moya, & Megías, 2011); meanwhile, her sexual pleasure may be neglected or actively suppressed. If a woman is expected to be composed and pure, how might this influence her experience of orgasm? A woman who holds a traditional gender ideology may find it difficult reconciling her desire to please her partner sexually, which may entail both partners having an orgasm, with her desire to remain ‘above,’ or outside of baser pleasures such as sex. These ideas have been discussed by feminist scholars, sociologists, and also social psychologists. However, there is little quantitative work linking gender ideology and sex. In the following two chapters, I explore how sexism impacts women's orgasm frequency and their likelihood of faking an orgasm.

References for Chapters 1 and 2 can be found on pages 116 to 118. 39

40

CHAPTER 3

ON THE LINK BETWEEN BENEVOLENT SEXISM AND ORGASM

FREQUENCY IN HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN

In Chapter 3 I investigate the link between gender ideology and sexual behavior. I focus on women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism – a subtle form of sexism that romanticizes female passivity – and how it relates to women’s orgasm frequency. Previous research has shown that a benevolently sexist worldview can have deleterious effects on women’s social and relationship outcomes. I hypothesized that benevolent sexism might also be implicated in sexual attitudes and behaviors. Below, I present two studies (indirectly) linking women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism with their frequency of orgasm. In line with University of Queensland policy, what follows is the published version of this manuscript.

41 Chapter 3 is adapted from a published manuscript:

Harris, E. A., Hornsey, M., Barlow, F. K., (2016). On the Link Between Benevolent Sexism and Orgasm Frequency in Heterosexual Women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1923 – 1931.

Author Contribution Harris, E. A. - Conception and design of the project –50% - Analysis and interpretation of the research data – 80% - Manuscript writing – 80% Hornsey, M. - Conception and design of the project – 25% - Analysis and interpretation of the research data – 10% - Manuscript writing – 10% Barlow, F. K. - Conception and design of the project – 25% - Analysis and interpretation of the research data – 10% - Manuscript writing – 10%

42 Abstract Previous research on subclinical orgasmic difficulties among women has focused on intrapsychic and interpersonal variables, but little attention has been paid to the more distal ideological factors that might indirectly constrain sexual pleasure. We hypothesized that women’s endorsement of a benevolently sexist worldview would be negatively associated with orgasm frequency. Specifically, we predicted that benevolent sexism would be associated with increased perceptions of male sexual selfishness. This perception of men as interested in their own sexual pleasure would then predict decreased willingness to ask a partner for sexual pleasure, which in turn would be associated with less frequent orgasms. We found support for our model across two studies (Study 1: N = 339; Study 2: N = 323). We did not, however, find a direct effect of benevolent sexism on orgasm frequency. We discuss possible additional variables linking benevolent sexism with orgasm frequency, implications, and future directions. Key words: benevolent sexism; orgasm; sexual functioning; gender beliefs.

43 On the Link Between Benevolent Sexism and Orgasm Frequency in Heterosexual Women

Many women struggle to achieve orgasm as frequently as they would like, with population estimates of women’s orgasm difficulties ranging from 3.1 to 28.6% (Hayes, Bennett, Fairley, & Dennerstein, 2006). Not only are orgasm difficulties potentially distressing (Öberg, Fugl-Meyer, & Fugl-Meyer, 2004), but more frequent orgasms have been shown to have a number of benefits, such as increased sexual and relationship satisfaction (e.g., Fugl-Meyer, Öberg, Lundberg, Lewin, & Fugl-Meyer, 2006; Haavio-Mannila & Kontula, 1997; Klapilová, Brody, Krejčová, Husárová, & Binter, 2015). It is, therefore, important to consider the factors that may account for differences in women’s orgasm frequency. Previous research has identified a number of relationship and lifestyle factors associated with women’s orgasm ability, with a focus on clinical dysfunction (Althof et al., 2005; Birnbaum, 2003; Laan & Rellini, 2011; Laumann, Paik, & Rosen, 1999; McCabe & Delaney, 1992; McCabe & Giles, 2012). This research is essential for identifying the factors directly causing and maintaining women’s orgasm dysfunction, and creating tailored interventions (Heiman, 2002). There is also some social-psychological research aiming to address “subclinical” orgasm difficulties in women— that is, women who do not have an orgasm dysfunction, but who are unable to orgasm as easily or consistently as they would like. For the most part, these predictors have focused on intrapsychic and interpersonal factors that are conceptually proximal to sexual behavior. For example, decreased sexual assertiveness (Haavio-Mannila & Kontula, 1997; Sanchez, Phelan, Moss-Racusin, & Good, 2012), sexual guilt (Nobre, 2009; Woo, Brotto, & Gorzalka, 2011), romantic attachment avoidance (van den Brink, Smeets, Hessen, & Woertman, 2015), and body dissatisfaction (Sanchez & Kiefer, 2007; Satinsky, Reece, Dennis, Sanders, & Bardzell, 2012) are all negatively associated with women’s ability to orgasm. In this article, however, we examine a more distal factor that might help shape and constrain women’s orgasm frequency: their stereotypes and worldviews about gender and how women should be treated by men (operationalized here as benevolent sexism). There is relatively little research looking at the link between broad ideologies and specific sexual behaviors, but it is easy to make an intuitive case for such a link. First, it can be argued that ideologies provide the backdrop against which more proximal variables—such as sexual assertiveness—are developed and framed. Second, because the sexual domain is one where direct social comparisons are not readily available—and for which personal experience may be limited to a few sexual partners—women may be particularly likely to rely on their pre-existing attitudes about gender and gender roles as a template to guide their behavior (for commentary, see Daniluk, 1998). Below, we define our key terms and review the 44 existing literature before introducing a model drawing a potential link between benevolent sexism and orgasm frequency in women. Benevolent Sexism There are two distinct forms of sexism—hostile and benevolent sexism—which together are captured by the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Hostile sexism describes an overt dislike of women. Benevolent sexism, on the other hand, comprises attitudes that are seemingly complimentary towards women, (e.g., “women have a quality of purity that few men possess”), and also afford women special treatment from men (e.g., “women should be cherished and protected by men”). However, this set of seemingly positive attitudes not only suggest that women should be looked after by men, but also that women need to be looked after by men. Benevolent sexism assumes female passivity and romanticizes the belief that women should be reliant on men. In this way, benevolent sexism is argued to be a form of legitimizing myth, whereby prejudicial attitudes towards women are justified through the guise of care and protection (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005; Becker & Wright, 2011; Glick & Fiske, 1996; Kilianski & Rudman, 1998). Women are more likely to endorse benevolent sexism than hostile sexism (Kilianski & Rudman, 1998), and typically express similar levels of benevolent sexism to men (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Glick et al., 2000). Interestingly, in countries with greater gender inequality, women report higher levels of benevolent sexism compared to men (Glick et al., 2000). Furthermore, women who endorse benevolent sexism are less likely to be a victim of intimate partner violence (Sakalli, 2001). These findings suggest that adopting benevolent sexism may act as a protective ideology, such that expressing acquiescence to male dominance makes women less likely to be a target of male aggression (Glick et al., 2000; Rudman & Glick, 2008). Although this may be functional, there is evidence that endorsing benevolently sexist attitudes carries a cost for women. For example, women who endorse benevolent sexism show lower personal and career ambition (Fernández, Castro, Otero, Foltz, & Lorenzo, 2006) and increased hostile sexism over time (Sibley, Overall, & Duckitt, 2007). Furthermore, women who are exposed to benevolent sexism experience higher levels of body shame and body surveillance (Calogero & Jost, 2011) and are more likely to de-emphasize their task-related and academic competence (Barreto, Ellemers, Piebinga, & Moya, 2010). Thus, benevolent sexism may have damaging effects on women’s sense of competence and self-esteem by limiting what it means to be a “good woman” (Dardenne, Dumont, & Bollier, 2007; Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Werner, & Zhu, 1997; Glick & Fiske, 1996) The Link Between Women’s Benevolent Sexism and Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors In this article, we argue that benevolent sexism might also be implicated in sexual attitudes and behaviors that negatively influence orgasm frequency. First, we hypothesize that women’s 45 benevolent sexism will be associated with an increased perception of men as sexually selfish. This first hypothesis is founded on a theoretical extrapolation of ambivalent sexism theory. A core assumption within the benevolent sexist worldview is that women should be placed on a pedestal of virtue above men, and that they are more moral, culturally refined, and more pure than men (Glick & Fiske, 1996). The flipside of this belief is that men are less moral, refined, and pure compared to women: where women are heavenly and uncorrupted, men are earthly and flawed. One implication of such a belief might be that men are driven by their sexual urges; that they are more carnal than women and more driven by the “pleasure principle.” Two previous studies provide some tentative evidence for an association between benevolent sexism and the belief that men are more driven by their personal sexual needs than are women. Durán, Moya, and Megías (2011) found that after reading a hypothetical scenario in which a husband insists on having sex with his wife, participants high in benevolent sexism were more likely to state that sex was the husband’s “right” and the wife’s “duty.” This study also compared ratings of the husband when he was depicted as either a benevolently sexist husband or his ideology was not described in the hypothetical scenario. The benevolently sexist husband was rated as more justified in demanding sex from his wife than the non-benevolently sexist husband. It was argued that when a man is seen to have cared for and protected his wife in other domains, he is more likely to be seen to deserve sexual favors from her. A more recent study found that the more women were exposed to benevolent sexism in their daily lives, the more they reported having sex for relational reasons, rather than for their own pleasure (Fitz & Zucker, 2015; see also Albarracin & Plambeck, 2010). This in turn predicted a decreased likelihood of women using condoms. Together, these findings suggest that women who espouse benevolently sexist beliefs feel that men’s sexual needs are of primary importance, and women’s sexual needs are secondary. On face value, the perception that men are selfish might seem inconsistent with the role prescription—common among those high in benevolent sexism—that men should sacrifice themselves in order to protect women. However, while benevolent sexism encourages men to care for and protect women who adopt a traditional role, such benevolence is domain-specific. Men are expected to provide physical and financial security for women (Chen, Fiske, & Lee, 2009; Glick & Fiske, 1996; Sibley & Overall, 2011; Viki, Abrams, & Hutchison, 2003); however, there is nothing in the theorizing (or the scale) that suggests this chivalry should extend to the sexual domain. Indeed, the notion that women would expect or display sexual agency is highly inconsistent with the cluster of values and attitudes that comprise the benevolent sexist worldview. For example, Viki et al. (2003) found that benevolent sexism was significantly positively correlated with a measure of 46 “paternalistic chivalry,” which includes statements such as “A man should make the first move to have sex” and “It is not right for a woman to kiss a man first.” Furthermore, previous studies identified a link between women’s benevolent sexism and exposure to erotica in which a man sexually dominates his female partner, whipping, spanking, and tying her up (Harris, Thai, & Barlow, 2016). After reading male-dominance erotica, women expressed significantly higher benevolent sexism compared to men (Harris et al., 2016), and were especially likely to endorse benevolent sexism if they rated erotica in which a man dominates a woman as ‘romantic’ (Altenburger, Carotta, Bonomi, & Snyder, 2016). Thus, these studies suggest that a benevolently sexist worldview is associated with attitudes that limit women’s sexual expression and endorse men’s sexual dominance. Second, we hypothesize that women who believe that men are sexually selfish will be less likely to ask their partner to give them sexual pleasure. This link is intuitive: a request for pleasure may be considered inappropriate (and potentially pointless) if men are expected to ignore their partner’s sexual needs. Finally, we predict that women’s decreased willingness to ask for sexual pleasure will lead to decreased orgasm frequency. Previous research provides strong evidence for a link between sexual communication and orgasm ability (e.g., Coffelt & Hess, 2014; Larson, Anderson, Holman, & Niemann, 1998; Litzinger & Gordon, 2005; Mark & Jozkowski, 2013; Rehman, Rellini, & Fallis, 2011). For example, sexually assertive women have been shown to experience more frequent and consistent orgasms per sexual encounter and greater sexual desire compared to non-sexually assertive women (Hurlbert, 1991). Furthermore, women who report discomfort when talking about sex, and in particular, talking about clitoral stimulation, were significantly more likely to experience anorgasmia (i.e., inability to orgasm) (Kelly, Strassberg, & Turner, 2004). Thus, we suggest that if women are unwilling to ask their partner for pleasure, their likelihood of having an orgasm will be significantly diminished. The Present Studies We propose a model linking women’s worldviews about the place of women relative to men (benevolent sexism) to their orgasm frequency. We predict that women who are high in benevolent sexism may be more likely to believe that men are more focused on their own pleasure than their partner’s pleasure. Through this, women may be less likely to ask their partner to pleasure them, which in turn leads to fewer orgasms. The first study we present is a secondary data analysis of an existing data set, in which we were able to test part of the model (benevolent sexism → perceived male sexual selfishness → orgasm frequency). The second study tested the complete model (benevolent sexism → perceived male sexual selfishness → willingness to ask for pleasure → orgasm frequency). 47 STUDY 1 Method Participants Data for Study 1 were taken from a larger survey that measured men and women’s sexual attitudes, sexual history, and social attitudes, N = 986. Participants for this study were recruited online via Facebook. Participants were not paid for their time. For the purposes of the current study, only female participants in heterosexual relationships (N = 339) were included in the present analysis. Participants were recruited from social networking sites (using a snowballing technique). Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 64 years (M = 28.09, SD = 8.39), and their relationship lengths ranged from 0 to 39 years (M = 5.12, SD = 5.85). The majority of participants identified as Australian (84.4%). Missing data In total, 1212 people clicked on the survey, and of those, 223 people did not go on to answer any survey items, and were excluded. Additional exclusions included seven participants who did not report their gender, three participants who reported being under the age of 18, 381 male participants, 181 participants who were not in a relationship, and 78 participants who did not report their relationship status. Missing data for each variable was >5% Procedure Participants were informed that the study would ask sensitive questions regarding their personal sexual history, political attitudes, and sexual attitudes. After providing their consent, and confirming that they were over the age of 18, participants were asked a number of demographic questions, followed by measures of political orientation, racism, social dominance orientation, and questions relating to sexual history and current sexual practice. The order of the questionnaire remained constant between participants. At the end of the survey, participants were debriefed and thanked for their time. Below, we report only the measures relevant to the current study. Measures Hostile and benevolent sexism Because this was part of a larger questionnaire, only four items were selected from the original 22-item Ambivalent Sexism inventory to measure hostile and benevolent sexism. The two items measuring benevolent sexism were: “Women have a quality of purity that few men possess” and “Women need to be protected by men,” r(335) = .37, p < .001. The two items measuring hostile sexism were: “Feminists want women to have more power than men” and “Women often seek special favors under the guise of asking for ‘equality,’” r(335) = .58, p < .001. Response options varied from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Due to the typically strong 48 correlation between hostile and benevolent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Glick et al., 2000), hostile sexism was measured so that it could be statistically controlled for in subsequent analyses. Perceived male sexual selfishness We created two novel items to assess the belief that men are selfish in bed: “During sex, men only care about their own pleasure” and “Men care more about ‘getting off’ than whether or not their partner has an orgasm,” r(333) = .79, p < .001. Response options varied from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Orgasm Frequency Three items from Costa and Brody (2007) were modified to measure women’s orgasm frequency during penetrative sex, oral sex, and manual stimulation. Items included: “How often during penetrative sex do you orgasm?”, “How often when receiving oral sex do you orgasm?”, and “How often when receiving manual stimulation do you orgasm?” (α = .63). Response options varied from 1 = Never to 7 = Always. Results and Discussion Descriptive Statistics Means, SDs, and inter-correlations for all measures are shown in Table 1.2 Participants’ mean levels of hostile sexism were slightly higher compared to mean levels of benevolent sexism

(MHS = 3.12, SDHS = 1.49; MBS = 2.66, SDBS = 1.26; t(338) = 5.88, p < .001), which is not typical (Glick & Fiske, 1996), but is likely due to the use of shortened two-item scales. Mean responses to “perceived male sexual selfishness” were below the midpoint (M = 2.28), suggesting low overall levels of perceived selfishness; however, there was reasonable variation in these scores (SD = 1.15). Overall, when considering average orgasmability through manual, oral, and penetrative sex, women reported experiencing orgasm approximately half the time (M = 4.34, SD = 1.62).

Table 1.

Means, SDs, and Inter-correlations among Variables in Study 1

M SD 2. 3. 4.

1. Benevolent sexism (1-7) 2.66 1.26 .35*** -.01 .47***

2. Perceived male sexual selfishness 2.28 1.15 -.26*** .14* (1-7) 3. Orgasm frequency (1-7) 4.34 1.62 -.01

2 In both Study 1 and 2, each variable had >5% missing data; hence, series mean substitution was used. 49 4. Hostile sexism (1-7) 3.12 1.49 * p < .05, *** p < .001

Main Analyses A mediation analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis that women’s benevolent sexism predicts orgasm frequency indirectly, through the belief that men are focused on their own sexual pleasure (see Table 2). As is traditional when examining the predictive power of benevolent sexism, hostile sexism was entered as a covariate.

Table 2. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Orgasm Frequency in Study 1

B SEB β t R2 ΔR

Step 1. Hostile sexism -.01 .07 -.01 -.14 .000

Benevolent sexism -.01 .08 -.01 -.13

Step 2. Hostile sexism -.02 .07 -.02 -.30 .074 .074***

Benevolent sexism .13 .08 .10 1.57

Perceived male sexual -.41 .08 -.29 -5.16*** selfishness *** p < .001

Using a bootstrapping approach, we estimated the indirect effect of benevolent sexism on orgasm frequency through “perceived male sexual selfishness.” Results based on 10,000 bootstrapped samples indicated that, consistent with hypotheses, there was a significant indirect effect of benevolent sexism on orgasm frequency through “perceived male sexual selfishness” (β = -.11, SE = .03), 95% CI [-.19, -.05]. Women’s benevolent sexism significantly predicted perceived male sexual selfishness (β = .37, p < .001), such that the more women endorsed benevolent sexism, the more likely they were to perceive men as sexually selfish. Perceived male sexual selfishness was, in turn, significantly related to women’s orgasm frequency (β = -.29, p < .001), such that the more women perceived men as sexually selfish, the fewer orgasms they experienced. Note, however, that there was no significant bivariate correlation between benevolent sexism and orgasm frequency, r(337) = -.01. Study 1 provided initial support for an indirect relationship between benevolent sexism and orgasm frequency, whereby benevolent sexism was not directly related to orgasm frequency, but it was indirectly related to fewer orgasms through increased likelihood of perceiving men as sexually selfish. 50

STUDY 2 In Study 2, we aimed to: (1) replicate the findings from Study 1 using the complete 22-item Ambivalent Sexism Inventory to measure hostile and benevolent sexism, and (2) test an expanded model including women’s willingness to ask her partner for pleasure as a predictor of orgasm frequency. We hypothesized that women who believe that men are focused on their own sexual satisfaction would be less willing to ask their partner for pleasure, and as a result, would experience fewer orgasms. Method Participants Participants from the U.S. were recruited using the online survey platform Amazon Mechanical Turk (N = 1,054) (Chandler & Shapiro, 2016). As in Study 1, we selected only heterosexual women in relationships for the present analysis (final N = 323). Participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 66 years (M = 36.10, SD = 10.71), and their relationship lengths ranged from 0 to 45 years (M = 10.62, SD = 9.28). Missing Data MTurk has been shown to produce results comparable to studies conducted in laboratory settings, with the benefit of a more demographically diverse sample (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Goodman, Cryder, & Cheema, 2013). However, one potential risk associated with using MTurk is decreased participant engagement (Goodman et al., 2013). In order to address this problem, two items were included as attention checks that asked participants to select a specific response. Participants who did not select the correct response for at least one of the items were excluded from analyses (n = 50). A further 23 participants were excluded because they dropped out after providing their demographic information and a further two participants were excluded because they were under the age of 18. Missing data for each variable was >5% Procedure Study 2 was conducted using the same procedure as Study 1; however, the content of the survey differed such that only questions relating to participants’ sexual history, sexual attitudes and behaviors, and sexist attitudes were included. As in Study 1, at the end of the survey, participants were debriefed and thanked for their time. The survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete, and participants were reimbursed US$1 for their time. Measures Hostile and benevolent sexism 51 The 22-item Ambivalent Sexism Inventory was measured to assess hostile and benevolent sexism (see Study 1 for example items). Eleven items measuring hostile sexism were combined to form a reliable scale (α = .93), as were the remaining 11 items measuring benevolent sexism (α = .90). Perceived male sexual selfishness The same two items from Study 1 were used to measure “perceived male sexual selfishness,” r(320) = .87, p < .001. Willingness to ask for pleasure Drawing from the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness (Hurlbert, 1991), we used a single-item measure to assess women’s willingness to ask her partner for sexual pleasure: “Do you tell your current sexual partner how to pleasure you?” Responses options varied from 1 = Never to 5 = Always. Orgasm Frequency In order to assess general orgasm frequency, participants were presented with the single item: “How many orgasms do you have per week, on average?” Responses options varied from 1 = None to 10 = More than seven. Masturbation Frequency In order to statistically control for differences in orgasm frequency as a function of masturbation frequency, we also asked participants: “How many times a week do you masturbate, on average?” Response options were the same as those used for the measure of orgasm frequency. Results and Discussion Descriptive Statistics Means, SDs, and inter-correlations for all measures (N = 323) are shown in Table 3. Women’s average levels of benevolent sexism were slightly higher compared to their levels of hostile sexism (MHS = 3.06, SDHS = 1.26; MBS = 3.64, SDBS = 1.20; t(322) = 8.41, p < .001), consistent with previous findings (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Women reported experiencing approximately three orgasms per week based on M = 4.76, SD = 2.41. Main Analysis A path analysis was conducted using AMOS 22.0. Benevolent sexism was included as the exogenous variable that predicted “perceived male sexual selfishness,” which in turn predicted “willingness to ask for pleasure,” which finally predicted orgasm frequency (see Fig. 1). Hostile sexism and masturbation frequency were included as control variables. The model was assessed for goodness of fit using the chi-squared test, chi squared/degrees of freedom ratio, the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root- mean-square residual (SRMR). According to Hu and Bentler (1995), indications of a model with a 52 satisfactory fit include a non-significant χ2, or a χ2/df ratio ≤ 3, a CFI ≥ .95, and values of RMSEA less than .06 and SRMR less than .08. All reported effect sizes have been standardized.

Table 3. Means, SDs, and Inter-correlations among Variables in Study 2

Variable M SD 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1. Benevolent sexism (1-7) 3.64 1.20 .18*** -.09 -.07 .48*** -.19***

2. Perceived male sexual 2.86 1.40 -.27*** -.12* .05 .03

selfishness (1-7)

3. Willingness to ask for 3.37 1.15 .38*** -.10 .16*

pleasure (1-5)

4. Orgasm frequency (1-10) 4.76 2.41 -.02 .66***

5. Hostile sexism (1-7) 3.06 1.26 -.06

6. Masturbation frequency 3.31 2.05 (1-10) * p < .05 *** p ≤ .001

.22*** -.27*** .28***

Perceived Willingness Benevolent Orgasm male sexual to ask for sexism frequency selfishness pleasure

Figure 1. Path analysis from Study 2. Hostile sexism and masturbation frequency were included as covariates in the model. ***p < .001.

The full model provided adequate fit to the data, χ2(3, 323) = 7.16, p = .067, χ2/df = 2.39; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .02. All proposed paths were significant, ps < .001 (see Fig. 1). 53 Consistent with hypotheses, the indirect effect of benevolent sexism on orgasm frequency, mediated by “perceived male sexual selfishness” and “willingness to ask for pleasure,” was significant, (β = - .02, SE = .01), 95% CI [-.04, -.01]. Since no direct path linking benevolent sexism and orgasm frequency was modeled, the total effect and the indirect effect were the same. We then tested the model including a direct effect of benevolent sexism on orgasm frequency. Again, consistent with hypotheses, when a direct effect was modeled, the total effect became non-significant, (β = .05, SE = .05), 95% CI [-.04, .15], which is likely due to a positive but non-significant direct effect (β = .07, SE = .05), 95% CI [-.01, .16]. This positive direct effect suggests the presence of a suppression pathway, discussed further below. We tested an alternative model in which the order of the mediators was switched, such that benevolent sexism predicted willingness to ask for pleasure, which predicted perceptions of male sexual selfishness, which then predicted orgasm frequency. However, this model did not meet the threshold for acceptable model fit, χ2(3, 323) = 53.39, p < .001, χ2/df = 17.80; CFI = .86; RMSEA = .28; SRMR = .06, and was therefore rejected. We conclude that the model presented in Fig. 1 was a good fit for the data. Specifically, benevolent sexism was linked to higher beliefs that men are selfish in bed, and through this was associated with assertiveness about how to be pleasured and fewer orgasms. As in Study 1, however, the significant pathway was indirect: the overall relationship between benevolent sexism and orgasm frequency was non-significant. General Discussion In order to address how women’s social attitudes may play a role in their sexual functioning, we tested the effect of women’s benevolent sexism on orgasm frequency. We provide evidence for a model of women’s benevolent sexism as an indirect predictor of women’s orgasm via two pathways. First, we showed that women high in benevolent sexism were more likely to believe that men are sexually selfish; this effect was demonstrated across two independent samples from two different countries. Second, in Study 2, we showed that perceived male sexual selfishness predicted a significantly lower willingness to ask a partner for sexual pleasure, which in turn predicted lower orgasm frequency. The present study therefore furthers our understanding of how broad ideological factors such as benevolent sexism may (indirectly) impact women’s orgasm functioning. Of course, our proposed model was based on cross-sectional data and so causality cannot be established. Alternative directions in our model cannot be ruled out; however, they seem less plausible. The belief that men are sexually selfish is unlikely to precede benevolent sexism, since benevolent sexism represents a broad ideological construct, and as such is likely to shape more specific attitudes surrounding sex rather than the other way around. With regard to the second proposed link in our model, it is possible that women who do not ask their partner for pleasure 54 believe that men are sexually selfish because they have not explicitly asked for sexual attention. However, this alternative causal pathway did not find support in the data. Finally, while asking for pleasure is the logical antecedent to achieving orgasm, we acknowledge that this may be somewhat bi-directional, whereby women who find it difficult to experience orgasms are less likely to ask for sexual pleasure. Future research should test this possibility using longitudinal data. Interestingly, despite an indirect pathway that implied higher benevolent sexism should lead to lower orgasm frequency overall, we did not find a direct effect of benevolent sexism on orgasm frequency. Instead, we found that after controlling for the indirect effects in our final model, benevolent sexism had a positive but non-significant effect on orgasm frequency. This suggests that there may be an untested pathway through which benevolent sexism links positively with orgasm frequency, and that this variable is suppressing the negative pathway identified in our data. One possibility is that women high in benevolent sexism have more masculine partners, consistent with their preferences for traditional gender roles (Backus & Mahalik, 2011). If this is the case, they may experience more frequent orgasms, as past research suggests that women find it easier to orgasm with masculine partners (Puts, Welling, Burriss, & Dawood, 2012). A second possibility is that women high in benevolent sexism may have sex more often with their partner because they feel it is their duty (Durán et al., 2011), and as a consequence may experience more orgasms. Future research could test these possibilities by assessing partner masculinity and sexual frequency. A limitation of Study 2 was the use of a general measure of orgasm frequency. We did not specify whether orgasms were due to partnered sex or masturbation, thus adding noisy variance to our data. However, since this limitation would have made finding effects more difficult, it is not necessarily a threat to our conclusions. Second, it is important to note the use of a single item measure of “willingness to ask for pleasure.” We were interested specifically in how women’s belief that perceived male sexual selfishness would predict their willingness to ask their partner to pleasure them; however, it would be interesting to test whether a broader measure of women’s sexual assertiveness would also fit this model. It seems plausible that the more women believe men are only interested in their own sexual pleasure, the less sexually assertive they would be in general (e.g., they might be less likely to initiate sex or reject unwanted sex) (Morokoff et al., 1997). Future research should extend the present work by testing non-Western samples. The effect sizes in the current study were weak to moderate in size, suggesting modest but statistically reliable effects in Western samples. However, these effects may be even greater in more sexually conservative cultures. Woo et al. (2011) found that East Asian women reported lower sexual desire compared to Caucasian women, and this effect was explained by increased sexual guilt among East Asian women. Thus, the indirect effects of benevolent sexism on orgasm frequency may be even stronger among more sexually conservative cultures, where women who endorse traditional gender 55 roles may be particularly likely to perceive the bedroom as a man’s domain, and hence be less likely to express their own sexual desires. Finally, future research may focus on the role of women’s benevolent sexism in their likelihood of faking orgasm. Women who endorse traditional gender roles may be more likely to fake orgasm because they may believe their partner does not care about their orgasm, or they may place a lower value on women’s orgasm relative to non- traditional women (Cooper, Fenigstein, & Fauber, 2014). Faking orgasm may be an important indicator of women’s ability to orgasm, as well as her desire to reach orgasm, yet we have a limited understanding of the psychological antecedents of faking orgasm. Finally, future work might consider the effect of benevolent sexism within a couple. The assumptions of a benevolently sexist ideology are that women should take on traditionally feminine roles, and men should take on traditionally masculine roles. Where both members of a couple endorse these views, the prescriptive force of these gender roles may be exaggerated. Further, a man high in benevolent sexism may in fact be sexually selfish, and less invested in his partner’s orgasm, which may in turn contirbute to his partner’s lower orgasm frequency. We invite future research to assess the relationship between a person’s benevolent sexism, and their partner’s benevolent sexism, on their orgasm frequency, and the potentially mediating role of partner sexual selfishness. In conclusion, the present study suggests that our ideas about gender can shape specific sexual attitudes and behaviors. At present, we do not have a good understanding of how our ideologies may form a basis for how we think about sex, and what we perceive to be sexually desirable, undesirable, appropriate, or inappropriate. It is therefore important for future research to expand its scope in order to investigate how ideologies function to constrain or enhance our sexual experience. 56 References Albarracin, J., & Plambeck, C. R. (2010). Demographic factors and sexist beliefs as predictors of condom use among Latinos in the USA. AIDS Care, 22, 1021-1028. doi:10.1080/09540121.2010.487089 Altenburger, L. E., Carotta, C. L., Bonomi, A. E., & Snyder, A. (2016). Sexist attitudes among emerging adult women readers of fifty shades fiction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1-10. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0724-4 Althof, S. E., Leiblum, S. R., Chevret-Measson, M., Hartmann, U., Levine, S. B., McCabe, M., . . . Wylie, K. (2005). Psychological and interpersonal dimensions of sexual function and dysfunction. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2, 793-800. doi:10.1111/j.1743- 6109.2009.01618.x Backus, F. R., & Mahalik, J. R. (2011). The masculinity of Mr. Right: Feminist identity and heterosexual women’s ideal romantic partners. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 318- 326. doi:10.1177/0361684310392357 Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The burden of benevolent sexism: How it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 633. doi:10.1002/ejsp.270 Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., Piebinga, L., & Moya, M. (2010). How nice of us and how dumb of me: The effect of exposure to benevolent sexism on women’s task and relational self- descriptions. Sex Roles, 62, 532-544. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9699-0 Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 62-77. doi:10.1037/a0022615 Birnbaum, G. E. (2003). The meaning of heterosexual intercourse among women with female orgasmic disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 61-71. doi:10.1023/A:1021845513448 Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980 Calogero, R. M., & Jost, J. T. (2011). Self-subjugation among women: Exposure to sexist ideology, self-objectification, and the protective function of the need to avoid closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 211-228. doi:10.1037/a0021864 Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016). Conducting clinical research using crowdsourced convenience samples. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 53-81. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy- 021815-093623 57 Chen, Z., Fiske, S. T., & Lee, T. L. (2009). Ambivalent sexism and power-related gender-role ideology in marriage. Sex Roles, 60, 765-778. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9585-9 Coffelt, T. A., & Hess, J. A. (2014). Sexual disclosures: Connections to relational satisfaction and closeness. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40, 577-591. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2013.811449 Cooper, E. B., Fenigstein, A., & Fauber, R. L. (2014). The Faking Orgasm Scale for Women: Psychometric properties. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 423-435. doi:10.1007/s10508- 013-0212-z Daniluk, J. C. (1998). Women's sexuality across the life span: Challenging myths, creating meanings. New York: Guilford Press. Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women's performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764-799. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764 Durán, M., Moya, M., & Megías, J. L. (2011). It's his right, it's her duty: Benevolent sexism and the justification of traditional sexual roles. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 470-478. doi:10.1080/00224499.2010.513088 Fernández, M. L., Castro, Y. R., Otero, M. C., Foltz, M. L., & Lorenzo, M. G. (2006). Sexism, vocational goals, and motivation as predictors of men's and women's career choice. Sex Roles, 55, 267-272. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9079-y Fitz, C. C., & Zucker, A. N. (2015). Everyday exposure to benevolent sexism and condom use among college women. Women & Health, 55, 245-262. doi:10.1080/03630242.2014.996721 Fugl-Meyer, K. S., Öberg, K., Lundberg, P. O., Lewin, B., & Fugl-Meyer, A. (2006). On orgasm, sexual techniques, and erotic perceptions in 18- to 74-year old Swedish women. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 3, 56-68. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00170.x Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323-1334. doi:10.1177/01461672972312009 Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., . . . López López, W. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763-775. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.79.5.763 58 Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213-224. doi:10.1002/bdm.1753 Haavio-Mannila, E., & Kontula, O. (1997). Correlates of increased sexual satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 399-419. doi:10.1023/A:1024591318836 Harris, E. A., Thai, M., & Barlow, F. K. (2016). Fifty shades flipped: Effects of reading erotica depicting a sexually dominant woman compared to a sexually dominant man. Journal of Sex Research, 1-12. doi:10.1080/00224499.2015.1131227 Hayes, R. D., Bennett, C. M., Fairley, C. K., & Dennerstein, L. (2006). What can prevalence studies tell us about female sexual difficulty and dysfunction? Journal of Sexual Medicine, 3, 589- 595. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00241.x Heiman, J. R. (2002). Sexual dysfunction: Overview of prevalence, etiological factors, and treatments. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 73-78. doi:10.1080/00224490209552124 Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). London: Sage. Hurlbert, D. F. (1991). The role of assertiveness in female sexuality: A comparative study between sexually assertive and sexually nonassertive women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 17, 183-190. doi:10.1080/00926239108404342 Kelly, M. P., Strassberg, D. S., & Turner, C. M. (2004). Communication and associated relationship issues in female anorgasmia. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 30, 263-276. doi:10.1080/00926230490422403 Kilianski, S., & Rudman, L. (1998). Wanting it both ways: Do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 39, 333-352. doi:10.1023/A:1018814924402 Klapilová, K., Brody, S., Krejčová, L., Husárová, B., & Binter, J. (2015). Sexual satisfaction, sexual compatibility, and relationship adjustment in couples: The role of sexual behaviors, orgasm, and men's discernment of women's intercourse orgasm. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12, 667-675. doi:10.1111/jsm.12766 Laan, E., & Rellini, A. H. (2011). Can we treat anorgasmia in women? The challenge to experiencing pleasure. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 26, 329-341. doi:10.1080/14681994.2011.649691 Larson, J. H., Anderson, S. M., Holman, T. B., & Niemann, B. K. (1998). A longitudinal study of the effects of premarital communication, relationship stability, and self-esteem on sexual satisfaction in the first year of marriage. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 24, 193-206. doi:10.1080/00926239808404933 59 Laumann, E. O., Paik, A., & Rosen, R. C. (1999). Sexual dysfunction in the United States: Prevalence and predictors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 537-544. doi:10.1001/jama.281.6.537 Litzinger, S., & Gordon, K. C. (2005). Exploring relationships among communication, sexual satisfaction, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 31, 409-424. doi:10.1080/00926230591006719 Mark, K. P., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2013). The mediating role of sexual and nonsexual communication between relationship and sexual satisfaction in a sample of college-age heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 39, 410-427. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2011.644652 McCabe, M. P., & Delaney, S. M. (1992). An evaluation of therapeutic programs for the treatment of secondary inorgasmia in women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 69-89. doi:10.1007/bf01542717 McCabe, M. P., & Giles, K. (2012). Differences between sexually functional and dysfunctional women in childhood experiences and individual and relationship domains. International Journal of Sexual Health, 24, 181-194. doi:10.1080/19317611.2012.680686 Morokoff, P. J., Quina, K., Harlow, L. L., Whitmire, L., Grimley, D. M., Gibson, P. R., & Burkholder, G. J. (1997). Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS) for women: Development and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 790-804. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.73.4.790 Nobre, P. J. (2009). Determinants of sexual desire problems in women: Testing a cognitive- emotional model. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 35, 360-377. doi:10.1080/00926230903065716 Öberg, K., Fugl-Meyer, A., & Fugl-Meyer, K. (2004). On categorization and quantification of women's sexual dysfunctions: An epidemiological approach. International Journal of Impotence Research, 16, 261-269. doi:10.1038/sj.ijir.3901151 Puts, D. A., Welling, L. L., Burriss, R. P., & Dawood, K. (2012). Men's masculinity and attractiveness predict their female partners' reported orgasm frequency and timing. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.03.003 Rehman, U. S., Rellini, A. H., & Fallis, E. (2011). The importance of sexual self‐disclosure to sexual satisfaction and functioning in committed relationships. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8, 3108-3115. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02439.x Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York: Guilford. 60 Sakalli, N. (2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44, 599-610. doi:10.1023/A:1012295109711 Sanchez, D. T., & Kiefer, A. K. (2007). Body concerns in and out of the bedroom: Implications for sexual pleasure and problems. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 808-820. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9205-0 Sanchez, D. T., Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Good, J. J. (2012). The gender role motivation model of women’s sexually submissive behavior and satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 528-539. doi:10.1177/0146167211430088 Satinsky, S., Reece, M., Dennis, B., Sanders, S., & Bardzell, S. (2012). An assessment of body appreciation and its relationship to sexual function in women. Body Image, 9, 137-144. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.09.007 Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. (2011). A dual process motivational model of ambivalent sexism and gender differences in romantic partner preferences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 303-317. doi:10.1177/0361684311401838 Sibley, C. G., Overall, N. C., & Duckitt, J. (2007). When women become more hostilely sexist toward their gender: The system-justifying effect of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 57, 743- 754. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9306-1 van den Brink, F., Smeets, M. M., Hessen, D., & Woertman, L. (2015). Positive body image and sexual functioning in Dutch female university students: The role of adult romantic attachment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1217-1226. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0511-7 Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Hutchison, P. (2003). The “true” romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49, 533-537. doi:10.1023/A:1025888824749 Woo, J. T., Brotto, L. A., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2011). The role of sex guilt in the relationship between culture and women’s sexual desire. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 385-394. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9609-0

61

CHAPTER 4

BELIEFS ABOUT GENDER PREDICT FAKING ORGASM IN WOMEN

There are many reasons women give for faking their orgasm, yet the underlying psychological factors that distinguish women who do and do not fake their orgasms are unclear. My aim in Chapter 4 is to conduct a broad investigation of the ideological factors associated with women’s likelihood of faking orgasm. The studies presented in Chapter 3 focused on a single ideological predictor of sexual behavior: benevolent sexism. In Chapter 4, I investigate two novel ideological predictors of sexual behavior: political ideology and religiosity. The following is a test of how gender ideology, political ideology, and religiosity might predict a woman’s likelihood of faking her orgasm. In line with University of Queensland policy, what follows is the version of the manuscript that was submitted for publication.

62 Chapter 4 is adapted from a published manuscript:

Harris, E. A., Hornsey, M., Larsen, H., & Barlow, F. K. (Submitted) Beliefs about Gender Predict Faking Orgasm in Women. Under review at Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Author Contribution Harris, E. A. - Conception and design of the project – 65% - Analysis and interpretation of the research data – 80% - Manuscript writing – 80% Hornsey, M. - Conception and design of the project – 12.5% - Analysis and interpretation of the research data – 10% - Manuscript writing – 10% Larsen, H. - Conception and design of the project – 10% Barlow, F. K. - Conception and design of the project – 12.5% - Analysis and interpretation of the research data – 10% - Manuscript writing – 10%

63 Abstract The majority of women have faked an orgasm at least once in their lives. In the current study, we assess how women’s worldviews about gender relate to women’s faking orgasm behavior. A survey of 507 women found that those who endorse hostile sexism towards women – that is, those who endorse anti-feminist values – have faked significantly more orgasms over their lifetime. In contrast, women who endorse benevolent sexism – that is, those who endorse traditional femininity – have faked significantly fewer orgasms over their lifetime. Furthermore, women who believe that men place importance on women’s orgasms are more likely to have faked an orgasm at least once in their lives compared to women who have never faked an orgasm. These effects emerged after controlling for the effects of demographics, sexual history, ease of orgasm, and previously established psychological correlates of faking orgasm including suspected partner infidelity and intrasexual competition. Key words: faking orgasm, ideology, hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, gender

64 Beliefs About Gender Predict Faking Orgasm in Women Some women exaggerate their sexual enjoyment when with a partner. For example, women do not moan loudly when masturbating, but many do when they are having sex (Brewer & Hendrie, 2011). Similarly, women would not fake an orgasm if they were engaging in solo sexual activity, but between 56 and 76% of women have faked an orgasm during sex with a partner (Ellsworth & Bailey, 2013; Goodman, Gillath, & Haj-Mohamadi, 2017; Wiederman, 1997). This performative aspect of sex is intriguing and has garnered increasing research attention over the past 20 years. However, little is known about the underlying worldviews that drive some women to fake their orgasm, while others do not. This study responds to this research need by examining the role of religiosity, political orientation, and beliefs about gender in predicting willingness to fake orgasm. In so doing, we contribute to an emerging frontier of quantitative research linking people’s ideologies and worldviews not just to attitudes toward sexuality in general – as they have in the past - but in terms of shaping “in-the-moment” sexual behaviors. Why do some women fake orgasm but not others? Women (and men) rely on salient ideologies to guide their behavior (Davis & Greenstein, 2009). For example, the decision to fake an orgasm is rarely the result of a partner explicitly stating: ‘I will be disappointed if you don't orgasm,' or ‘I will cheat on you if you don't orgasm,' or even ‘I will orgasm more quickly if you orgasm.' Instead, women rely on their past experiences, and information from peers and society, to build assumptions about what men want during sex, and what women should do (Fahs, 2014; West & Zimmerman, 1987). It is these networks of beliefs that help us to navigate interactions with others at a social, personal, and intimate level. Ideological beliefs and sexual behavior have been discussed at length in the sociological and philosophical literature (for example, see Beauvoir, 1952; Butler, 1988; Lindsey, 2015; Lorber, 1994). However, the scientific study of ideology and sexual behavior is relatively new. Recently, gender ideology has been linked with sexual communication and orgasm, condom use, and motivations for engaging in sex (Fitz & Zucker, 2015; Harris, Hornsey, & Barlow, 2016). We propose that faking orgasm may also be driven by broad sets of beliefs about gender and sex. Below we discuss previous research on the factors associated with a woman’s likelihood of faking an orgasm, including her ability to orgasm, her partner’s sexual skill, and her fear of partner infidelity. We then discuss faking orgasm as a function of ideological factors, including religiosity, political orientation, and gender beliefs. Ease of orgasm. The most significant pragmatic factor relating to faking an orgasm is how easy it is for a woman to orgasm in the first place. In a recent study, 33% of heterosexual women reported experiencing orgasm during sex ‘Always,' compared to 75% of heterosexual men (Frederick, John, Garcia, & Lloyd, 2017). A woman's ability to orgasm determines the number of 65 occasions where she could consider faking an orgasm, and so it is unsurprising that the more often a woman experiences an orgasm, the less likely she is to fake her orgasm (Ellsworth & Baily, 2013). Relatedly, women's sexual dysfunction is related to increased likelihood of faking an orgasm (Goodman et al., 2017; Jern, Hakala, Kärnä, & Gunst, 2018). However, not experiencing an orgasm does not necessarily lead to faking an orgasm — a woman then must have a reason to fake her orgasm. Wanting sex to end. One motivation for women to fake orgasm is to bring sex to an end (Cooper et al., 2014; Goodman et al., 2017; Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010; Séguin, Milhausen, & Kukkonen, 2015). Some women state that they want to end sex because they are simply tired, bored, or not in the mood (Cooper et al., 2014; Goodman et al., 2017). In a widely publicized study, Thomas, Stelzl, and Lafrance (2017) report findings from interviews with 15 women to suggest that faking orgasm may be a means to end unpleasant sex: "it was terrible!", "it was so bad!", and "I didn't really feel anything that was even remotely good." Thus, ‘bad sex’ appears to be a common reason why women fake orgasm. In the present study, we measure women’s ratings of their partner’s sexual skill to assess the quality of their sexual experiences. While wanting sex to end may explain specific instances of faking an orgasm, subjective ratings of partner sexual skill provide a general indication of how much a woman enjoys having sex with her partner. To our knowledge, research on the quality of sex and faking orgasm has been exclusively qualitative or has included only women who have previously faked an orgasm: the current paper provides the first quantitative test of whether a woman is more or less likely to fake orgasm as a function of her partner’s sexual skill. Partner fidelity concerns. While some women may view bad sex as a poor reflection on their partner, some women may be more concerned about how the absence of their orgasm reflects on them. Indeed, some women are particularly motivated to fake orgasm to keep their partner happy in the relationship and to make their partner less likely to cheat or leave them (Kaighobadi, Shackelford, & Weekes-Shackelford, 2012; McCoy, Welling, & Shackelford, 2015). A woman’s orgasm is highly prized by her partner, with 90% of men stating that they are concerned with whether their partner experiences orgasm (McKibbin, Bates, Shackelford, Hafen, & LaMunyon, 2010). Men who report that their partner orgasms infrequently are also more likely to have cheated in the past, relative to men with partners who orgasm more frequently (Ellsworth & Bailey, 2013). Hence, there may be relationship benefits for women who orgasm frequently, and to the extent that women are aware of these benefits, they may fake orgasm as a ‘mate retention’ strategy. Previous research has found support for this hypothesis. For example, women who engage in mate retention strategies such as enhancing their physical appearance or monopolizing their partner’s time were more likely to fake their orgasms (Kaighobadi et al., 2012; McCoy et al., 2015). 66 Women who perceive higher risk of past or future infidelity are also more likely to fake their orgasms (Kaighobadi et al., 2012). Additional research on faking orgasm has focused mainly on scale creation or has been qualitative, and so has not empirically tested factors that predict women’s willingness to fake orgasm. At present, quantitative research testing predictors of faking orgasm has mostly been progressed by evolutionary psychologists, who have made a strong case for the role of mate retention and suspected partner infidelity in motivating women to fake orgasm. In the present study, we extend the existing literature on predictors of faking orgasm by testing the role of ideologies and worldviews. In the review below, we first consider broad ideological views including religiosity, political ideology, and hostile and benevolent sexism. We then consider beliefs that are more proximal to faking orgasm by reviewing research discussing women’s concerns around gender, sex and orgasm. Political and religious ideology. Sociological and feminist work has emphasized the influence of political, social, and cultural ideologies on sexual behavior (for example, Baumgardner & Richards, 2010; Frith, 2015; Frith & Kitzinger, 2001; Jagose, 2013; Jamieson, 1999; Martin, 1991). Implicit understandings of how men and women should act at a broader societal level can have important implications for what is deemed appropriate sexual conduct. Religiosity, for example, has been linked with general social conservativeness whereby ‘deviance’ from the stated and implied norms is frowned upon and punished (e.g., see Blogowska & Saroglou, 2011; Duckitt et al., 2010; Hall, Matz, & Wood, 2010). Religiosity predicts decreased acceptance of non- heterosexual relationships, as well as other forms of sexual deviance (Olatunji, 2008). In addition, women high in religiosity have been shown to be higher in sexual guilt (Woo, Morshedian, Brotto, & Gorzalka, 2012). Similarly, political conservativeness is tied to a greater punishment of deviants (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009), a reverence for traditional family values (Thorisdottir et al., 2007), and a desire for order and predictability (Jost et al., 2003). Research on sexual attitudes and gender finds that political conservatives tend to be more accepting of male dominance and more negative towards homosexuality (Lottes & Kuriloff, 1992). Given the lack of existing research on this question, we make no strong a priori hypotheses regarding the relationships between faking orgasms, religiosity, and political orientation. Competing predictions are possible, however, based on extrapolations from previous theory and research. Given that religiosity and political ideology have been linked with social conservatism and a desire to abide by norms, it seems plausible that women who are religious and politically conservative may be more likely to fake orgasm to conform to an expected sexual script (Muelenhard & Shippee, 2010). An alternative possibility is that these women may be more likely 67 to uphold strict moral codes around honesty, and as such, may be less likely to fake orgasm (Geyer & Baumeister, 2005; Graham et al., 2009). Feminism and sexism. Women who endorse traditional gender views value female purity and chastity (Glick & Fiske, 1996); as such, they may consider their sexual pleasure as secondary to their partner's pleasure. Research on gender ideology and women’s orgasm frequency has found that women who endorse traditional gender attitudes are less likely to talk about sexual pleasure with their partner, and through this indirect path experience fewer orgasms (Harris, Hornsey, & Barlow, 2016). Relatedly, women who are exposed to more benevolent sexism - a subtle form of sexism that is superficially flattering to women, but undermines their competence and autonomy - are more likely to engage in sex for relational reasons rather than for their pleasure (Fitz & Zucker, 2015). Hence, women who endorse traditional gender views may be less likely to fake orgasm because they may not view their orgasm as important or expected during sex. Women who endorse feminist attitudes, on the other hand, value female sexual agency and mutual sexual pleasure (Lafrance, Stelzl, & Bullock, 2017). Some feminist scholars have denounced faking orgasm as ‘emotion work’ that women are pressured to perform for the sake of their partner (Frith, 2015 & 2018; Roberts et al., 1995). As such, women who endorse a feminist ideology may be less likely to fake orgasm because they believe that a woman’s orgasm is experienced for her own sake, and not for the benefit of her male partner. Gendered beliefs about sex and orgasm. Qualitative research focusing on women’s sexual experiences finds that gender beliefs frame how women think, act, and feel during sex (Nicolson & Burr, 2003; Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). Women who have been interviewed about their experiences of faking orgasm express similar gender beliefs. Some common themes include beliefs that it is a man’s responsibility to make a woman orgasm, women (and men) should orgasm during intercourse, women should accommodate men's voracious sex drives, and if a woman does not orgasm, it will negatively impact a man’s ego (Muelenhard & Shippee, 2010; Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). One woman, when asked about faking orgasm out of concern for her male partner’s feelings, stated: “I think that if you don’t [orgasm during intercourse], the guy just feels like he isn’t good, or failed, or is not doing something right... Then you feel pressured to fake it, but you don’t want to fake it because you want to be honest, so then it’s just awkward”. Another woman expressed a similar belief, that “Guys, as far as I know, are really emotional [given lack of female orgasm during intercourse]. They just don’t like to say that they are” (Salisbury & Fisher, 2014, p. 621). In these examples, women’s beliefs about men are used to explain why they faked their orgasm. In a qualitative study of women who ‘resist' faking their orgasms, women described their desire to act counter to what is expected according to traditional gender views (Lafrance et al., 2017). For example, one woman described her wish to resist faking her orgasms to encourage equal 68 treatment: “I mean society portrays such a view that you know this is the hierarchy of the family, the man, the women’s needs comes after the man… it’s not all about the man anymore, it’s women deserve to be treated good too [sic]” (Lafrance et al., 2017, p. 216). These qualitative studies provide a strong hint that women who endorse restrictive gender beliefs about sex and orgasm are more likely to fake orgasm. However, the extent to which gender beliefs are associated with a woman’s likelihood of faking orgasm is yet to be empirically tested. In the present study we test whether faking orgasm behavior is predicted by the degree to which women endorse three gender beliefs about sex and orgasm: 1) it is the man’s responsibility to make a woman orgasm; 2) men want women to orgasm; and 3) men are sexually selfish, and are primarily interested in their own sexual satisfaction. The present study. In the current survey we measured factors that previous research has shown to predict orgasm, including suspected partner infidelity, number of sexual partners, and partner sexual skill. We then test novel ideological predictors of faking orgasms: political orientation, religiosity, hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, and gender beliefs surrounding sex and orgasm. Faking orgasm has typically been measured as a dichotomous outcome – have you faked an orgasm or not? (Wiederman, 1997) – or as a continuous outcome, where the percent of times a woman fakes her orgasm during sex was measured (Ellsworth & Baily, 2013; Goodman et al., 2017). However, it is possible that these two ways of measuring women’s faking orgasm behavior conflate two different psychological processes. There is a substantial minority of women who have never faked an orgasm, and so it is reasonable to consider how these women may differ from women who have faked an orgasm at least once. However, there is also likely to be meaningful variation in women who have faked an orgasm at least once, such that women who have faked an orgasm once or twice may differ from women who fake their orgasms frequently during sex. We propose that these two decisions: “do I fake orgasm?” and “do I keep faking my orgasms?” may be determined by related but distinct psychological processes. We seek to disentangle these psychological processes by using a ‘two-stage’ statistical model that first tests the likelihood that a woman has faked an orgasm versus not, and second, among women who have faked an orgasm, we test the frequency with which they fake orgasm. Method Participants Participants were recruited online via Prolific Academic, an online platform for researchers and participants. Eligible participants were invited to take part in a ‘Study of Sexuality.' To be eligible, participants had to be female, over 18 years old, reside in the United Kingdom, have been 69 in a relationship for at least four months, have an approval rate of 85%, and have completed at least two previous studies on the platform.

The final sample comprised 507 women ranging in age from 18 to 73 (Mage = 37.66, SDage = 10.89). Ninety-one percent of participants were heterosexual, 6.3% were bisexual, 2% were lesbian, and <1% selected ‘other.' The racial composition of the sample was 95% White/Caucasian, 1% Black/African/Caribbean, 2% Asian, <1% Hispanic, <1% Middle Eastern, and 1% ‘other.' Missing data Of the 518 who agreed to participate in the study, the following participants were excluded from further analysis: one person who was not heterosexual, one person not in a relationship, one person who had never had sex, and eight people who had completed less than 10% of the study. We used listwise deletion. Measures and Procedure We informed participants that the study included questions relating to their sexual history and current sexual experience. Participants who agreed to continue were then asked to complete demographic questions, followed by measures of faking orgasms, and our key predictors: political ideology, religiosity, hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, gendered beliefs about sex and orgasm, relationship history, ability to orgasm, partner sexual skill, and fidelity concerns. Scales were presented in a randomized order. At the end of the survey, participants were debriefed and thanked for their time. Faking orgasm. Participants were presented with the following definition of faking orgasms: “Faking or pretending orgasm describes an exaggeration of sexual pleasure to the extent that your partner may believe that you have experienced an orgasm without you having had an orgasm. This may involve exaggerated moaning and vocalizations, and/or muscular contractions.” Participants were then asked: “What percentage of the time that you have had sex have you faked orgasm in your life?” and “What percentage of the time that you have had sex have you faked orgasm during sex with your current partner?” Political ideology and religiosity. Political ideology was measured using the single item: “In political matters, people sometimes talk about the ‘left' and the ‘right.' Where would you place yourself on this scale, generally speaking?”. Responses options ranged from 1 = Left to 9 = Right. Religiosity was measured with a single item: “How religious are you?” with response options ranging from 1 = Not at all religious to 5 = Strongly religious. Hostile and benevolent sexism were measured using a shortened version of Glick and Fiske’s (1996) Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. We included three items from the benevolent sexism subscale (e.g., “Women tend to have a superior moral sensibility”;  = .72), and three items from 70 the hostile sexism subscale (e.g., "Feminists are seeking for women to have more power than men”;  = .73). Response options ranged from 1 = disagree strongly to 6 = agree strongly. Gendered beliefs about sex. We measured three gender beliefs about sex that have been discussed in previous research. First, the belief that men are responsible for a woman’s orgasm (men are responsible; Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010; Salisbury & Fisher, 2014) was measured using three items: “A man should know how to make a woman orgasm”; “The man is responsible for bringing his partner to orgasm”; “If a woman does not orgasm, it reflects poorly on the man”,  = .67. Second, the belief that men want their partner to orgasm during sex (men want women to orgasm; Ellsworth & Bailey, 2013) was measured using three items: “Men expect women to be able to orgasm”, “I believe that men do not want to be with a woman who is unable to orgasm during sex”; and “Men need women to orgasm in order for sex to be satisfying”. However, due to low scale reliability ( = .57) and relatively low correlations between the three items (rs < .36), we selected the single item: “Men need women to orgasm in order for sex to be satisfying” to measure the belief that men want a woman to orgasm during sex. We used a post-hoc method of selecting this item, based on item clarity and construct validity (Simms, 2008). We chose this item because it was the closest conceptually to the idea that men are less likely to enjoy sex when a woman does not orgasm.3 Third, the belief that men are selfish in bed (men are selfish in bed, Harris, Hornsey, & Barlow, 2016) was measured using three items: “During sex, men only care about their own pleasure”; “Men are very focused on women's sexual enjoyment” (reverse scored); and “Men are more focused on satisfying their own sexual needs than their partner's sexual needs”,  = .74. Response options for all the above items ranged from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree. Relationship history. Number of lifetime sexual partners was measured using a nine-point scale ranging from 1 = 0 to 9 = More than 50, with a mean of 5.18 (SD = 2.00), where five on the scale represents ‘4' sexual partners. Relationship length was measured using an eight-point scale ranging from 1 = Less than 1 month to 8 = More than 10 years, with a mean of 7.11 (SD = 1.15), where seven on the scale represents 5.1 to 10 years. Ability to orgasm was measured using two items: "How easy is it for you to orgasm from sex in general?” (1 = Very difficult and 7 = Very easy) and “How often do you orgasm during sex

3We also conducted our analyses using the full scale, and the results remained largely unchanged, with one minor exception - the effect of ‘men want women to orgasm’ on lifetime likelihood of having faked orgasm was marginally significant, p = .052.

71 with your current partner?” (1 = Never and 7 = Always). These two items were highly correlated (r = .69) so were combined to form a scale. Partner sexual skill was measured using a single item: “How would you rate your current partner's sexual performance?” (1 = Not at all talented to 7 = Very talented). Partner fidelity concerns. We measured intrasexual competition using ten items adapted from Buunk and Fisher’s (2009) intrasexual competition scale. Participants were asked to indicate how much each statement applied to them, for example, “I tend to look for negative characteristics in attractive women” and “I want to be just a little better than other women” (1 = Not at all applicable to 7 = Completely applicable,  = .90). We measured suspected partner infidelity by asking: “How likely is it do you think that your partner will/did do any of the following” regarding the following five behaviors: “Kiss another person”, “Have sex with another person”, “Have feelings for another person”, “Flirt with another person”, and “Get emotionally involved with another person” (1 = Very unlikely/has not happened to 7 = Very likely/has happened;  = .91). Results Descriptive Statistics In our sample, 35% of women had never faked an orgasm with their current partner (n = 175), compared to 65% who had (n = 326). Over their lifetime, 23% of women had never faked an orgasm (n = 113) compared to 78% who had (n = 388). Of the women who had faked an orgasm with their current partner, on average, those women faked orgasm 25% of the time they have had sex with their partner. Of the women who had faked an orgasm over their lifetime, those women faked an orgasm 32% of the time they had sex. For a summary of means and standard deviations for all variables, see Table 1. For intercorrelations among variables for the entire sample, see Table 2. Analytic Strategy We analyzed the data using two-part models for semi-continuous data. Two-part models (akin to ‘hurdle models') first test the probability that an outcome is zero versus not zero using binomial logistic regression. In the case of faking orgasm, this involves predicting the likelihood that a person has faked an orgasm versus not. The second step is then to model the frequency of the outcome for those cases that are not zero using linear models. In the current study, this means modeling the frequency of faking orgasm among those participants who have faked an orgasm at least once. This approach is appropriate for the current data for two reasons. First, our data have a large number of zero counts – that is, people who have never faked an orgasm. A linear or Poisson model of data with excess zeros will not provide a good fit to the data and will under-predict the zero 72 counts (Dietz, & Böhning, 2000; Yang et al. 2016). Second, there are conceptual reasons for distinguishing between women who have faked an orgasm and those who have not. While there are various reasons a woman may fake an orgasm, not all women do fake orgasm. Hence, it is important to assess: why do some women fake orgasm and not others? Second, of the women who do fake orgasm, there is variation in the frequency with which they do so. So, of the women who

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of outcome and predictor variables in the full sample.

M SD

Fake with partner 16.25 23.55

Lifetime faking 24.67 26.44

Age 37.66 10.98

Sexual partners 5.18 1.97

Relationship length 7.11 1.15

Partner skill 5.27 1.42

Ability to orgasm 4.38 1.72

Intrasexual competition 2.64 1.18

Suspected cheating 2.33 1.51

Religiosity 1.82 1.06

Political ideology 4.37 1.74

Hostile sexism 3.09 1.18

Benevolent sexism 3.44 1.11

Men want an orgasm 3.13 1.68

Men are selfish 3.69 1.24

Men are responsible 3.68 1.24

73 Table 2. Intercorrelations among variables for entire sample. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. Fake with partner

2. Lifetime faking .79**

3. Age .05 -.05

4. Sexual partners .01 .14** .05

5. Relationship length <.01 -.12** .43** -.14**

6. Partner skill -.33** -.17** -.27** -.03 -.12**

7. Ability to orgasm -.43** -.35** -.02 .01 .06 .48**

8. Intrasexual competition .18** .15** .01 .06 -.09* -.18** -.07

9. Suspected cheating .22** .16** .08 .14** -.05 -.18** -.14** .19**

10. Religiosity .04 .01 .18** -.11* .08 -.12** -.07 .10* -.05

11. Political ideology .08 .01 .20** -.01 .12** -.14** -.04 .14** -.01 .14**

12. Hostile sexism .13** .13** .06 -.07 .05 .01 -.01 .23** .09* .08 .29**

13. Benevolent sexism .06 -.01 -.02 .01 <.01 -.11* <.01 .29** .03 .14** .26** .41**

14. Men want an orgasm .10* .08 .12** -.02 .04 -.05 .09* .12** .03 .14** .10* .12** .13**

15. Men are selfish in bed .22** .16** .06 .06 -.01 -.43** -.28** .18** .22** .06 .09 .11* .14** .02

16. Men are responsible .05 -.01 .07 .02 -.01 -.15** .05 .31** <.01 .06 .08 .07 .28** .29** .30** Note: * p < .05. ** p < .01. 74 fake orgasm, why do some fake more than others? A two-stage model can address both of these related but distinct research questions. We used this approach to test two criterion variables: faking orgasm with one’s current partner, and lifetime history of faking orgasms. As such, we report below two sets of binomial logistic regressions (predicting whether or not women have ever faked with their partner, and whether they have ever faked in their lifetime) and two sets of hierarchical regressions (predicting the frequency with which women have faked with their partner, and the frequency with which women have faked in their lifetime). In each case the predictors were entered in five steps. It seems reasonable to suggest that, by the law of averages, the extent to which a women has faked orgasm at least once would be affected by non-psychological factors such as age, relationship length, and number of sexual partners. As such, these factors were controlled for at Step 1. At Step 2 we entered physical factors that might predict faking frequency: ability to orgasm and partner skill. At Step 3 we entered variables relating to infidelity concerns: intrasexual competition and suspected cheating. Step 4 we included two variables that tap into gender ideology: benevolent and hostile sexism. Finally, Step 5 included gendered beliefs about sex and orgasm. Main Analyses Faking orgasm with a current partner. The first regression predicted whether or not women had ever faked an orgasm with their current partner (see Table 3 for a summary of results). At Step 1, no predictors reached significance (ps > .425). At Step 2, ability to orgasm was a significant negative predictor, such that for every unit increase in ability to orgasm, the likelihood of faking orgasm decreased by 19%, p = .002. No other predictors reached significance (ps > .330). At Step 3, both intrasexual competition and suspected cheating significantly predicted likelihood of having faked an orgasm. For every unit change in intrasexual competition, the likelihood of faking orgasm increased by 22%, p = .032. For every unit change in suspected cheating, the likelihood of faking orgasm increased by 35%, p < .001. No predictors entered in Step 4 reached significance (ps > .134). Finally, at Step 5, the belief that men need women to orgasm emerged as a significant predictor, such that for every unit change in women’s endorsement of this belief, the likelihood of faking orgasm increased by 16%, p = .022. In addition, ability to orgasm and suspected infidelity remained significant predictors of having faked orgasm. In the second regression, we used the same step-wise approach to predict the frequency of faking orgasms, focusing only on the 326 women who had reported faking an orgasm with their partner (see Table 4). No predictors were significant at Step 1 (ps > .348). At Step 2, ability to orgasm and partner sexual skill significantly negatively predicted faking orgasm, such that women who find it easy to orgasm and women who rate their partner’s sexual skill highly fake their orgasm less frequently (ps < .001). No additional predictors were significant at Steps 3, 4, or 5 (ps > .072). 75 Table 3. Hierarchical logistic regression predicting likelihood of faking orgasms with a current partner. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 b SEB Exp(B) b SEB Exp(B) b SEB Exp(B) b SEB Exp(B) b SEB Exp(B) (Intercept) 0.13 0.67 1.01 1.44 0.85 4.20 -0.32 0.97 0.73 -1.05 1.04 0.35 -0.80 1.16 0.45 Age 0.01 0.01 0.98 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.00 0.01 1.00 Sexual partners -0.02 0.05 1.04 -0.01 0.05 0.99 -0.04 0.05 0.96 -0.03 0.05 0.97 -0.03 0.06 0.98 Relationship length 0.04 0.09 1.14 0.08 0.09 1.08 0.13 0.10 1.14 0.12 0.10 1.12 0.13 0.10 1.14 Partner skill -0.09 0.09 0.92 -0.01 0.09 0.99 0.00 0.09 1.00 -0.02 0.10 0.98 Ability to orgasm -0.21** 0.07 0.81 -0.21** 0.07 0.81 -0.22** 0.07 0.80 -0.25** 0.07 0.78 ISC 0.20* 0.09 1.22 0.13 0.10 1.13 0.12 0.10 1.13 Suspected cheating 0.30** 0.08 1.35 0.31** 0.08 1.36 0.32** 0.09 1.38 Religiosity 0.01 0.10 1.01 -0.01 0.10 0.99 Political ideology 0.00 0.06 1.00 -0.01 0.06 1.00 Hostile sexism 0.13 0.10 1.14 0.13 0.10 1.14 Benevolent sexism 0.16 0.10 1.17 0.15 0.11 1.16 Men want orgasm 0.15* 0.07 1.17 Men are selfish -0.09 0.10 0.92 Men are responsible -0.03 0.10 0.97 Fit Nagelkerke R2 = .01 Nagelkerke R2 = .06 Nagelkerke R2 = .12 Nagelkerke R2 = .14 Nagelkerke R2 = .16 Difference Model 2 = 1.62 Model 2 = 20.40** Model 2= 44.25** Model 2 = 51.20** Model 2 = 57.76** Note: b represents unstandardized regression weights. Exp(B) indicates the standardized change in odds of faking an orgasm versus not. A significant b also represents a significant b. ISC = intrasexual competition. Women who reported never having faked orgasm were excluded from this analysis. * p < .05. ** p < .01

76

Table 4. Hierarchical linear regression predicting the frequency of faking orgasms with a partner. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

b SEB  b SEB  b SEB  b SEB  b SEB 

(Intercept) 27.85** 10.06 69.74** 10.11 59.54** 10.97 58.97** 12.03 50.13** 13.81

Age 0.13 0.14 .06 -0.08 0.12 -.04 -0.09 0.12 -.04 -0.11 0.12 -.05 -0.11 0.12 -.05

Sexual partners 0.08 0.74 .01 0.33 0.62 .03 0.07 0.63 .01 0.14 0.65 .01 0.07 0.65 .01

Relationship length -1.15 1.32 -.05 0.80 1.12 .04 1.08 1.13 .05 1.05 1.12 .05 1.29 1.13 .06

Partner skill -4.04** 1.03 -.22 -3.54** 1.05 -.19 -3.71** 1.06 -.20 -3.20** 1.13 -.17

Ability to orgasm -6.77** 0.87 -.43 -6.84** 0.87 -.43 -6.80** 0.87 -.43 -6.95** 0.89 -.44

ISC 1.72 1.02 .08 1.56 1.07 .07 1.39 1.10 .07

Suspected cheating 1.08 0.78 .07 0.89 0.79 .06 0.75 0.80 .05

Religiosity -0.55 1.19 -.02 -0.82 1.21 -.03

Political ideology 0.60 0.78 .04 0.50 0.78 .03

Hostile sexism 2.15 1.19 .10 1.97 1.20 .09

Benevolent sexism -1.59 1.29 -.07 -1.86 1.32 -.08

Men want orgasm 1.31 0.76 .09

Men are selfish 1.03 1.23 .05

Men are responsible 0.22 1.16 .01

Fit R2 < .01 R2 = .31** R2 = .32** R2 = .33** R2 = .34** Difference ΔR2 = .30** ΔR2 = .01 ΔR2 = .01 ΔR2 = .01 Note: b represents unstandardized regression weights.  indicates the standardized regression weights. A significant b also represents a significant . ISC = intrasexual competition. Women who reported never having faked orgasm were excluded from this analysis. * p < .05. ** p < .01 77 Lifetime history of faking orgasms. As above, we performed a hierarchical logistical regression to test predictors of faking orgasm versus not faking over the course of one's life (see Table 5 for detailed results). At Step 1, number of sexual partners was a significant positive predictor of having faked an orgasm, such that for every additional sexual partner, the likelihood of faking orgasm increased by 13%. At Step 2, neither partner sexual skill nor ability to orgasm was a significant predictor of having faked orgasm (ps > .058). At Step 3, suspected cheating emerged as a significant predictor of having faked an orgasm, such that for every unit increase in suspected partner infidelity, the likelihood of having faked an orgasm increased by 41%. None of the ideological predictors entered at Step 4 were significant (ps > .115). At the final step, the belief that men want women to orgasm emerged as a significant predictor, such that for every unit increase in endorsement of this gender belief, the likelihood of faking orgasm increased by 20%. With the exception of number of sexual partners emerging as a significant predictor, these results are identical to those reported above regarding faking orgasm with a partner. Finally, we conducted a hierarchical linear regression to investigate predictors of faking frequency among women who have faked an orgasm at least once in their lifetime (see Table 6). At Step 1, no demographic or sexual history variables predicted the frequency of faking orgasms (ps > .077). At Step 2, ability to orgasm emerged as a significant predictor such that women faked orgasm less the more easily they were able to orgasm (p < .001). Also, after ability to orgasm and partner sexual skill were included in the model at Step 2, number of sexual partners emerged as a significant positive predictor of the frequency of faking orgasms, such that the more sexual partners a woman had, the more frequently she faked her orgasm (p = .011). No predictors entered at Step 3 were significant (ps > .192). At Step 4, women high in hostile sexism tended to fake orgasm more frequently (p < .001), and women high in benevolent sexism faked orgasm less frequently (p < .001). No additional predictors entered at Step 5 were significant (ps > .064). Discussion The present study aimed to assess the ideological determinants of faking orgasms in women. One set of analyses related to the question of whether our respondents had ever faked an orgasm (the dichotomous measure). Consistent with previous research, we found that women were more likely to have faked an orgasm if they found it difficult to orgasm, suspected their partner of cheating, and (for lifetime ratings of faking) if they had a higher number of sexual partners. Ideological factors played very little role in terms of predicting whether or not women had faked (versus never faked) orgasm, with one exception: women who subscribed to the general belief that men wanted women to orgasm were more likely to fake orgasm, both across their lifetime and with their current partner. 78 Table 5. Hierarchical logistic regression predicting lifetime likelihood of faking an orgasm. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

b SEB Exp(B) b SEB Exp(B) b SEB Exp(B) b SEB Exp(B) b SEB Exp(B) (Intercept) 1.57 0.85 4.78 1.50 1.01 4.50 -0.01 1.14 0.99 -0.88 1.22 0.42 -0.96 1.36 0.38

Age 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.01 0.01 1.01 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.00 0.01 1.00 Sexual partners 0.13* 0.06 1.13 0.13* 0.06 1.14 0.11 0.06 1.11 0.12* 0.06 1.13 0.13* 0.06 1.14 Relationship length -0.15 0.12 0.86 -0.12 0.12 0.88 -0.09 0.13 0.91 -0.10 0.13 0.91 -0.09 0.13 0.91

Partner skill 0.09 0.10 1.09 0.16 0.10 1.17 0.17 0.10 1.18 0.18 0.11 1.19 Ability to orgasm -0.15 0.08 0.86 -0.14 0.08 0.87 -0.14 0.08 0.87 -0.16* 0.08 0.85 ISC 0.14 0.10 1.15 0.07 0.11 1.07 0.07 0.11 1.07

Suspected cheating 0.34** 0.10 1.41 0.36** 0.11 1.43 0.36** 0.11 1.44 Religiosity 0.15 0.12 1.16 0.12 0.12 1.13 Political ideology -0.05 0.07 0.95 -0.05 0.07 0.95

Hostile sexism 0.09 0.11 1.09 0.07 0.12 1.07 Benevolent sexism 0.19 0.12 1.20 0.18 0.12 1.20 Men want orgasm 0.18* 0.08 1.120

Men are selfish 0.00 0.11 1.00 Men are responsible -0.07 0.11 0.93 Fit Nagelkerke R2 = .02 Nagelkerke R2 = .04 Nagelkerke R2 = .09 Nagelkerke R2 = .11 Nagelkerke R2 = .13 Difference Model 2 = 7.769 Model 2 = 11.51* Model 2 = 28.96** Model 2 = 35.51** Model 2 = 41.10**

Note: b represents unstandardized regression weights. Exp(B) indicates the standardized change in odds of faking an orgasm versus not. A significant b also represents a significant Exp(B). ISC = intrasexual competition. Women who reported never having faked orgasm were excluded from this analysis. * p < .05. ** p < .01. 79 Table 6. Hierarchical linear regression predicting lifetime frequency of faking orgasms. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

b SEB  b SEB  b SEB  b SEB  b SEB 

(Intercept) 41.74** 9.25 72.72** 10.19 66.42** 11.27 73.75** 11.87 69.61** 13.63 Age -0.07 0.13 -.03 -0.20 0.12 -.08 -0.2 0.12 -.08 -0.23 0.12 -.10 -0.23 0.12 -.10 Sexual partners 1.25 0.71 .09 1.63* 0.64 .12 1.59* 0.65 .12 1.82** 0.65 .13 1.77** 0.64 .13

Relationship length -1.94 1.22 -.09 -0.99 1.11 -.05 -0.83 1.12 -.04 -0.97 1.09 -.04 -0.90 1.10 -.04

Partner skill -1.52 1.05 -.08 -1.25 1.07 -.07 -1.91 1.06 -.10 -1.68 1.12 -.09

Ability to orgasm -6.23** 0.86 -.39 -6.25** 0.86 -.39 -6.05** 0.84 -.38 -5.95** 0.87 -.37

ISC 1.38 1.05 .06 1.61 1.08 .07 1.82 1.11 .08

Suspected cheating 0.13 0.79 .01 -0.37 0.79 -.02 -0.62 0.80 -.04

Religiosity -0.59 1.15 -.02 -0.79 1.16 -.03

Political ideology 0.12 0.75 .01 0.04 0.75 .00

Hostile sexism 4.47** 1.14 .20 4.20** 1.15 .19

Benevolent sexism -4.73** 1.26 -.20 -4.63** 1.28 -.19

Men want orgasm 1.37 0.74 .09

Men are selfish 1.09 1.19 .05 Men are responsible -1.39 1.13 -.07 Fit R2 = .022* R2 = .208** R2 = .212** R2 = .257** R2 = .265**

Difference ΔR2 = .186** ΔR2 = .004 ΔR2 = .045** ΔR2 = .008 Note: b represents unstandardized regression weights.  indicates the standardized regression weights. A significant b also represents a significant . ISC = intrasexual competition. Women who reported never having faked orgasm were excluded from this analysis. * p < .05. ** p < .01. 80 In regards to how often women faked their orgasms, findings were more varied depending on whether we were examining frequency of faking orgasms with one’s current partner or frequency of faking orgasms over one's lifetime. Women who faked their orgasms more frequently with their current partner rated their partners as less sexually skilled and reported greater difficulty reaching orgasm. Therefore, women's frequency of faking orgasm with their current partner was primarily associated with pragmatic physical factors rather than by ideological factors. However, the ideological factors emerged more strongly when predicting frequency of faking orgasms over one's lifetime. Specifically, women faked orgasms more frequently if they were high in hostile sexism, and low in benevolent sexism. This study uncovers new evidence in support of the role of gender ideology in predicting faking orgasm. We know from previous research that men tend to value their partner's orgasm, and that for some men it signifies a masculinity achievement (Chadwick & van Anders, 2017). Women who hold the broad heuristic that men want women to orgasm may then apply it to their own sexual relationship, and fake orgasm to satisfy their partner (or what they assume their partner wants). This effect speaks to previous feminist writing that describes faking orgasm as ‘emotion work,' whereby women fake orgasm for their partner's benefit (Frith, 2015). Since the belief that men want women to orgasm predicts a higher likelihood of faking an orgasm – even after controlling for suspected partner infidelity and intrasexual competition – it appears that women may be driven not by their interests, but instead by partner-centered concern. The beliefs that men are selfish in bed and that men are responsible for women’s orgasms have been discussed in qualitative research by women who have faked an orgasm (Muelenhard & Shippee, 2010; Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). However, the current study suggest that these beliefs do not uniquely distinguish between women who do and do not fake orgasm. Indeed, the belief that men are responsible for women’s orgasms did not even feature in a significant correlation with the outcome variables. There was some more evidence in favor of the notion that believing men are selfish in bed might be playing a role: this construct did at least feature in significant positive correlations with the measures of faking. However, consistent with Harris et al. (2016), the belief that men are selfish in bed was also positively correlated with benevolent sexism. When controlling for benevolent sexism the belief that men are selfish in bed did not uniquely predict faking. Across all analyses, the strongest effects emerged with regard to the role of hostile and benevolent sexism in predicting frequency of faking over the course of a lifetime. Women high in hostile sexism towards women faked orgasm more frequently over their lifetime. While this finding seems somewhat surprising, it seems reasonable when interpreted in the reverse: women low in hostile sexism (i.e., more likely to endorse feminist beliefs), are less likely to fake orgasm. This is consistent with qualitative research showing that women who ‘resist’ faking orgasm often express 81 feminist motivations for doing so. This study provides the first quantitative evidence that women who reject feminist ideas are likely to fake orgasm more frequently. On the other hand, women who endorse benevolent sexism fake orgasm less frequently over their lifetime. A benevolently sexist ideology values purity and chastity in women, and as such, places limits on women’s sexual agency and expressions of sexual enjoyment. Women who endorse a benevolently sexist worldview, therefore, may be less likely to fake orgasm because they place less value on their orgasm, and instead aim to maintain composure and control. These findings fit neatly with ambivalent sexism theory and past research on gender ideology and sex. A benevolently sexist worldview emphasizes women's right to special treatment from men, yet this special treatment is likely to come in the form of physical and financial security, and not necessarily sexual attention. Indeed, according to a benevolently sexist ideology, women should be only afforded special treatment from men because they are more refined, moral, and pure relative to men. Therefore, according to a benevolently sexist worldview, women would be expected to assume the role of passive sexual agents, while men pursue their more animalistic, unrefined, and impure sexual urges (Harris et al., 2016). The expectation that women will supress their sexual urges then negates the need to fake their orgasms. Consistent with previous research, we find a moderate correlation between hostile and benevolent sexism. This relationship likely explains why we do not see a zero-order correlation between benevolent sexism and faking orgasm frequency. Given the intercorrelation between hostile and benevolent sexism, and their opposing effects on faking orgasm frequency, the independent effect of benevolent sexism may be suppressed at the zero-order level. Therefore, the unique effects of hostile and benevolently sexist worldviews only emerge when both are entered into a regression simultaneously (as is recommended by theorists, Glick, Sakallı-Ugurlu, Ferreira, & Souza, 2002; Sakallı, 2001), and the shared variance is accounted for. The predictive roles of hostile and benevolent sexism are specific to frequency of faking orgasms over a lifetime, and not any other measure of faking orgasm. This raises the question: what might be different about frequency of faking orgasms over a lifetime? Qualitative research indicates that women who ‘resist’ faking orgasm tend to express ambivalence around their decisions. On one hand, women want to be open and honest with their partners, but on the other hand, they also want to protect their partner's feelings (Lafrance et al., 2017; Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). These warring motivations may lead some women to fake an orgasm at least once if they find it difficult to orgasm in the first place. It may be that ideological factors only become important when women decide whether or not to continue faking their orgasms. After faking an orgasm once, women who adopt a feminist standpoint may feel an inconsistency between their attitudes and behavior, and may therefore actively resist faking an 82 orgasm in the future. Women who hold a benevolently sexist worldview may feel less sexual agency, and may be less likely to fake orgasm because it is incompatible with their view of women as composed and morally superior to men. This interpretation is, however, largely speculative, and it would be useful to replicate our findings to test whether the same pattern of results holds across the various measures of faking orgasms. While not a focus of the current study, the interplay between faking orgasm, ideology, and long term sexual and relationship satisfaction is worth consideration. No work that we are aware of has quantitatively tested the negative effects of faking orgasm on sexual and relationship satisfaction. The authors speculate about the role that ideology may play. While gender ideology – feminist or traditional – was related to a decreased likelihood of faking orgasm, not all feminists, and not all traditional women, resist faking their orgasms in a relationship. It may be that any negative consequences of faking orgasm on sexual and relationship satisfaction are exacerbated for these women, for whom faking orgasm is inconsistent with their beliefs about gender and their role as a woman in the bedroom. We invite future research on the consequences of faking orgasm over time, and the role that ideology may play. In addition to gender ideology and specific beliefs about gender and sex, we sought to test whether political ideology and religiosity might influence women’s likelihood of faking orgasm. We presented two possible outcomes. First, we suggested that women who were politically conservative and religious tend to value tradition and social norms, and so these women may be more likely to fake their orgasms to conform to traditional sexual scripts. Alternatively, women high in political conservatism and religiosity may be more likely to value honesty and may therefore be less likely to fake their orgasms. We found no support for either of these predictions; political ideology and religiosity were unrelated to willingness to fake orgasm, both at the zero- order level, and in the regression models. While political orientation and religiosity may be indirectly related to sexuality, these constructs are perhaps too psychologically distal to influence a woman’s willingness to fake an orgasm. Further, the content of these ideologies is heterogeneous, such that there is large variation in the attitudes and beliefs of women who identify as politically conservative and religious. Political ideology and religiosity may be relevant to other sexual behaviors, such as sexual infidelity and masturbation, where there is a clearer psychological link between social values and sexual behavior, however these worldviews appear to be unrelated to faking orgasm behaviour. A limitation of the current study is that we have drawn from a Western, heterosexual sample. The act of faking an orgasm is not a natural one, however it has become a part of mainstream discourse in Western culture. Women who have not been exposed to the idea of faking 83 an orgasm through their social networks may question why any woman would pretend to have an orgasm. Our measures of gender ideology – hostile and benevolent sexism – typically assume a heterosexual relationship, since ambivalent sexism theory speaks to the power imbalance between men and women in society, and how that can have spill-over effects on interpersonal relationships. Future research is needed to test how gender beliefs might impact non-heterosexual groups. In addition to more diverse sampling, future research should consider longitudinal and experimental research designs when investigating predictors of sexual behavior. To our knowledge, all of the research on faking orgasm behavior, including the current study, has been cross-sectional, and so we cannot draw causal conclusions from these findings. Ideally, a study of couples over time would address this issue, and would broaden our understanding of the factors that predict faking orgasms from personal factors to partner and relationship factors. It would be interesting to test whether women are more likely to fake their orgasms if they have a male partner who is particularly sensitive to whether or not his partner has an orgasm (e.g., men who are high in masculine gender role stress), independent of women's own gender ideologies (Chadwick & van Anders, 2017). A major concern in sexuality research is a woman’s ability to find her voice during sex. The frequency with which women fake their orgasms is concerning; it reflects a hesitancy to communicate honestly and openly with a partner about sex, including sexual preferences and difficulty experiencing orgasms. Our study provides the first evidence that the values assigned to men and women, including hostile and benevolent sexism, and the belief that men want women to orgasm, can predict women’s likelihood and frequency of faking orgasms. Women’s gender beliefs may therefore guide their sexual behavior, and the expression of authentic, and inauthentic, sexual pleasure.

84 References Baumgardner, J., & Richards, A. (2010). Manifesta: Young women, feminism, and the future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Beauvoir, Simone de. (1989, c1952) The second sex. New York: Vintage Books Blogowska, J., & Saroglou, V. (2011). Religious fundamentalism and limited prosociality as a function of the target. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50, 44-60. doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01551.x Brewer, G., & Hendrie, C. A. (2011). Evidence to suggest that copulatory vocalizations in women are not a reflexive consequence of orgasm. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 559-564. doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9632-1 Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519-531. doi: 10.2307/3207893 Buunk, A. P., & Fisher, M. (2009). Individual differences in intrasexual competition. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 37-48. doi: 10.1556/JEP.7.2009.1.5 Chadwick, S. B., & van Anders, S. M. (2017). Do women’s orgasms function as a masculinity achievement for men?. The Journal of Sex Research, 54, 1141-1152. doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1283484 Cooper, E. B., Fenigstein, A., & Fauber, R. L. (2014). The faking orgasm scale for women: Psychometric properties. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 423-435. doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0212-z Davis, S. N., & Greenstein, T. N. (2009). Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87-105. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc- 070308-115920 Dietz, E., & Böhning, D. (2000). On estimation of the Poisson parameter in zero-modified Poisson models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 34, 441-459. doi.org/10.1016/S0167- 9473(99)00111-5 Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E. (2010). A tripartite approach to right‐wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism‐conservatism‐traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31(5), 685-715. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x Ellsworth, R. M., & Bailey, D. H. (2013). Human Female Orgasm as Evolved Signal: A test of two hypotheses. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1545-1554. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0152-7 Fahs, B. (2014). ‘Freedom to’ and ‘freedom from’: A new vision for sex-positive politics. Sexualities, 17, 267-290. doi.org/10.1177/1363460713516334 85 Fitz, C. C., & Zucker, A. N. (2015). Everyday exposure to benevolent sexism and condom use among college women. Women & Health, 55, 245-262. doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2014.996721 Frederick, D. A., John, H. K. S., Garcia, J. R., & Lloyd, E. A. (2018). Differences in orgasm frequency among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual men and women in a US national sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 273-288. doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0939-z Frith, H. (2015). Orgasmic bodies: The orgasm in contemporary western culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Frith, H. (2018). Faking, finishing and forgetting. Sexualities, 21, 697-701. Frith, H., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). Reformulating sexual script theory: Developing a discursive psychology of sexual negotiation. Theory & Psychology, 11, 209-232. doi.org/10.1177/0959354301112004 Geyer, A. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2005). Religion, Morality, and Self-Control: Values, virtues, and vices. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 412-432). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 Glick, P., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Ferreira, M. C., & Souza, M. A. d. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 292-297. Goodman, D. L., Gillath, O., & Haj-Mohamadi, P. (2017). Development and validation of the pretending orgasm reasons measure. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1973-1991. doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0928-7 Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. doi: 10.1037/a0015141 Hall, D. L., Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2010). Why don’t we practice what we preach? A meta- analytic review of religious racism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 126-139. doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352179 Harris, E. A., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, F. K. (2016). On the link between benevolent sexism and orgasm frequency in heterosexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1923-1931. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0780-9 Jagose, A. (2012). Orgasmology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 86 Jamieson, L. (1999). Intimacy transformed? A critical look at the ‘pure relationship’. Sociology, 33, 477-494. Jern, P., Hakala, O., Kärnä, A., & Gunst, A. (2018). A longitudinal assessment of associations between women’s tendency to pretend orgasm, orgasm function, and intercourse-related pain in different partner relationship constellations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 671- 679. doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1117-z Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.129.3.339 Kaighobadi, F., Shackelford, T. K., & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (2012). Do women pretend orgasm to retain a mate? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1121-1125. doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9874-6 Lafrance, M. N., Stelzl, M., & Bullock, K. (2017). “I’m Not Gonna Fake It” University women’s accounts of resisting the normative practice of faking orgasm. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41, 210-222. doi: 10.1177/0361684316683520 Lindsey, L. L. (2015). Gender roles: A sociological perspective. New York: Routledge. Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. London: Yale University Press. Lottes, I. L., & Kuriloff, P. J. (1992). The effects of gender, race, religion, and political orientation on the sex role attitudes of college freshmen. Adolescence, 27, 675. Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16, 485- 501. doi.org/10.1086/494680 McCoy, M. G., Welling, L. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). Development and initial psychometric assessment of the reasons for pretending orgasm inventory. Evolutionary Psychology, 13, 129 - 139. doi.org/10.1177/147470491501300108 McKibbin, W. F., Bates, V. M., Shackelford, T. K., Hafen, C. A., & LaMunyon, C. W. (2010). Risk of sperm competition moderates the relationship between men’s satisfaction with their partner and men’s interest in their partner’s copulatory orgasm. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 961-966. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.005 Muehlenhard, C. L., & Shippee, S. K. (2010). Men's and women's reports of pretending orgasm. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 552-567. doi:10.1080/00224490903171794 Nicolson, P., & Burr, J. (2003). What is ‘normal’ about women's (hetero) sexual desire and orgasm?: A report of an in-depth interview study. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 1735- 1745. doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00012-1 87 Olatunji, B. O. (2008). Disgust, scrupulosity and conservative attitudes about sex: Evidence for a mediational model of homophobia. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1364-1369. doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.04.001 Roberts, C., Kippax, S., Waldby, C., & Crawford, J. (1995). Faking it: The story of “Ohh!”. Women's Studies International Forum, 18, 523-532. doi.org/10.1016/0277- 5395(95)80090-C Sakallı, N. (2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44(9-10), 599-610. Séguin, L. J., Milhausen, R. R., & Kukkonen, T. (2015). The development and validation of the motives for feigning orgasms scale. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 24, 31-48. doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2613 Simms, L. J. (2008). Classical and modern methods of psychological scale construction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 414-433. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00044.x Thomas, E. J., Stelzl, M., & Lafrance, M. N. (2017). Faking to finish: Women’s accounts of feigning sexual pleasure to end unwanted sex. Sexualities, 20, 281-301. doi.org/10.1177/1363460716649338 Thorisdottir, H., Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., & Shrout, P. E. (2007). Psychological needs and values underlying left-right political orientation: Cross-national evidence from Eastern and Western Europe. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 175-203. doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm008 West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125-151. doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002 Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Pretending orgasm during sexual intercourse: Correlates in a sample of young adult women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 23, 131-139. doi.org/10.1080/00926239708405314 Woo, J. S., Morshedian, N., Brotto, L. A., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2012). Sex guilt mediates the relationship between religiosity and sexual desire in East Asian and Euro-Canadian college- aged women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1485-1495. doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012- 9918-6 Yang, H., Li, R., Zucker, R. A., & Buu, A. (2016). Two‐stage model for time varying effects of zero‐inflated count longitudinal covariates with applications in health behaviour research. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 65, 431-444. doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12123

88

CHAPTER 5

DOES SEXUAL DESIRE FLUCTUATE MORE AMONG WOMEN THAN MEN OVER 7 DAYS?

Chapter 5, the final empirical chapter in this thesis, presents a study on gender differences in sexual desire variability. According to lay and social psychological theories of sexual desire, women’s desire is more likely to change from moment to moment than men’s desire, which is considered more stable over time. In order to test this assumption, I measured men and women’s sexual desire at multiple points throughout the day for a one-week period. I compare men and women’s desire variability and test whether gender moderates the relationship between desire and other state variables to test the assumption that women’s sexual desire is more contextually sensitive than men’s desire. This is a manuscript that was submitted for publication, and has been revised in anticipation of resubmission.

89 Abstract There is a lay assumption that women’s sexual desire varies substantially over time, whereas men’s is stable and high. This assumption is mirrored in female erotic plasticity theory, which posits that women are more variable than men in the extent to which they desire sex, as well as who they choose to have it with. Although the latter assertion has been empirically tested, the former has not. In the present study we draw on 4667 observations of in-the-moment sexual desire (N=255) collected over 7 days. We find no evidence that women’s sexual desire is more variable than men’s, or more strongly impacted by situational, psychological, or sociocultural factors. The data suggest that men’s levels of sexual desire may be as variable and contextually sensitive as women’s. Key words: sexual desire, erotic plasticity, experience sampling, sex differences

90 Does sexual desire fluctuate more among women than men? People of both genders think that men experience stable and high sexual desire, an attribute inherent to ‘maleness’ (Regan & Berscheid, 1995). Women’s sexual desire, on the other hand, is thought to be more variable, and to be more readily influenced by psychological and situational factors. For example, it is assumed that women’s desire may change from moment to moment depending on factors such as how romantic their setting is, or how they feel about their relationship (Regan & Berscheid, 1995). This folk theory around men and women’s day-to-day desire is also reflected in an influential social psychological theory, termed ‘female erotic plasticity’ (Baumeister, 2000). According to erotic plasticity theory, women are more variable than men on three dimensions: sexual attitudes, sexual behavior, and sexual desire. In developing the erotic plasticity hypothesis Baumeister (2000) reviewed research on changes in men and women’s sexual expression over time, focusing on intra-individual change. Baumeister (2000) concluded that: “male desire is depicted here as relatively constant and unchanging, which suggests a powerful role for relatively rigid, innate determinants. Female sexuality, in contrast, is depicted as fairly malleable and mutable: It is responsive to culture, learning, and social circumstances” (p. 347). This conclusion was based on evidence showing that, over time, women are more likely to exhibit substantial changes in sexual attitudes than men (e.g., in terms of how sexually permissive they are), and they are more likely than men to show variation in sexual behavior (e.g., going from regular sexual activity to a sexual “drought”). The evidence also showed that women were more likely than men to shift their sexual attitudes and behaviors in response to changing social circumstances, including relationship status, political climate, and culture. In line with this, sexual desire was also thought to be contextually sensitive, such that “as a woman moves from one situation to another, her sexual desires and behaviors may be subject to change… [whereas] male sexual patterns will remain more stable and constant across time and across different situations” (Baumeister, 2000, p. 348). Baumeister (2000) presented three possible reasons for why women show greater erotic plasticity compared to men. First, men have a higher sex drive compared to women, and due to evolutionary pressures, men’s sex drive may be driven more strongly by biological factors (Baumiester, 2000; Baumeister, Cantanese, & Vohs, 2001). As a result, men’s sexual desire may be less influenced by social circumstances (Leiblum, 2002; Regan & Berscheid, 1995). Second, a patriarchal system in which men have greater power than women may mean that women’s sexual attitudes and behaviors are more likely to be dictated by men, whereas men are able to dictate their own sexuality. Finally, erotic plasticity may be a function of women’s need to switch from ‘no’ to ‘yes’ when considering potential partners. Due to the different reproductive costs for men and 91 women, men have evolved to be open to sexual opportunities, whereas women play the role of the sexual gatekeepers, who are choosy about when they are interested in sex (Baumeister, 2000). However, the theorizing around erotic plasticity was constrained by existing evidence, and at the time it was written the evidence was heavily weighted toward the first two dimensions of sexuality: attitudes and behavior. In contrast, there was no empirical research on the last of the three dimensions: sexual desire.4 In his review, Baumeister (2000) notes: “the measurement of sexual desire … is undoubtedly more difficult than the measurement of behavior or attitudes, and so it has received less study… Given the present state of the evidence, the gender difference in erotic plasticity is far better supported with respect to attitudes and behavior than desire itself” (p. 364). To date, the proposal that women’s sexual desire is more plastic than men’s is yet to be empirically tested. Survey methodology has now progressed to the point where capturing momentary feelings and experiences is more feasible. The aim of the current study is to directly test the erotic plasticity hypothesis as it applies to sexual desire using experience sampling methodology. Experience sampling methodology is a relatively new approach to addressing intra-individual change, and involves subjecting participants to multiple brief surveys each day over multiple days. This methodology is perhaps the best way to test for gender differences in intra-individual variability in sexual desire, since it allows for repeated testing of the same person over time. In terms of previous research looking at desire variability in men and women, it is important to consider work looking at hormonal variability and sexual desire. Although hormonal variability is not a focus of the current study, the degree to which men and women’s hormones vary over time hints at possible gender differences in desire fluctuations. For women, sexual desire has been shown to vary across the menstrual cycle as a function of changing levels of the sex hormones estradiol and progesterone (Roney & Simmons, 2013). In men, desire has been linked with change in testosterone which is sensitive to time of day (Dabbs, 1990; Gupta et al., 2000), as well as contextual factors, such as proximity to attractive potential partners (Roney, Lukaszewski, & Simmons, 2007). While these studies show evidence for variability in desire in both men and women, they have tested men and women separately. Further, the majority of the research on desire and hormones has included women only (e.g. Blake, Bastian, O’Dean, & Denson, 2017; Brown, Calibuso, & Roedl, 2011; Jones et al., 2017; Pillsworth, Haselton, & Buss, 2004; Röder, Brewer, & Fink, 2009; Roney & Simmons, 2013), and as such cannot speak to the current research question of

4 We define sexual desire as a subjective psychological experience whereby a person may have sexual thoughts, fantasies, or urges (distinct from a physiological response to sexual stimuli; Regan & Berscheid, 1995). In other words, sexual desire is conceptualized as a feeling that can ebb and flow throughout the day. 92 whether women are more variable than men. There is one exception: Raisanen and colleagues (2018) measured both men and women’s sexual desire and concurrent hormonal fluctuations over nine months, but did not report data on the overall differences in variability across the genders. Similarly, studies in relationship science have measured men and women’s desire over time, but desire variability is not reported separately for men and women (Birnbaum et al., 2016; Muise, Impett, Kogan, & Desmarais, 2013). The erotic plasticity hypothesis maintains that a core reason for heightened variability in women is that they shift responsively to contextual factors. As highlighted earlier, people assume that women's sexual desire is more responsive than men's to other moods and feelings, such as how romantic they feel (Regan & Berscheid, 1995). Hence, a secondary aim is to test whether there are differences between men and women in the extent to which desire is related to co-occurring affective states. To test this assumption, in each randomly timed survey, participants were asked to report their level of sexual desire, as well as what they were doing, who they were with, how close to their partner they felt (if in a relationship), and how attractive, stressed, alert, and lonely they felt. At the outset of the study, participants also provided information regarding their religiosity and political ideology in order to gauge the effect of socio-cultural factors on sexual desire among men and women. Previous research finds some support for the idea that general affective states have a different impact on desire for men and women. For example, anger has a stronger negative effect on women’s desire relative to men’s in the context of listening to an erotic audiotape (Beck & Bozman, 1995). Further, stress has been shown to decrease women’s, and increase men’s, desire over time (Raisanen et al., 2018). The negative effects of tiredness and loneliness on sexual desire have been discussed in clinical and theoretical work (e.g., Basson et al., 2004; Hertlein, 2015; Levine, 2003; Regan & Berscheid, 1995), but many of these studies focus only on women, and to our knowledge, there has been no systematic test of whether men’s desire is similarly impacted by tiredness or loneliness. Hence, the assumption that men’s desire is innate and relatively immune to changing contexts, whereas women’s desire is contextually sensitive, is yet to be well tested. While gender differences in the relational nature of sexuality was not a major focus of erotic plasticity theory, there is evidence to suggest that women’s desire is more closely linked to emotional intimacy compared to men’s desire, which is more likely to be related to sexual attraction and physical wanting. For example, women’s sexual fantasies typically involve affection and elements of romanticism, whereas men’s sexual fantasies focus more on ‘explicit sexual acts, nude bodies, and physical gratification’ (Leitenberg & Henning, 1995). Similarly, when men and women are asked to define sexual desire, women typically describe desire in relational terms, whereas men 93 are more likely to emphasize physical aspects of desire (Regan & Bersheid, 1995). So, at least at an abstract level, desire appears to be more relational for women compared to men. It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that women’s desire may be more sensitive to relationship functioning compared to men’s desire. However, research assessing feelings of desire in heterosexual couples finds mixed evidence for this assumption. Indeed, studies have found that feeling motivated to meet your partner’s sexual needs and relationship intimacy are equally important predictors of men and women’s desire (Muise, Impett, Kogan, & Desmarais, 2013; Rubin & Campbell, 2012). Similarly, a daily diary study showed that partner responsiveness, perceived partner mate value, and having a sense of feeling special were equally important predictors of desire in men and women (Birnbaum et al., 2016). In contrast to these findings, Birnbaum and colleagues (2016) found in two experimental studies that when women interacted with a responsive partner, they reported greater sexual desire than when they interacted with a non-responsive partner. Men’s desire, however, remained the same regardless of partner responsiveness. In addition, Impett and colleagues (2008) found that the positive association between approach relationship goals and daily sexual desire was larger for women than men. Overall, there is no clear evidence that women’s desire is more sensitive to relationship factors than men’s. Further, we are aware of no research assessing meta-perceptions about how our partner feels about us and the relationship, and how this may relate to desire for men and women. We seek to test three hypotheses regarding gender differences in sexual desire variability, consistent with erotic plasticity theory. First, it is expected that: “the average man’s desires should remain more stable and constant than the average woman’s” (Baumeister, 2000, p. 348). Second, women’s sexual desire is expected to be more responsive to their social context: “as a woman moves from one situation to another, her sexual desires and behaviors may be subject to change… [whereas] male sexual patterns will remain more stable and constant across time and across different situations” (Baumeister, 2000, p. 348). Third, in regards to sexual attitudes and behavior, it is expected that “sociocultural variables will have bigger effect sizes in predicting responses of women than men” (Baumeister, 2000, p 348). In this study, we extend this assumption to include sexual desire. Hypothesis 1: Women will show greater variability in feelings of sexual desire over time compared to men. Hypothesis 2: Compared to men, women’s sexual desire will be more strongly impacted by their immediate psychological state (i.e., how attractive, close to their partner, lonely, stressed, and alert they feel), and situational factors (i.e., what they are doing and who they are with). 94 Hypothesis 3: The effect of sociocultural factors (specifically religiosity and political ideology) on sexual desire will be moderated by gender, such that women’s sexual desire will be more strongly impacted by sociocultural factors compared to men. In order to address these research questions, we will measure momentary sexual desire over the course of a week, as well as other immediate psychological states, contextual factors, and traits including political ideology and religiosity. Method Participants

The final sample comprised 95 men and 160 women (N = 255; Mage = 31.76, SDage = 10.45), ranging in age from 18 to 64 years. Missing data In total, 472 people clicked the link to our online pre-survey and entered a personal identifier, and 361 people downloaded the mobile app and entered a personal identifier. Of those, 258 people entered matching personal identifiers in the pre-survey and app survey. Three people were excluded because they identified their gender as ‘other’, and hence could not be analyzed as a group due to their small number. The majority of participants were in a relationship (73%) with an average relationship length of 6.41 years (SD = 7.31). The sample was predominantly White/Caucasian (88%), with 8% Asian, 1% Hispanic, and 3% ‘Other’. Procedure Participants were invited to participate via a number of online channels, including news websites and university advertising. Participants were directed to the study webpage that included a link to a pre-survey, and the following study description: “Sexual desire fluctuates across the course of a day, and this fluctuation may be different for different people. The purpose of this research is to investigate environmental and psychological factors that may influence sexual desire.” After completing the pre-survey, participants were asked to download the study app to their smartphone. We used the LifeData app that was developed specifically for the use of researchers conducted experience sampling studies. The app delivered 4 randomly timed surveys each day for 7 days. Participants completed a total of 4,667 daily surveys. On average, each participant completed 18.3 surveys (SD = 6.77) of a possible 24-28 (participants who signed up after the last notification on any given day received notifications for the remaining 6 days). Importantly, the average number of responses per person was similar for men and women (Mmen = 18.55; Mwomen = 18.16). Survey prompts were scheduled from 8am to 9pm on weekdays and 10am to 8pm on weekends. Participants were instructed to “complete the surveys as soon as you receive them, or as soon as possible.” As is typical in experience sampling methodology, surveys had to be completed within 2 hours of receipt of the prompt, and survey prompts were separated by at least 2 hours (as 95 per Hofmann, Baumeister, Förster, & Vohs, 2012). The incentive to complete the study was non- monetary; upon completion of the study participants had the option to view a personalized summary of results. Measures Pre-survey. Prior to participating in the main experience sampling study, participants reported their demographics, political orientation, and religiosity in the pre-survey.5 We also measured retrospective accounts of the frequency and level of desire, using items adapted from the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI; Rosen et al., 2000) and the International Index of Erectile Function (Rosen et al., 1997): “Over the past 4 weeks, how often did you feel sexual desire or interest?” (1 = almost never or never to 5 = almost always or always) and “Over the past 4 weeks, how would you rate your level (degree) of sexual desire or interest?” (1 = very low or none at all to 5 = very high). We compared the scores in our sample to averages reported in previous studies that have used the same scale items and scale end-points. Women in our sample reported slightly lower average desire frequency (M = 3.18, SD = 0.91) and level (M = 3.15, SD = 0.94) compared to the averages reported by Rosen and colleagues (2000; Mfreq = 3.4; Mlevel = 3.5) and Wiegel, Meston, and

Rosen (2005; Mfreq = 3.54, Mlevel = 3.59). For men, we found that the average sum of the two items

(Msum = 7.32, SDsum = 1.48) was slightly higher compared to that reported by Rosen and colleagues

(1997; Msum = 7.0), who used the same scale items and end-scales. Religiosity was measured using a single item “How religious are you?” (1 = Not at all religious, 5 = Strongly religious; M = 1.64, SD = 1.04). Political ideology was measured using a single item: “In political matters, people sometimes talk about the left and the right. Where would you place yourself on this scale, generally speaking?” (1 = Left, 9 = Right; M = 3.33, SD = 1.62). The sample is therefore predominantly left-leaning politically (skew = .69, skew std. error = .1), and low in religiosity (skew = 1.63, skew std. error = .07). Experience Sampling. Momentary sexual desire was measured using two items: “How much do you feel like having sex at this moment?” and “How would you rate your current level of sexual desire or interest?” The second item was adapted from the FSFI (Rosen et al., 2000). These items were highly correlated, so were combined to form a scale of sexual desire (r = .88, p < .001). When analyzed separately for men and women, the correlation between the two items was very similar (rmen = .89., p < .001; rwomen = .86, p < .001). Five items measured other momentary moods:

5 We report variables from the pre-survey relevant to the present paper only, but for a full list of measures please see the Supplemental Material at the end of this chapter, after the references. We included the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability 11-item short form (Reynolds, 1982), however, since our conclusions remained unchanged after controlling for social desirability we excluded it from final analyses. 96 “How lonely do you feel?”, “How tired/alert do you feel?”, “How stressed do you feel?”, “How attractive do you feel?”, and “How emotionally close to your partner do you feel?” (participants not in a relationship were asked to skip this question). Scales ranged from 0-100. Two items measured situational factors: “What are you doing right now?” (response options were: ‘Working’, ‘Socializing’, ‘Eating’, ‘Exercizing’, ‘Watching TV/Reading’, ‘Procrastinating’, ‘Preparing food’, ‘Pray/worship/meditate’, ‘Taking care of children’, ‘Home computer’, ‘Commuting’, ‘Sexual activity’, ‘Shopping’, and ‘Housework’) and “Who are you with?” (response options were: ‘Friends’, ‘Relatives’, ‘Spouse/partner’, ‘Children’, ‘Clients/customers’, ‘Co-workers’, ‘Boss’, ‘Strangers’, and ‘Alone’).6 Items were presented in random order. Results Survey responses at each time point (Level 1; N = 4667) are nested within person (Level 2; N = 255). We conducted mixed-effects/multi-level analyses to test associations between predictor variables and sexual desire in order to control for person-level clustering. Statistical power in multilevel models is most strongly influenced by the sample size at the highest level (Snijders, 2005). Sample size simulations have shown that a sample greater than 50 at the highest level produces reliable estimates of the coefficients, variances, and standard errors in two-level models

(Maas & Hox, 2005). The intra-class correlation (ρICC = .42) shows that within-person variation was substantial, accounting for 58% of the total variance in sexual desire. It is interesting to note that the intra-class correlations for men and women, when calculated separately, were identical, ρICC = .40. In the following analyses, men were coded as 0 and women were coded as 1. Desire, desire variability, and gender. Mean sexual desire across the 4667 data points was 46.13, SD = 27.56. Consistent with Baumeister et al. (2001) we found a significant effect of gender on overall desire (β = -.36, SE = .08, p < .001), such that men reported higher levels of sexual desire (M = 53.12, SD = 28.29) than did women (M = 41.89, SD = 29.00). To test Hypothesis 1 – that women have more variable levels of sexual desire compared to men – we conducted a single-level linear regression with gender as the predictor and standard deviations in sexual desire as the outcome. As can be seen in Figure 1, Hypothesis 1 was not supported: men and women showed statistically equivalent levels of variability in sexual desire over time (β = .11, SE = .13, p = .384, 95% CI = [-.143, .369]). We also tested the effect of gender on relative standard deviation in sexual desire, which accounts for the effect of the size of the different means on estimates of variability, and the results were unchanged (see Mestdagh et al, 2018, for a detailed description of this method).

6 We included a of alcohol ingestion as a control variable: “Have had any you alcohol?” (‘No’/’Yes’). However, since our conclusions remained unchanged after controlling for alcohol ingestion we excluded it from final analyses. 97 There was a marginal interaction between sex and age on sexual desire variability (β = -.23, SE = .13, p = .074, 95% CI = [-.477, .221]). However, simple slopes calculated at 10-year intervals from age 18 (the youngest age of our participants) to age 58 show no significant gender differences in sexual desire variability (ps > .100). Thus, we find no evidence that age moderates the effect of gender on sexual desire variability.

98

100

75

Mean Desire 50 Mean Desire Variability

25

0 Male Female

Figure 1. Sexual desire and desire variability. The dark grey bars represent mean sexual desire across the week for men and women. The light grey bars represent mean standard deviation in sexual desire, which is used as an index of variability. Error bars represent +/- 1 SD.

We tested the moderating effects of relationship length and relationship status on the relationship between gender and desire variability. We found no interaction between gender and relationship status (p = .950). We found a significant interaction between relationship length and gender predicting desire variability (β = .40, p = .031, 95% CI = [.037, .754]). Simple slopes calculated at +1SD for relationship length showed no effect of gender on desire variability (p = .210). Simple slopes calculated at -1SD for relationship length showed a marginal effect of gender on desire variability, such that men are slightly higher in desire variability compared to women (b = -.47, p = .078, CI = [-.984, .054]). Interestingly, sexual desire was one of the few momentary states for which we did not see gender differences in variability: moment to moment, women were more variable than men in how attractive they felt (β = .55, SE = .13, p < .001, 95% CI = [.301, .796]), how close they felt to their partner (β = .42, SE = .15, p = .006, 95% CI = [.121, .724]), how stressed (β = .48, SE = .13, p < .001, 95% CI = [.227, .725]), and how alert they felt (β = .26, SE = .13, p = .050, 95% CI = [.001, .510]). 99 Immediate psychological states, situational factors, and sexual desire. To test Hypothesis 2 – that women’s sexual desire will be more strongly associated with immediate psychological states and situational factors compared to men – we conducted a series of univariate mixed-effects models (with random intercepts and slopes) predicting current desire as a function of feelings of attractiveness, loneliness, stress, alertness, and partner closeness. Continuous predictor variables were standardized and group-mean centered. Univariate mixed-effects analyses revealed significant relationships between desire and all five immediate psychological states. Feeling attractive was the strongest predictor of sexual desire (β = .25, SE = .02), followed by feeling close to one’s partner (β = .21, SE =.02), feeling stressed (β = -.19, SE = .02), feeling alert (β = .14, SE = .02), and feeling lonely (a negative relationship; β = - .10, SE = .02), all ps < .001. Importantly, gender did not significantly moderate any of these relationships (see Figure 2). The interaction between gender and attractiveness was marginally significant (β = -.07, SE = .03, p = .056), such that there was a slightly stronger association between feeling attractive and feeling sexual desire for men relative to women. The interactions between gender and closeness to one’s partner, stress, alertness, and loneliness did not approach significance, ps > .364. We then tested the relationship between situational factors and sexual desire; specifically, who the participant was with, and what the participant was doing. Responses to “Who are you with?” were dummy coded eight times, such that ‘Alone’ was always equal to 0, and the remaining response options were coded as 1. We chose ‘Alone’ as the comparison variable since it was the most commonly reported situation. Being alone was associated with significantly lower desire compared to being with a spouse/partner (β = .22, SE = .03, p < .001), and significantly higher desire compared to being with relatives (β = -.32, SE = .05, p < .001), co-workers (β = -.18, SE = .03, p < .001), or a boss (β = -.42, SE = .18, p = .016). Being alone was associated with marginally higher sexual desire compared to being with children (β = -.14, SE = .07, p = .056), clients/customers (β = -.22, SE = .12, p = .075), or strangers (β = -.11, SE = .07, p = .089). There was no difference in sexual desire when alone versus with friends (β = -.05, SE = .04, p = .310). Of most relevance to the current research question, gender did not significantly moderate any of these relationships (ps > .390), a finding that is inconsistent with Hypothesis 2. Responses to “What are you doing right now?” were dummy coded 13 times, such that ‘Working’ was always coded as 0 and the remaining response options were coded as 1. Again, we chose ‘Working’ as the comparison variable because it was the most commonly reported situation. Working was associated with significantly lower levels of sexual desire compared to socializing (β = .18, SE = .04, p < .001), eating (β = .10, SE = .04, p = .040), exercizing (β = .32, SE = .08, p < .001), watching TV/reading (β = .21, SE = .04, p < .001), procrastinating (β = .18, SE = .05, p < 100 .001), preparing food (β = .23, SE = .07, p < .001), using the home computer (β = .27, SE = .06, p < .001), commuting (β = .11, SE = .05, p = .021), and engaging in sexual activity (β = 1.39, SE = .09, p < .001). Working was associated with marginally less sexual desire compared to praying/worshipping/meditating (β = .27, SE = .16, p = .088), and doing housework (β = .11, SE = .06, p = .050). There were no differences in sexual desire when working versus taking care of children (β = -.01, SE = .10, p = .907) or shopping (β = .12, SE = .08, p = .120). Again, gender did not significantly moderate these relationships. Two marginally significant moderation effects emerged for exercizing (β = -.29, SE = .15, p = .060) and procrastinating (β = - .18, SE = .10, p = .071). Inspection of the simple slopes suggested that the positive effect of

101 e

e 1 1

r r

i i

s s

e e D

D Female Female

l

l 0 0 a

a Male Male

u u

x x

e e S S −1 −1

−1 0 1 −1 0 1

Attractive Close to Partner e

e 1 1

r r

i i

s s

e e D

D Female Female

l

l 0 0 a

a Male Male

u u

x x

e e S S −1 −1

−1 0 1 −1 0 1

Stress Alert e

e 1 1

r r

i i

s s

e e D

D Female Female

l

l 0 0 a

a Male Male

u u

x x

e e S S −1 −1

−1 0 1 −1 0 1 Lonely Political Ideology (left to right)

e 1

r

i

s e

D Female

l 0

a Male

u

x e

S −1

−1 0 1 Religiosity

Figure 2. Psychological and sociocultural factors associated with sexual desire. Plots 1-5 show the relationship between immediate psychological states and sexual desire as a function of gender. Plots 6 and 7 show the relationship between sociocultural factors and sexual desire as a function of gender.

102 exercizing on desire was slightly larger for men (β = .50, SE = .12, p < .001) compared to women (β = .21, SE = .09, p = .060). Similarly, the positive effect of procrastinating on desire was slightly larger for men (β = .30, SE = .08, p < .001) compared to women (β = .12, SE = .09, p = .026). All remaining moderation effects did not approach significance (ps > .142). As such, we did not find support for Hypothesis 2. Socio-cultural factors and desire. To test Hypothesis 3 – that women’s sexual desire will be more strongly related to socio-cultural factors compared to men – we tested the relationship between religiosity, political ideology, and levels of sexual desire. We found no support for Hypothesis 3. Specifically, there was no relationship between religiosity and sexual desire (β = -.05, SE = .05, p = .250), and no interaction with gender (β = .01, SE = .09, p = .945). Similarly, we found no relationship between political orientation and sexual desire (β = .04, SE = .04, p = .396), and no interaction with gender (β = -.01, SE = .08, p = .900). These results are illustrated in Figure 2. Discussion The present study sought to test three hypotheses: 1) women will show more short-term variability in sexual desire compared to men, 2) women’s desire will be more strongly associated with immediate psychological states and situational factors compared to men, and 3) women’s desire will be more strongly associated with sociocultural variables than it will be for men. In order to address Hypothesis 1, we analyzed data from multiple momentary reports of sexual desire each day for 7 days and found no gender differences in variability of sexual desire. Hence, we found no support for Hypothesis 1. In order to test Hypothesis 2, we examined the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between five psychological states and sexual desire. The strongest predictors of sexual desire were feelings of attractiveness, followed by closeness to one’s partner, stress, alertness, and loneliness. Crucially, we found no evidence that women’s sexual desire was better predicted by these immediate psychological states than men’s. We also tested the effect of two situational factors (‘What are you doing?’ and ‘Who are you with?’) on in- the-moment sexual desire. We found that situational factors can influence sexual desire, but again, these effects are the same for men and women. Hence, we found no support for Hypothesis 2. We also found no support for Hypothesis 3: neither political ideology nor religiosity significantly predicted sexual desire, and again, these relationships were not moderated by gender (however, note that our sample was predominantly politically liberal and low in religiosity, so our test of Hypothesis 3 was hampered by our restricted sample). These findings qualify existing theories of male and female desire variability. Overall, it appears that men and women are very similar in the extent to which they vary in sexual desire throughout the day. They are also similar in the extent to which immediate psychological and 103 contextual factors predict desire. The strongest predictors of sexual desire for both men and women were feelings of partner closeness and feeling attractive. Furthermore, gender did not moderate the effects of contextual factors such as who someone is with and what they are doing, or social psychological factors, such as religiosity and political ideology on sexual desire. These findings challenge common assumptions that women’s desire is sensitive and fluctuating, whereas men’s desire is rigid and innate (Baumeister, 2000; Regan & Berscheid, 1995). As such, men’s desire may be more sensitive to social factors than previously theorized. Gendered assumptions about the variability of sexual desire can impact how we navigate sexual relationships. For example, if a woman is under the assumption that her male partner has a consistently high sex drive, his disinterest in sex is likely to be attributed to external factors, such as her desirability, rather than internal factors, such as his naturally fluctuating sex drive. As such, acknowledging that desire changes in both men and women may diminish negative feelings in response to a partner’s sexual disinterest. There are two reasons to believe that our null results are not an artefact of insensitive tests of variability or a lack of power. First, across over 4,000 time points, we found that women are more variable compared to men in almost all other psychological states other than sexual desire, including feeling attractive, stressed, alert, and close to their partner. Second, inspection of Figures 1 and 2 show that none of the effects trend in favor of the hypotheses, and to the extent that effects approached significance it was in the opposite direction to that predicted. As such, it seems implausible that a larger sample size would have changed the interpretation of the results. Gender differences in sexual desire variability may be masked if women in our sample were unusually high in desire, and/or men were unusually low, since one of the explanations for female erotic plasticity is that men’s relatively strong sex drive overrides immediate situational and psychological forces. However, when we compare baseline levels of desire in our sample with previous studies, we find the opposite: women in our sample are slightly lower and men are slightly higher in sexual desire relative to other samples. If anything, this should make it somewhat easier to find evidence in support of the predictions. Furthermore, we find no gender difference in sexual desire variability when testing relative variability, which accounts for differences in mean levels of desire. Since the present study was the first to measure sexual desire throughout the day, the question as to whether sexual desire does indeed vary throughout the day is a natural one – is sexual desire largely confined to the bedroom, or do we feel desire at work, in the car, after breakfast? Our data provide support for the latter case – variability in sexual desire was relatively large and similar to the variability in other states, such as tiredness and stress. It is possible that participants were responding according to demand characteristics of the study, hence we controlled for social 104 desirability and found that the results remained unchanged. An additional possibility is that desire levels were inflated by virtue of completing the daily surveys –that is, being asked to introspect on one’s desire may cause an increase in desire. While we think this is certainly a possibility, we do not believe this would affect our conclusions, as we did not find ceiling effects of desire, and we were interested in gender differences in variability in desire, rather than baseline levels of desire. One of the difficulties we faced in the current study was how to measure sexual desire. Technical definitions of desire typically describe desire and arousal as distinct but overlapping constructs, where desire is primarily psychological and arousal is primarily physiological. However, qualitative research has shown that lay definitions of desire are not necessarily consistent with technical definitions (Mitchell, Wellings, & Graham, 2014). In interviews, people express difficulty defining sexual desire, and there is no clear consensus as to whether sexual desire is psychological, physiological, or both (Brotto, Heiman, & Tolman, 2009; Graham, Sanders, Milhausen, & McBride, 2004; Mitchell, Wellings, & Graham, 2014). It is an open question with regards to how each of our participants interpreted sexual desire – where some may have interpreted the questions literally (e.g. ‘I don’t want to have sex right now, I’m at work’) or more abstractly (‘I wish I could have sex right now rather than being in this meeting’), and these interpretations may have changed throughout the course of the study. One limitation of experience sampling studies is that participant time is at a premium. As such, we were limited in the number of words we could use to measure participants’ desire. We therefore tried to measure desire clearly and concisely, which may have led to a wider range of interpretations of our questions. However, given the high correlation between the two measures of desire used in the study, the interpretation of each of these items, at least, appear to be consistent. Experience sampling methodology is not equipped to measure changes in desire over years or decades; hence our observations and conclusions are based on short- to medium-term variability in desire. It is possible that over the period of one month or more, gender differences may emerge. For women, sexual desire appears to change as a function of hormonal cycling (Blake, Bastian, O’Dean, & Denson, 2017; Jones et al., 2017; Pillsworth, Haselton, & Buss, 2004). However, studies focusing on the effects of hormones on sexual desire have not collected data on men, meaning that they are not equipped to ascertain whether there are gender differences in desire variability. We invite future research to test men and women’s sexual desire over one month in order to empirically test the implicit assumption that women’s sexual desire varies more than men’s due to hormonal factors. Finally, it is important to note that the current study cannot speak to erotic plasticity in terms of sexual attitudes or behavior. In the original review paper, Baumeister (2000) canvassed a broad range of research looking at gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors, and provided 105 convincing support for greater erotic plasticity in women on those dimensions. However, the current study does speak to the assumption – made by both the author of the erotic plasticity hypothesis and by ordinary community members (Regan & Berscheid, 1995) – that the principle of female erotic plasticity can be extrapolated also to sexual desire. In the first test of this hypothesis, we find no evidence for it. The notion that women show more short-term variability in their sexual desire may be widely held within and outside academia, but our data pose questions as to whether this assumption is grounded in reality.

106 References Bancroft, J., & Graham, C. A. (2011). The varied nature of women's sexuality: Unresolved issues and a theoretical approach. Hormones and Behavior, 59, 717-729. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.01.005 Basson, R., Althof, S., Davis, S., Fugl-Meyer, K., Goldstein, I., Leiblum, S., . . . Wagner, G. (2004). Summary of the recommendations on sexual dysfunctions in women. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 1, 24-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2004.10105.x Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347-374. doi: 10.1037/0033- 2909.126.3.347 Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242-273. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_5 Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mizrahi, M., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Sass, O., & Granovski-Milner, C. (2016). Intimately connected: The importance of partner responsiveness for experiencing sexual desire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 530-546. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000069. Blake, K. R., Bastian, B., O’Dean, S. M., & Denson, T. F. (2017). High estradiol and low progesterone are associated with high assertiveness in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 75, 91-99. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2016.10.008 Brotto, L. A., Heiman, J. R., & Tolman, D. L. (2009). Narratives of desire in mid-age women with and without arousal difficulties. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 387-398. doi: 10.1080/00224490902792624 Graham, C. A., Sanders, S. A., Milhausen, R. R., & McBride, K. R. (2004). Turning on and turning off: A focus group study of the factors that affect women's sexual arousal. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 527-538. doi: 10.1023/B:ASEB.0000044737.62561.fd Hertlein, K. M. (2015). Systemic sex therapy (2nd Ed). Florence, KY: Taylor and Francis. Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Everyday temptations: An experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1318-1335. doi: 10.1037/a0026545 Jones, B. C., Hahn, A. C., Fisher, C. I., Wang, H., Kandrik, M., & DeBruine, L. M. (2018). General sexual desire, but not desire for uncommitted sexual relationships, tracks changes in women’s hormonal status. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 88, 153-157. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.12.015 107 Leiblum, S. R. (2002). Reconsidering gender differences in sexual desire: An update. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 17, 57-68. doi: 1.1080/14681990220108027 Levine, S. B. (2003). The nature of sexual desire: A clinician's perspective. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 279-285. doi: 10.1023/A:1023421819465 Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1, 86–92. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86 Meana, M. (2010). Elucidating women's (hetero) sexual desire: Definitional challenges and content expansion. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 104-122. doi: 10.1080/00224490903402546 Mestdagh, M., Pe, M., & Pestman, W., Verdonck, S., Kuppens, P., & Tuerlinckx, F (2018). The relative variability index as a generic mean-corrected variability measure for bounded variables. Psychological Methods. doi: 10.1037/met0000153 McCabe, M. P., & Goldhammer, D. L. (2012). Demographic and psychological factors related to sexual desire among heterosexual women in a relationship. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 78- 87. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2011.569975 Mitchell, K. R., Wellings, K. A., & Graham, C. (2014). How do men and women define sexual desire and sexual arousal? Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40, 17-32. doi: 10.1080/0092623X.2012.697536 Pillsworth, E. G., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2004). Ovulatory shifts in female sexual desire. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 55-65. doi: 10.1080/00224490409552213 Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1995). Gender differences in beliefs about the causes of male and female sexual desire. Personal Relationships, 2, 345-358. doi: 10.1111/j.1475- 6811.1995.tb00097.x Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe‐Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119-125. doi: 10.1002/1097- 4679 Rosen, C. B., J. Heiman, S. Leiblum, C. Meston, R. Shabsigh, D. Ferguson, R., & D'Agostino, R. (2000). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 26, 191-208. doi: 10.1080/009262300278597 Rosen, R. C., Riley, A., Wagner, G., Osterloh, I. H., Kirkpatrick, J., & Mishra, A. (1997). The international index of erectile function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology, 49, 822-830. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00238-0 Seal, B. N., Bradford, A., & Meston, C. M. (2009). The association between body esteem and sexual desire among college women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 866-872. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9467-1 108 Snijders, T. A. B. (2005). Power and sample size in multilevel modeling. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, 3, 1570–1573. doi: 10.1002/0470013192.bsa492 Wiegel, M., Meston, C., & Rosen, R. (2005). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): Cross- validation and development of clinical cutoff scores. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 31, 1-2. doi: 10.1080/00926230590475206

109 Supplemental Material

Measures included in Pre-survey

• Demographics: gender, age, race, height, weight, political orientation, religious affiliation, religiosity, sexual orientation, relationship status, relationship length, use of contraceptive pill (women), no. of lifetime sexual partners, number of children • Relationship and sexual satisfaction • Femininity and masculinity • Female Sexual Function Index/International Index of Erectile Function desire subscales • Perceived relative sexual desire • Ten Item Personality Inventory • Contingencies of self-worth, appearance and other’s approval subscales • Social Dominance Orientation • Ambivalent Sexism Inventory • Social Desirability

110 CHAPTER 6

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The study of sex has typically been divided into two levels of analysis. Sex researchers and clinicians tend to take a fine-grained, bottom-up approach to studying sex, one that focuses on specific sexual behaviors and problems. Social scientists, in contrast, tend to take a more abstract, top-down approach, with a focus on how social and environmental factors shape sexual attitudes and sexual satisfaction. The present thesis sought to connect these two approaches by investigating how distal psychological factors predict specific sexual behaviors and feelings. In the previous chapters, I presented three studies testing how ideology relates to sexual behavior. Specifically, I tested whether political ideology, religiosity, and gender ideology play a role in predicting variation in sexual behavior. I focused on three kinds of sexual experience: orgasm, faking orgasm, and sexual desire. I consistently found no relationship between sexual behavior and either religiosity or political ideology. In contrast, gender ideology was a reliable predictor of sexual behavior across my three studies. In Chapter 1, I claimed that, when it comes to the links between ideology and orgasm, faking orgasm, and sexual desire, ‘it’s all about gender’. Below, I briefly discuss my findings and point to how they support this claim. Summary of findings In Chapter 3, I tested the relationship between gender ideology and orgasm frequency among heterosexual women. I found that gender ideology - specifically benevolently sexist worldviews - were indirectly associated with a decrease in orgasm frequency via two mediating factors. Women who were higher in benevolent sexism were more likely to believe that men are selfish in bed, and were therefore less likely to ask for sexual pleasure, leading to fewer orgasms. The association between benevolent sexism and the belief that men are selfish in bed was robust across three independent studies reported in this thesis – including two studies reported in Chapter 3, and the study of faking orgasm reported in Chapter 4 (see Table 2 for intercorrelations). The link between traditional gender views and the belief that men are selfish in bed is not necessarily intuitive. According to a benevolently sexist worldview, a ‘good man’ should look after and care for his female partner, and could be likened to a ‘prince charming’ archetype. So, why would a “prince charming” be selfish in bed? The answer lies in the complementary roles that men and women take on according to a benevolently sexist worldview. Where women should be demure, men should be carnal. As such, men may fulfill their role as provider and protector in public and home settings, but in the bedroom, men are expected to be sexually ravenous, and 111 relatively uninterested in a woman’s sexual pleasure. This is an intriguing extrapolation of benevolent sexism. The findings from this thesis show that benevolent sexism is not only associated with restrictive beliefs about women’s sexuality, but it is also associated with restrictive assumptions about men’s sexuality. In Chapter 4, I discuss how gender ideology may relate to women’s likelihood of faking orgasm. Specifically, I tested the effect of benevolent sexism on women’s willingness to fake orgasm. If women who endorse traditional gender views assume that men do not care about women’s sexual pleasure, will they be less likely to fake their orgasms? Alternatively, may these women be particularly motivated to fake their orgasm in order to please their partners, and fulfill their role as intimacy-providers? I found support for the former hypothesis. Women high in benevolent sexism faked fewer orgasms over their lifetime (controlling for hostile sexism). Again, I find support for the idea that a benevolently sexist worldview is associated with a resignation to female passivity in the bedroom. Women high in benevolent sexism may consider their own orgasm unimportant, or at least a low priority. As such, they may not be motivated to have an orgasm, or fake their orgasm. An additional possibility is that women who endorse benevolent sexism prioritize their composure. As such, they are less likely to ask for pleasure or fake their orgasm because they wish to appear in control – ‘refined’, ‘pure’, and ‘moral’ (Glick & Fiske, 1999). In addition, I found that women high in hostile sexism faked their orgasms more frequently over their lifetimes. Interpreted another way, women who were more supportive of feminist values were less likely to fake their orgasm overall. These findings are consistent with feminist theorizing and qualitative work showing that women who endorse feminist values resist faking orgasm as a way of reclaiming their right to orgasm, and not orgasm, during sex (Lafrance et al., 2017). More broadly, these findings are consistent with the idea, proposed by both social and evolutionary theorists, that women’s sexuality is socially determined (Baumeister 2000; Fahs, 2011). Our ideologies reflect the norms and values that we have internalized from our environment, and so the link between women’s ideology and sexuality can be understood in terms of socialization. Baumester (2000) proposed that there may be a gender difference in the extent to which men and women’s sexuality is impacted by social factors. According to female erotic plasticity theory, women’s sexuality is more likely to shift in response to social and cultural changes compared to men’s sexuality, across three dimensions: sexual attitudes, behavior, and desire (Baumeister, 2000). This is one of the first and most coherent theories of gender differences in intra-individual changes in sexuality over time. Feminist scholarship may not explicitly argue for gender differences in the variability of sexuality, but it is implied by arguments that women’s sexuality is particularly likely to be molded by societal pressures because women have less social power compared to men (Fahs, 112 2011). Findings from Chapters 3 and 4 show that women’s sexuality - namely their experience of orgasm and faking orgasm - is related directly and indirectly to their social values. However, since these studies exclusively sampled women, they cannot speak to the question of whether there are gender differences in erotic plasticity. In Chapter 5, I presented a study aimed at directly testing the assumption that women’s sexual desire is more culturally sensitive than men’s. In order to assess variation in sexual desire as a function of social factors, I measured men and women’s sexual desire over the course of a week. In contrast to my hypotheses I found no evidence for female erotic plasticity as it applies to sexual desire. Men and women’s sexual desire was equally variable over time, and mood and contextual factors were equally predictive of men and women’s desire. Thus, while women’s desire was flexible, and varied as a function of their environment, so did men’s desire. As such, previous work may be correct in assuming that women’s sexuality changes as a function of their social environment, but it may underestimate the extent to which men’s sexual desire is also socially determined. Having briefly summarized my studies, I now move on to outline the implications of my findings for clinical, relationship, evolutionary, and social perspectives on sex. Theoretical implications, practical implications, and future directions Clinical perspectives My findings may be relevant to clinical researchers and practitioners interested in identifying core values that contribute to sexual problems. Recently, researchers have investigated the role of cognitive schemas in the development and maintenance of sexual dysfunction (Nobre & Pinto-Goeveia, 2007; Sbrocco & Barlow, 1996). Findings suggest that “individuals with sexual dysfunction have a set of sexual beliefs that are usually unrealistic and inaccurate and assume a rigid and inflexible character” (Nobre & Pinto-Goeveia, 2007, p. 842). The findings reported in Chapters 3 and 4 suggest that rigid gender beliefs may also have negative consequences for sexual wellbeing. For example, women who endorse traditional gender roles may have difficulty receiving sexual pleasure, because they believe that women’s sexual pleasure is not as important as men’s pleasure. As such, clinicians may consider folding in a discussion of gender ideology, in addition to other core values and schemas, to identify factors that may be contributing to sexual problems. However, future research is needed using clinical and non-clinical samples to examine the extent to which gender ideology may be contributing to clinical sexual dysfunction. Gender ideology may also be implicated in the likelihood that a woman would seek treatment for sexual dysfunction. If women who adopt a traditional gender ideology perceive their partner to be sexually selfish, and are less willing to talk to their partner about their sexual pleasure, they may also be less likely to seek treatment for sexual problems. An additional possibility is that sexual pleasure may not be as valued by women high in benevolent sexism, and so while they may 113 have lower sexual functioning, they may be less likely to experience related distress (which is required for a clinical diagnosis of dysfunction; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Thus, while women who endorse benevolent sexism may have lower sexual functioning, they may also be less likely to be distressed by an absence of orgasm or desire. In order to test this research question, future research could assess women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism, how it relates to their sexual functioning, and the likelihood of associated distress. Relationship science My findings add to an existing literature in relationship science on how gender ideology predicts relationship outcomes for men and women (for a review, see Overall & Hammond, 2018). A program of research headed by Nikola Overall and Matthew Hammond has highlighted the benefits of a benevolently sexist ideology for men’s relationship outcomes (through greater intimacy), and the negative consequences for women’s relationship happiness (through a lowered sense of positive regard in the relationship). The studies presented in Chapters 3 and 4 show that the negative consequences of benevolent sexism for women in relationships might extend to the sexual domain. While I only measured one half of the heterosexual couple (i.e. women), I showed that women high in benevolent sexism perceived men to be sexually selfish. Further, previous research has shown that men high in benevolent sexism are more likely to believe that they have the right to demand sex from their wives (Durán, Moya, & Megías, 2011). These findings create a general picture of how benevolent sexism may negatively impact women’s sexual pleasure, while serving men’s sexual pleasure, mirroring the effects of benevolent sexism on broader relationship outcomes for men and women found by Hammond and Overall (2015). With regards to men’s sexual satisfaction, it is unclear how men high in benevolent sexism may differ compared to men low in benevolent sexism according to ambivalent sexism theory. Men high in benevolent sexism may be selfish in bed, and they may experience more sexual pleasure compared to their female partners, but they may also feel pressure to be sexually ravenous. Findings from Chapter 5 show that men’s sexual desire, like women’s, fluctuates as a function of their mood and environment, and so it is unlikely that men are consistently sexually ravenous. Hence, a mismatch between expectations and reality with regards to men’s sex drives may result in lower sexual wellbeing for men high in benevolent sexism. Future research is needed to test the degree to which men high in benevolent sexism are more likely to be sexually satisfied compared to men low in benevolent sexism. Another future direction would be to examine how ideologies change over the course of a relationship. Theories of how ideologies develop, including political orientation, religiosity, and gender ideology, tend to emphasize the role of parents, peers, and society in shaping ideological positions at a young age (Bandura, 1969; Sears & Valentino, 1997). However, we know very little 114 about how a significant other may shape our worldviews as we develop through adulthood. Ideologies are not static and may shift in response to changing social conditions, including when we enter into a new relationship. Future research might test whether ideological positions soften and mould to the person we are forging a relationship with. A follow-up question then is, how does the ‘meeting of minds’ in terms of ideologies influence sexual interactions between two people? These sources of influence may, of course, happen more than once in a person’s lifetime. For example, people who begin dating after a divorce may find that previously rigid worldviews become more flexible, including views of gender roles and sex roles. One additional contribution of my findings to relationship science relates to the question of what predicts desire. Relationship psychologists have devoted considerable attention to how to manage and bolster sexual desire in relationships (Birnbaum et al., 2016; Impett & Muise, 2018; Muise, et al., 2013). In Chapter 5, I show that one of the strongest predictors of desire for men and women is the degree to which a person feels attractive. Hence, one way that a couple might work to maintain sexual desire for one another may be to affirm the other’s physical attractiveness, and to independently foster a positive body image about one’s self. At present, there are a number of ways that couples can promote desire in their relationship, including emphasising self-expansive activities and mindsets, adopting sexual approach goals, being motivated to meet a partner’s sexual needs, and being responsive to a partner’s needs (Birnbaum et al., 2016; Impett & Muise, 2018; Muise et al., 2018; Muise et al., 2013). A goal for future research may be to test which of these strategies are the most effective in boosting desire and in what contexts. Evolutionary psychology Evolutionary accounts of orgasm and sex drive focus on biological determinants but do not preclude the influence of socialization. Findings from the current thesis, therefore, add nuance to existing evolutionary accounts of orgasm and desire, rather than challenging them. The mate choice hypothesis argues that orgasm signals partner quality – that is, if a woman has an orgasm with her partner, it is a sign that her partner has high mate-value and genetic compatibility, which bodes well for the survival of potential offspring (Puts & Dawood, 2006). Thus, according to this hypothesis, women’s likelihood of having an orgasm should be predicted by the characteristics of her partner. I did not directly test whether the characteristics of a woman’s partner were predictive of her orgasm, however previous work suggests that women who endorse traditional gender roles may be more attracted to masculine men (Backus & Mahalik, 2011). As such, benevolent sexism may be positively associated with orgasm frequency via the likelihood of having a masculine partner, which has been shown to predict increased orgasm frequency (Puts & Welling, 2012). This may help explain why in Chapter 3 an indirect effect of benevolent sexism was found on orgasm frequency but in the context of a null direct effect. Specifically, the fact that benevolently sexist women are 115 more likely to partner with masculine men may have suppressed the negative effect of benevolent sexism on orgasm frequency via perceptions of partner selfishness and lack of sexual communication. While social and evolutionary theories have progressed to the point that each acknowledges the influence of the other, both streams of research have largely operated in parallel. It may be fruitful for future research in both disciplines to consider how social and evolutionary factors interact to predict sexual outcomes. Such studies may help in advancing current debates surrounding women’s likelihood of having an orgasm. Findings from Chapter 5 speak more directly to evolutionary accounts of sex drive and suggest that current theories may exaggerate gender differences in sex drive. I find a small but significant difference in men and women’s sex drive over the course of a week, consistent with previous work (Baumeister & Vohs, 2001; Peplau, 2003). However, contrary to previous theorizing, I find that men and women’s sexual desire show remarkably similar patterns of variation over time, at least in the short-term (Baumeister, 2000). The most notable take-home message from this study is that men’s sexual desire varies substantially over time. Previous research from both evolutionary and social psychologists has largely focused on women, which may have contributed to an illusion that women’s, but not men’s sexual desire is socially determined. Social perspectives The final set of implications I will discuss relate to social perspectives on orgasm and desire. In Chapter 1, I reviewed theoretical and qualitative work showing that women’s sexuality sat in the middle of a battleground of ideas – that feminist approaches to sexuality emphasized women’s right to sexual agency, autonomy, and pleasure, while historical and conservative views suppress women’s sexuality by emphasizing the virtue in chastity and sex within the bounds of a loving relationship (Gill, 2008; Simon & Gagnon, 1986). The present thesis extends previous theorizing by empirically testing the idea that the worldviews that a woman adopts is predictive of her sexual behavior. I show that gender ideology (not religiosity or political ideology) is the key predictor of women’s sexual behavior, at least with regards to orgasm and faking orgasm, and in somewhat surprising ways. According to sexual script theory, men and women have pre-existing ideas about what sex should look and feel like (Simon & Gagnon, 1986), and these expectations are gendered (McCabe et al., 2010). While people rarely conform to these scripts, they may be unaware of the variability in sexual experience due to the private nature of sex, and so our understanding of sexual norms remains bounded (McCabe et al., 2010). I was initially interested in how a divergence from sexual scripts may be particularly problematic for women who endorse traditional gender views; for example, whether women who endorse traditional gender roles feel particularly uncomfortable 116 when their sexual behavior deviates from the sexual script. However, I have found that a traditional gender ideology changes the script itself, such that women high in benevolent sexism may be operating from a script that places little emphasis on a woman’s orgasm. In other words, women high in benevolent sexism may not have written their own orgasm into their sexual script. As such, there is less likely to be a divergence from a script and reality for women who endorse traditional gender roles. From a feminist perspective, it is problematic for a woman’s sexual pleasure to be restrained by societal values, especially the belief that men do not, or do not have to, care about their partner’s pleasure. However, placing less value on one’s own sexual pleasure may have the benefit of protecting against distress in response to the absence of an orgasm. As we could see in Chapter 4, hostile sexism was associated with a decreased likelihood of faking orgasm, something I interpret as an effect of feminism, whereby women low in hostile sexism are likely to be high in feminist ideology. In future work it would be helpful to measure feminist ideology directly to test how measures of sexism and feminism may show similar and diverging effects on sexual outcomes. The study reported in Chapter 4 showed that one of the strongest and most reliable predictors of faking an orgasm was how easy it was for a woman to orgasm in the first place. Ease of orgasm accounted for the largest amount of variance by far – approximately 20-30%. This finding suggests that, over and above other psychological and pragmatic factors, when a woman does not orgasm, a common response is to fake her orgasm. Interestingly, this response may only be disrupted when women are either apathetic to their own orgasm (i.e., because they are high in benevolent sexism), or because they actively resist faking their orgasm in order to be consistent with their feminist values (i.e., because they are low in hostile sexism). Given the high proportion of women who have faked an orgasm at least once in their lives, it is possible that women who sit in the middle of the spectrum of traditional and feminist beliefs are the most likely to fake their orgasms. Political ideology and religiosity were hypothesized to predict sexual behavior under the assumption that people with conservative political and religious views would also hold conservative views regarding sex. However, I did not find any evidence to support this hypothesis. It may be that political and religious rhetoric has softened with regard to sex. Religious leaders have acknowledged the role of sex for pleasure, and recent research finds that political conservatism is associated with more frequent sex (Hatemi et al., 2017). As such, the view that religious and political conservatism is tied to the idea that sex is dirty or sinful may be outdated (Bolzendahl & Myers, 2004). However, there is mixed support for this proposition; the author of one study that analyzed longitudinal, cross-national data on sexual attitudes and religiosity concluded that “change has not been as revolutionary as claimed and the demise of traditional values is over-stated” (Scott, 117 1998, p. 815). Another possibility is that political ideology and religious are too psychologically distal from the specific sexual behaviors measured in this thesis: faking orgasm and momentary sexual desire. Political and religious ideological positions may be too many steps removed from sexual behavior, and as such do not directly predict sexual behavior. These ideologies may be better predictors of sexual attitudes, and hence indirectly related to sexual behavior. Below, I discuss additional explanations regarding the null effect of religiosity and political ideology on sexual behavior. In my discussion of findings and theoretical contributions, I have emphasized the important role of gender ideology in predicting sexual outcomes, and have largely written off the role of political ideology and religiosity. However, it is important to note that my conclusions are specific to the sexual outcomes measured, namely orgasm, faking orgasm, and sexual desire. It is important to consider how these worldviews may play a role in human sexuality in ways that have not been explored in this thesis. For example, political conservatism may be an important predictor of men’s attitudes and behaviors as they relate to women’s sexuality. As discussed in Chapter 1, political conservatism is characterized by a desire to maintain the status quo, and a tendency to tolerate inequality (Jost et al., 2008). Given that women’s sexuality has historically been viewed as a threat to male power because women have the ability to ‘tempt’ and ‘coerce’ men using their sexual wiles (Glick & Fiske, 1996), men high in political conservatism may be particularly wary of female promiscuity. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), an ideology that is strongly correlated with political conservatism, would also serve as a good measure desire for social power. It would also be interesting to look at the extent to which the sexual dynamics of a couple mimic the desired power balance between men and women. Are men who are high in SDO and political conservatism more likely to engage in sexually dominant and assertive behavior, for example? This hypothesis is supported by previous research on romantic rejection and SDO, whereby men high in SDO are particularly threatened by romantic rejection, and are also more likely to support lowering the female age of sexual consent (Kelly, Dubbs, & Barlow, 2015). Historically, religion has denounced sex for the sake of pleasure, at least in the West, and so it is somewhat surprising that I found no effects of religiosity on women’s likelihood of faking orgasm or sexual desire. With regards to faking orgasm, I had initially proposed two conflicting hypotheses. The first was that religiosity may be linked to a motivation to conform to a sexual script, leading to an increased likelihood of faking orgasm. The alternative hypothesis was that religious women may be less likely to engage in deception, and as such, would be less likely to fake their orgasms. It is possible that both hypotheses held some truth, such that the two competing motivations canceled out any effect of religiosity on women’s likelihood of faking orgasm. As such, 118 it is unclear whether religiosity does factor into the psychological processes that determine whether or not a woman fakes her orgasm. Future research could attempt to model the opposing pathways through which religiosity may relate to women’s likelihood of faking orgasm. Limitations Each of the studies reported in this thesis has limitations. All of my studies use self-report, a method that adeptly measures subjective experience, but that is prone to various sources of error, including response biases and memory error. Sexuality is a sensitive topic, and so people may feel uncomfortable answering questions such as ‘How many sex partners have you had in your lifetime?’ or ‘How often during penetrative sex do you orgasm?’. This may result in social desirability bias, whereby participants adjust their answers to reflect what they consider socially appropriate or normal. In addition to various response biases, participants may not accurately recall the number of sex partners they have had, their frequency or orgasm, or other sexual history questions. I was conscious of these issues when conducting the studies reported here. Previous work has shown that participants respond more honestly when there is greater assurance of anonymity (Turner et al., 1998). So, in order to minimize social desirability bias, I clearly communicated the anonymous nature of the studies to participants in the study description and information sheet. I conducted all of my studies online, and at no point did I have face-to-face contact with participants. It was particularly difficult to maintain participant anonymity in the experience sampling study reported in Chapter 5 since participants were required to complete both a pre-survey and a number of daily surveys using different platforms (i.e., Qualtrics and a smart-phone app), and participants were compensated for their time with a personalized report of their results. In order to avoid direct contact with participants, I asked participants to assign themselves a unique code that they entered in the pre-survey and app, and they used this code to obtain their results at the end of the study. Some participants emailed me directly, and so there was a chance that their anonymity could be compromised. I included a measure of social desirability in this study as an additional safeguard against response bias, but I found that controlling for the effects of social desirability did not alter my conclusions. As such, I expect that the impact of response biases on my results would be minimal, or at least, as minimal as possible for self-report studies. To minimize recall inaccuracy, I avoided measures of sexual functioning that ask participants to recall their sexual experiences from the previous four weeks (e.g., The Female Sexual Function Index, Rosen et al., 2000; the Sexual Desire Inventory, Spector, Carey, & Steinberg, 1996). In the cross-sectional studies reported here, I instead asked participants to estimate their average sexual activity over a week. These questions are, of course, still subject to inaccuracies, and so it is difficult to know how much reporting error may have occurred. However, 119 since I was interested in the links between ideology and sexual behavior, rather than descriptive statistics on sexual behavior, a small amount of reporting error is unlikely to be a problem. In the final study reported here, I used experience sampling methodology, which is one of the best ways of measuring ‘in the moment’ experiences and psychological states. Participants in this study reported their sexual desire at the time of measurement, and as such, recall inaccuracy was not a concern. Given that there were competing hypotheses regarding religiosity and faking orgasm, a null effect is less surprising. With regards to sexual desire, however, I had a clear hypothesis that was supported by previous research. Religiosity has consistently been associated with lower levels of sexual satisfaction, and in a study of Canadian and East Asian women, religiosity was related to increased sexual guilt, which in turn led to decreased sexual desire (Woo et al., 2012). So, the null effect of religiosity on sexual desire deserves closer inspection. It may be that an effect exists in the population, but it did not appear in the studies reported in Chapter 5 because of sampling error. The sample was very low in religiosity, with the mean well below the mid-point of the scale (see p. 93). As such, the analysis may have suffered from a restriction of range, whereby I could not find an effect because I did not sample people high in religiosity. In future, it may be interesting to measure whether a person belongs to, or has belonged to, a religious community. While someone may not identify as religious, they may have been influenced by the religious culture they have been exposed to. As such, exposure to religious culture may be an informative predictor of sexual behavior, in addition to personal religiosity. A broader limitation of all of my studies was the lack of diversity in my samples of participants. I favored online samples, which are more diverse in terms of age, economic status, and education compared to undergraduate samples (Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John 2004). However, they lacked diversity in terms of ethnicity, nationality, and sexual orientation. White Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) samples are unfortunately common in psychology research (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). In his review of research published in the top six journals in psychology, Arnett (2008) found that 96% of the studies sampled from Western industrialized countries. The most obvious reason for this biased sampling is convenience. The majority of researchers are WEIRD, and so access to more diverse samples is made difficult by translation issues, accessibility, and cost (Henrich et al., 2010). Conducting research on sexuality in other cultures may be particularly fraught, given the sensitive nature of the topic and the potential for cultural insensitivity. My own research has been limited by these factors, and so my conclusions cannot be generalized beyond my WEIRD samples. One additional consideration was that participants recruited for studies in Chapters 4 and 5 were predominantly low in religiosity and political conservatism. Selection bias in sex research is not surprising, and previous studies have shown that participants who volunteer to participate in sex 120 research are typically more sexually experienced and less traditional in their beliefs about sex (interestingly, religiosity was not related to selection bias in this study, Wiederman, 1999). As such, I make no firm conclusions regarding the null effects of political ideology and religiosity on sexual behavior. A goal for future studies is to recruit more balanced samples with regards to religiosity and political ideology. Concluding remarks It is tempting to assume that everything that could be said about sex and gender has been said. Sexuality and gender roles are two topics that continue to have broad appeal and intrigue among the general public and academic spheres. However, I have shown that there is a gap in our empirical knowledge of how our understanding of gender has implications for our sexual behavior. In the three studies presented in this thesis, I hope to contribute to a new frontier of quantitative research linking ideology and sexual behavior. I have found that while political ideology and religiosity may not be closely tied to sexual behavior (as they may have been in the past), the most informative ideology with regard to sexual behavior is gender ideology. My research suggests that women continue to face difficulties in the bedroom as a function of social pressures that are internalized in the form of gender ideologies. Further, I have shown that men’s sexuality may be similarly subject to social pressures. I believe I have achieved my aim of making the gulf between theory and research with relation to ideology, gender, and sex, a little smaller. I look forward to contributing further to this field of research, with the overarching goal of encouraging more comfortable, enriching, and egalitarian bedroom encounters.

121 References Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 111–125. Ahrold, T. K., Farmer, M., Trapnell, P. D., & Meston, C. M. (2011). The relationship among sexual attitudes, sexual fantasy, and religiosity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(3), 619-630. Ahrold, T. K., & Meston, C. M. (2010). Ethnic differences in sexual attitudes of US college students: Gender, acculturation, and religiosity factors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(1), 190-202. Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self‐reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 27-35. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. Aosved, A. C., & Long, P. J. (2006). Co-occurrence of rape myth acceptance, sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance. Sex Roles, 55(7-8), 481-492. Armstrong, E. A., England, P., & Fogarty, A. C. (2012). Accounting for women’s orgasm and sexual enjoyment in college hookups and relationships. American Sociological Review, 77(3), 435-462. Arndt, J., Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1997). Subliminal exposure to death- related stimuli increases defense of the cultural worldview. Psychological Science, 8, 379- 385. Arndt, J., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Simon, L. (1997). Suppression, accessibility of death-related thoughts, and cultural worldview defense: Exploring the psychodynamics of terror management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 5-18. Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: why American psychology needs to become less American. American psychologist, 63(7), 602. Arslan, R. C., Schilling, K. M., Gerlach, T. M., & Penke, L. (2018). Using 26,000 diary entries to show ovulatory changes in sexual desire and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Backus, F. R., & Mahalik, J. R. (2011). The masculinity of Mr. Right: Feminist identity and heterosexual women’s ideal romantic partners. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 318– 326. Bancroft, J., Loftus, J., & Long, J. S. (2003). Distress about sex: A national survey of women in heterosexual relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(3), 193-208. 122 Bandura, A. (1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. Handbook of socialization theory and research, 213, 262. Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., Piebinga, L., & Moya, M. (2010). How nice of us and how dumb of me: The effect of exposure to benevolent sexism on women’s task and relational self- descriptions. Sex Roles, 62(7-8), 532-544. Basson, R. (2006). Sexual desire and arousal disorders in women. New England Journal of Medicine, 354(14), 1497-1506. Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347-374. doi: 10.1037/0033- 2909.126.3.347 Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 242-273. Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 166. Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 62. Blake, K. R., Dixson, B. J., O'dean, S. M., & Denson, T. F. (2016). Standardized protocols for characterizing women's fertility: A data-driven approach. Hormones and behavior, 81, 74- 83. Birnbaum, G. E. (2007). Attachment orientations, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction in a community sample of women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 21- 35. Bolzendahl, C. I., & Myers, D. J. (2004). Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: Opinion change in women and men, 1974–1998. Social forces, 83(2), 759-789. Brotto, L. A., Bitzer, J., Laan, E., Leiblum, S., & Luria, M. (2010). Women's sexual desire and arousal disorders. The journal of sexual medicine, 7(1), 586-614. Burkett, M., & Hamilton, K. (2012). Postfeminist sexual agency: Young women’s negotiations of sexual consent. Sexualities, 15(7), 815-833. Bullough, V. L. (1976). Sexual variance in society and history. New York, NY: Wiley. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204. Byers, E. S. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of individuals in long‐term relationships. Journal of sex research, 42(2), 113-118. 123 Byrne, D. (1976). Social psychology and the study of sexual behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3(1), 3-30. Cahill, C., Llewelyn, S., & Pearson, C. (1991). Long‐term effects of sexual abuse which occurred in childhood: A review. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30(2), 117-130. Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807-840. Chadwick, S. B., & van Anders, S. M. (2017). Do women’s orgasms function as a masculinity achievement for men? The Journal of Sex Research, 54(9), 1141-1152. Chapleau, K. M., Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2007). How ambiva- lent sexism toward women and men support rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 57, 131–136. Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 223-230. Cooper, E. B., Fenigstein, A., & Fauber, R. L. (2014). The faking orgasm scale for women: Psychometric properties. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(3), 423-435. Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Valentine, B. A. (2011). Women, men, and the bedroom: Methodological and conceptual insights that narrow, reframe, and eliminate gender differences in sexuality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 296-300. Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., & Moors, A. C. (2013). Backlash from the bedroom: Stigma mediates gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 392-407. Costa Jr, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322. Costa, R. M., & Brody, S. (2011). Anxious and avoidant attachment, vibrator use, anal sex, and impaired vaginal orgasm. The journal of sexual medicine, 8(9), 2493-2500. Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of sex research, 40(1), 13-26. Cyranowski, J. M., Frank, E., Cherry, C., Houck, P., & Kupfer, D. J. (2004). Prospective assessment of sexual function in women treated for recurrent major depression. Journal of psychiatric research, 38(3), 267-273. Dabbs, J. M. (1990). Salivary testosterone measurements: reliability across hours, days, and weeks. Physiology & Behavior, 48, 83-86. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(90)90265-6 124 Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: consequences for women's performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 764. Davidson, J. K., Darling, C. A., & Norton, L. (1995). Religiosity and the sexuality of women: Sexual behavior and sexual satisfaction revisited. Journal of Sex Research, 32(3), 235-243. Davidson, J. K., Moore, N. B., & Ullstrup, K. M. (2004). Religiosity and sexual responsibility: Relationships of choice. American Journal of Health Behavior, 28(4), 335-346. Desrochers, G., Bergeron, S., Landry, T., & Jodoin, M. (2008). Do psychosexual factors play a role in the etiology of provoked vestibulodynia? A critical review. Journal of sex & marital therapy, 34(3), 198-226. Doniger, W. (2011). From kama to karma: The resurgence of puritanism in contemporary India. Social Research, 78(1), 49-74. Durán, M., Moya, M., & Megías, J. L. (2011). It's his right, it's her duty: Benevolent sexism and the justification of traditional sexual roles. Journal of sex research, 48(5), 470-478. Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American psychologist, 64(8), 644. Eagly, A. H., Beall, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2005). The psychology of gender. Guilford Press. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments. The economic journal, 108(448), 726-735. Edelman, B. (2009). Red light states: Who buys online adult entertainment? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23, 209-220. Fahs, B. (2011). Performing sex: The making and unmaking of women’s erotic lives. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Fahs, B. (2014). ‘Freedom to’ and ‘freedom from’: A new vision for sex-positive politics. Sexualities, 17(3), 267-290. Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard educational review, 58(1), 29-54. Frederick, D. A., John, H. K. S., Garcia, J. R., & Lloyd, E. A. (2018). Differences in orgasm frequency among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual men and women in a US national sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(1), 273-288. 125 Frith, H. (2015). Visualising the ‘real’and the ‘fake’: emotion work and the representation of orgasm in pornography and everyday sexual interactions. Journal of Gender Studies, 24(4), 386-398. Fugl-Meyer, K. S., & Fugl-Meyer, A. R. (2002). Sexual disabilities are not singularities. International journal of impotence research, 14(6), 487-493. Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: the social sources of human sexuality: Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co. Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver, C. E. (2002). Changes in women's sexual interests and their partner's mate–retention tactics across the menstrual cycle: evidence for shifting conflicts of interest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 269(1494), 975-982. Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2005). Adaptations to ovulation: Implications for sexual and social behavior. Current directions in psychological science, 14(6), 312-316. Gannon, K. E., Becker, T., & Moreno, M. A. (2013). Religion and sex among college freshmen: A longitudinal study using Facebook. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28(5), 535-556. Geher, G. (2013). Evolutionary psychology 101: Springer Publishing Company. Gildersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., & Fales, M. R. (2014). Do women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1205 Gill, R. (2008). Culture and subjectivity in neoliberal and postfeminist times. Subjectivity, 25(1), 432-445. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., . . . Alao, A. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763. Goldhammer, D., & McCabe, M. (2011). A qualitative exploration of the meaning and experience of sexual desire among partnered women. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20, 19-29. Goodman, D. L., Gillath, O., & Haj-Mohamadi, P. (2017). Development and Validation of the Pretending Orgasm Reasons Measure. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(7), 1973-1991. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American psychologist, 59(2), 93. 126 Greenberg J, Jonas E. 2003. Psychological motives and political orientation–the left, the right, and the rigid: Comment on Jost et al. 2003. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 376–82. Gul, P., & Kupfer, T. R. (2018). Benevolent Sexism and Mate Preferences: Why do women prefer benevolent men despite recognizing that they can be undermining? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0146167218781000. Gupta, S. K., Lindemulder, E. A., & Sathyan, G. (2000). Modeling of circadian testosterone in healthy men and hypogonadal men. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 40, 731-738. doi: 10.1177/00912700022009486 Haavio-Mannila, E., & Kontula, O. (1997). Correlates of increased sexual satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26(4), 399-419. Hackathorn, J. M., Ashdown, B. K., & Rife, S. C. (2015). The sacred bed: Sex guilt mediates religiosity and satisfaction for unmarried people. Sexuality and Culture, 20(1), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9315-0. Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N. C. (2015). Benevolent sexism and support of romantic partner’s goals: Undermining women’s competence while fulfilling men’s intimacy needs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(9), 1180-1194. Hammond, M. D., Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. (2014). The allure of sexism: Psychological entitlement fosters women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism over time. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 422-429. Hartmann, U., Heiser, K., Rüffer-Hesse, C., & Kloth, G. (2002). Female sexual desire disorders: subtypes, classification, personality factors and new directions for treatment. World Journal of Urology, 20(2), 79-88. Hatemi, P. K., Crabtree, C., & McDermott, R. (2017). The relationship between sexual preferences and political orientations: Do positions in the bedroom affect positions in the ballot box? Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 318-325. Hayes, R. D., Dennerstein, L., Bennett, C. M., & Fairley, C. K. (2008). What is the “true” prevalence of female sexual dysfunctions and does the way we assess these conditions have an impact? The journal of sexual medicine, 5(4), 777-787. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83. Higgins, J. A., Trussell, J., Moore, N. B., & Davidson, J. K. (2010). Virginity lost, satisfaction gained? Physiological and psychological sexual satisfaction at heterosexual debut. Journal of Sex Research, 47(4), 384-394. Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 69–126. 127 Impett, E. A., & Muise, A. (2018). The sexing of relationship science: Impetus for the special issue on sex and relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 433-439. Impett, E. A., Muise, A., & Peragine, D. (2014). Chapter 10: Sexuality in the context of relationships. In L. Diamond & D. Tolman (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology. Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714-725. Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Univ of California Press. Janoff-Bulman, R. (2009). To provide or protect: Motivational bases of political liberalism and conservatism. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2-3), 120-128. Jeffreys S (1990) Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution. New York: New York University Press. Joe, V. C., Jones, R. N., & Ryder, S. (1977). Conservatism, openness to experience and sample bias. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41(5), 527-531. Jones, K., Stewart, K., King, E., Morgan, W. B., Gilrane, V., & Hylton, K. (2014). Negative consequence of benevolent sexism on efficacy and performance. Gender in Management, 29, 171–189. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/GM-07-2013-0086. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339. Jost, J. T., Napier, J. L., Thorisdottir, H., Gosling, S. D., Palfai, T. P., & Ostafin, B. (2007). Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity?. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 33(7), 989-1007. Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 126-136. Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., & Carvallo, M. R. (2002). Non-conscious forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 586-602. Kay, A. C., Shepherd, S., Blatz, C. W., Chua, S. N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). For God (or) country: the hydraulic relation between government instability and belief in religious sources of control. Journal of personality and social psychology, 99(5), 725. Kelly, A. J., Dubbs, S. L., & Barlow, F. K. (2015). Social dominance orientation predicts heterosexual men’s adverse reactions to romantic rejection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(4), 903-919. 128 Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Saunders. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Saunders. Konner, M. (2015). Women after all: Sex, evolution, and the end of male supremacy: WW Norton & Company. Koedt, Anne. 1973. “The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm.” Pp. 198–207 in Radical Feminism, edited by A. Koedt, E. Levine, and A. Rapone. New York: Quadrangle Books. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Laumann, E. O., Paik, A., & Rosen, R. C. (1999). Sexual dysfunction in the United States: prevalence and predictors. Jama, 281(6), 537-544. Levine, S. B. (2003). The nature of sexual desire: A clinician's perspective. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(3), 279-285. LeVay, S., & Valente, S. M. (2006). Human sexuality (2nd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(5), 631- 651. Lloyd, E. A. (2005). The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution: Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Lloyd, E. A. (2006). Response to Puts and Dawood's ‘The Evolution of Female Orgasm: Adaptation or Byproduct?’—Been There. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 9(4), 603-608. Lottes, I. L., & Kuriloff, P. J. (1992). The effects of gender, race, religion, and political orientation on the sex role attitudes of college freshmen. Adolescence, 27(107), 675. Mah, K., & Binik, Y. M. (2001). The nature of human orgasm: a critical review of major trends. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(6), 823-856. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52(3- 4), 175-186. Marshall, D. S., (1971). Sexual behaviour on Mangaia. In D. S. Marshall & D. N. Suggs (Eds.), Human sexual behaviour. Basic Books Marston, C., & King, E. (2006). Factors that shape young people's sexual behaviour: A systematic review. The Lancet, 368(9547), 1581-1586. McCabe, M. P. (1991). The development and maintenance of sexual dysfunction: An explanation based on cognitive theory. Sexual and marital therapy, 6(3), 245-260. 129 McCabe, M. P., & Giles, K. (2012). Differences between sexually functional and dysfunctional women in childhood experiences and individual and relationship domains. International Journal of Sexual Health, 24(3), 181-194. McCabe, J., Tanner, A. E., & Heiman, J. R. (2010). The impact of gender expectations on meanings of sex and sexuality: Results from a cognitive interview study. Sex Roles, 62(3-4), 252-263. McCall, K., & Meston, C. (2006). Cues resulting in desire for sexual activity in women. The journal of sexual medicine, 3(5), 838. McClelland, S. I. (2011). Who is the “self” in self reports of sexual satisfaction? Research and policy implications. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 8(4), 304. McCormack, M. (2011). The declining significance of homophobia. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. McCormick, N. B. (2010). Sexual scripts: Social and therapeutic implications. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 25(1), 96-120. McCright, A. M. (2010). The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population and Environment, 32(1), 66-87. McCullough, M. E., & Willoughby, B. L. (2009). Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psychological bulletin, 135(1), 69 McKnight, J. (1997). Straight science? Homosexuality, evolution and adaptation. New York: Routledge. Meier, A. M. (2003). Adolescents' transition to first intercourse, religiosity, and attitudes about sex. Social Forces, 81(3), 1031-1052. Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double standard still exist? Perceptions of university women. Journal of sex research, 36(4), 361-368. Miller, E. M. (2000). Homosexuality, birth order, and evolution: Toward an equilibrium reproductive economics of homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 1-34. Miller, G. F. (2013). Mutual mate choice models as the red pill in evolutionary psychology: Long delayed, much needed, ideologically challenging, and hard to swallow. Psychological Inquiry, 24(3), 207-210. Miller, L., & Gur, M. (2002). Religiousness and sexual responsibility in adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(5), 401-406. Mitchell, K. R., Wellings, K. A., & Graham, C. (2014). How do men and women define sexual desire and sexual arousal? Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40, 17-32 Meston, C. M., Hull, E., Levin, R. J., & Sipski, M. (2004). Disorders of orgasm in women. The journal of sexual medicine, 1(1), 66-68. 130 Morris, D. 1967. The Naked Ape: A Zoologist’s Study of the Human Animal. London: Jonathan Cape. Moynihan, R. (2003). The making of a disease: female sexual dysfunction. Bmj, 326(7379), 45-47. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Peterson, Z. D. (2005). III. Wanting and not wanting sex: The missing discourse of ambivalence. Feminism & Psychology, 15(1), 15-20. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Shippee, S. K. (2010). Men's and women's reports of pretending orgasm. Journal of sex research, 47(6), 552-567. doi:10.1080/00224490903171794 Muise, A., Harasymchuk, C., Day, L. C., Bacev-Giles, C., Gere, J., & Impett, E. A. (2018). Broadening your horizons: Self-expanding activities promote desire and satisfaction in established romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Muise, A., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., & Desmarais, S. (2013). Keeping the spark alive: Being motivated to meet a partner’s sexual needs sustains sexual desire in long-term romantic relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 267-273. Murray, S. H., & Milhausen, R. R. (2012). Sexual desire and relationship duration in young men and women. Journal of sex & marital therapy, 38(1), 28-40. Nail, P. R., McGregor, I., Drinkwater, A. E., Steele, G. M., & Thompson, A. W. (2009). Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 901-907. Nath & Nayar, (1997). India. In R. T. Francoeur (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of sexuality. Continuum. Nicolson, P., & Burr, J. (2003). What is ‘normal’ about women's (hetero) sexual desire and orgasm?: a report of an in-depth interview study. Social Science & Medicine, 57(9), 1735- 1745. Nobre, P. J., & Pinto-Gouveia, J. (2009). Cognitive schemas associated with negative sexual events: A comparison of men and women with and without sexual dysfunction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(5), 842-851. Overall, N. C., & Hammond, M. D. (2018). How Intimate Relationships Contribute to Gender Inequality: Sexist Attitudes Encourage Women to Trade Off Career Success for Relationship Security. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(1), 40-48. Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human Sexuality: How do men and women differ? Current directions in psychological science, 12(2), 37-40. Pratto, F. (1996). Sexual politics: The gender gap in the bedroom, the cupboard, and the cabinet. In D. M. Buss & N. M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, and conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 179 - 230). New York: Oxford University Press. 131 Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741. Puts, D. A. (2006). [Review of the book The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 103–108. Puts, D. A. (2007). Of bugs and boojums: Female orgasm as a facultative adaptation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(3), 337-339. Puts, D. A., & Dawood, K. (2006). The evolution of female orgasm: Adaptation or byproduct?. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 9(3), 467-472. Puts, D. A., Dawood, K., & Welling, L. L. (2012). Why women have orgasms: An evolutionary analysis. Archives of sexual behavior, 41(5), 1127-1143. Puts, D. A., Welling, L. L., Burriss, R. P., & Dawood, K. (2012). Men's masculinity and attractiveness predict their female partners' reported orgasm frequency and timing. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(1), 1-9. Regan, P. C. (1999). Hormonal correlates and causes of sexual desire: A review. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 8(1), 1. Reiss, I. L. (1967). The social context of premarital sexual permissiveness: New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world: Oxford University Press. Rosen, C. B., J. Heiman, S. Leiblum, C. Meston, R. Shabsigh, D. Ferguson, R. D'Agostino, R. (2000). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex &Marital Therapy, 26(2), 191-208. Rosenbaum, J. E., & Weathersbee, B. (2013). True love waits: Do Southern Baptists? Premarital sexual behavior among newly married Southern Baptist Sunday school students. Journal of religion and health, 52(1), 263-275. Rostosky, S. S., Regnerus, M. D., & Wright, M. L. C. (2003). Coital debut: The role of religiosity and sex attitudes in the Add Health Survey. Journal of sex research, 40(4), 358-367. Rudman, L. A., & Fetterolf, J. C. (2014). Gender and sexual economics: Do women view sex as a female commodity?. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1438-1447. Rudman, L. A., Fetterolf, J. C., & Sanchez, D. T. (2013). What motivates the sexual double standard? More support for male versus female control theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 250-263. 132 Rutter, V. E., & Jones, B. (2018). The sexuality of gender In B. J. Risman, C. M. Foryum, & W. J. Scarborough (eds.), Handbook of the Sociology of Gender (pp. 285-299). Springer International Publishing. Salisbury, C. M., & Fisher, W. A. (2014). “Did you come?” A qualitative exploration of gender differences in beliefs, experiences, and concerns regarding female orgasm occurrence during heterosexual sexual interactions. The Journal of Sex Research, 51(6), 616-631. Sbrocco, T., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Conceptualizing the cognitive component of sexual arousal: Implications for sexuality research and treatment. In P. M. Salkovskis (Ed.), Frontiers of cognitive therapy (pp. 419–449). New York: Guilford Press. Schmiedeberg, C., & Schröder, J. (2016). Does sexual satisfaction change with relationship duration? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 99-107. Sears, D. O., & Valentino, N. A. (1997). Politics matters: Political events as catalysts for preadult socialization. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 45-65. Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 247-275. Scott, J. (1998). Changing attitudes to sexual morality: A cross-national comparison. Sociology, 32(4), 815-845. Shackelford, T. K., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., LeBlanc, G. J., Bleske, A. L., Euler, H. A., & Hoier, S. (2000). Female coital orgasm and male attractiveness. Human Nature, 11(3), 299- 306. Shapiro, R. Y., & Mahajan, H. (1986). Gender Differences in Policy Preferences: A Summary of Trends from the 1960s to the 1980s. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(1), 42-61. Shepherd, M., Erchull, M. J., Rosner, A., Taubenberger, L., Queen, E. F., & McKee, J. (2011). “I’ll get that for you”: The relationship between benevolent sexism and body self-perceptions. Sex Roles, 64(1-2), 1-8. Shifren, J. L., Monz, B. U., Russo, P. A., Segreti, A., & Johannes, C. B. (2008). Sexual problems and distress in United States women: prevalence and correlates. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 112(5), 970-978. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 998. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 97-120. 133 Spector, I. P., Carey, M. P., & Steinberg, L. (1996). The Sexual Desire Inventory: Development, factor structure, and evidence of reliability. Journal of sex & marital therapy, 22(3), 175- 190. Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (1998). Passionate and companionate love in courting and young married couples. Sociological Inquiry, 68(2), 163-185. Stampler, L., (2011). Men Don’t Recognize ‘Benevolent’ Sexism: Study. Huffington Post. Retrieved October 18, 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/men-dont- recognize-benevolent-sexism_n_885430 Sterk, C. E., Klein, H., & Elifson, K. W. (2004). Predictors of condom-related attitudes among at- risk women. Journal of Women's Health, 13(6), 676-688. Stewart-Williams, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2013). The Ape That Kicked the Hornet's Nest: Response to Commentaries on “The Ape That Thought It Was a Peacock”. Psychological Inquiry, 24(3), 248-271. Stevens, S. R., Caron, S. L., & Pratt, P. (2002). Decade In Review: The Importance of Religion in Shaping the Sexual Attitude of College Students in the 1990s. Journal of College and Character, 3(9). Strayhorn, J. M., & Strayhorn, J. C. (2009). Religiosity and teen birth rate in the United States. Reproductive Health, 6(1), 14. Thorisdottir, H., Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., & Shrout, P. E. (2007). Psychological needs and values underlying left-right political orientation: Cross-national evidence from Eastern and Western Europe. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 175-203. Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W., & Comer, R. (1995). Human female orgasm and mate fluctuating asymmetry. Animal Behaviour, 50, 1601–1615. Tybur, J. M., Inbar, Y., Güler, E., & Molho, C. (2015). Is the relationship between pathogen avoidance and ideological conservatism explained by sexual strategies? Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(6), 489-497. Turiel, E., Hildebrandt, C., Wainryb, C., & Saltzstein, H. D. (1991). Judging social issues: Difficulties, inconsistencies, and consistencies. Monographs of the society for research in child development, i-116. Turner, C. F., Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., Lindberg, L. D., Pleck, J. H., & Sonenstein, F. L. (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science, 280(5365), 867-873. Udry, J. R., Billy, J. O., Morris, N. M., Groff, T. R., & Raj, M. H. (1985). Serum androgenic hormones motivate sexual behavior in adolescent boys. Fertility and Sterility, 43(1), 90-94. 134 Udry, J. R., Talbert, L. M., & Morris, N. M. (1986). Biosocial foundations for adolescent female sexuality. Demography, 23(2), 217-230. Van Minnen, A., & Kampman, M. (2000). The interaction between anxiety and sexual functioning: A controlled study of sexual functioning in women with anxiety disorders. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 15(1), 47-57. Viki, G. T., & Abrams, D. (2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 289–293. Wallace Jr, J. M., & Forman, T. A. (1998). Religion's role in promoting health and reducing risk among American youth. Health Education & Behavior, 25(6), 721-741. Wallen, K. (2006). Commentary on Puts'(2006) Review of the Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(6), 633-636. Wallen, K., & Lloyd, E. A. (2008). Clitoral variability compared with penile variability supports nonadaptation of female orgasm. Evolution & Development, 10(1), 1-2. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & society, 1(2), 125-151. Wiederman, M. W. (1999). Volunteer bias in sexuality research using college student participants. Journal of Sex Research, 36(1), 59-66. Woo, J. S., Brotto, L. A., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2011). The role of sex guilt in the relationship between culture and women’s sexual desire. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2), 385-394. Woo, J. S., Morshedian, N., Brotto, L. A., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2012). Sex guilt mediates the relationship between religiosity and sexual desire in East Asian and Euro-Canadian college- aged women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(6), 1485-1495. Wood, J. M., Mansfield, P. K., & Koch, P. B. (2007). Negotiating sexual agency: postmenopausal women's meaning and experience of sexual desire. Qualitative Health Research, 17(2), 189- 200. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699. Wood, W., Kressel, L., Joshi, P. D., & Louie, B. (2014). Meta-analysis of menstrual cycle effects on women’s mate preferences. Emotion Review, 6(3), 229-249. Young, M., Luquis, R., Denny, G., & Young, T. (1998). Correlates of sexual satisfaction in marriage. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 7(2), 115–131. Zaleski, E. H., & Schiaffino, K. M. (2000). Religiosity and sexual risk-taking behavior during the transition to college. Journal of Adolescence, 23(2), 223-227.

135 APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: NOTICE OF ETHICS APPROVAL

Ethics approval for studies 1 and 2 reported in Chapter 3:

136 Notice of ethics approval for the study reported in Chapter 4:

137 Notice of ethics approval for the study reported in Chapter 5:

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 10 February 2016 2:13 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Full Research Ethics Clearance 2015/901

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS REVIEW

Dear Dr Fiona Barlow

I write further to the additional information provided in relation to the provisional approval granted to your application for ethical clearance for your project "An experience sampling study to assess daily fluctuations in sexual arousal" (GU Ref No: 2015/901).

This is to confirm that this response has addressed the comments and concerns of the HREC.

The ethics reviewers resolved to grant your application a clearance status of "Fully Approved".

Consequently, you are authorised to immediately commence this research on this basis.

Regards

Kim Madison Policy Officer, Human Research Ethics and Integrity Office for Research Bray Centre, Nathan Campus Griffith University ph: +61 (0)7 373 58043 fax: +61 (07) 373 57994 email: [email protected]

138 APPENDIX 2: TESTS OF NORMALITY My general approach to assessing normality is to test for skew and kurtosis, assess normality of the distribution using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and test for the presence of outliers. For skewed or kurtotic variables (> 2), I transform the variables and test whether the results remain the same. If the variable is positively skewed, I use a log transformation, and if the variable is negative skewed I use a square root function (-1*SQRT(K-var). If outliers are present, I test whether the results remain the same with and without the outliers included in the analysis. In most cases, there was no substantive change to the results. For the study reported in Chapter 4, when the variables were transformed and the outliers were removed, a small but significant effect emerged for the belief that men want women to orgasm reported in Table 6.

Table 1: Tests of normality for key variables reported in Chapters 3 and 4.

Variable Skew Kurtosis Shapiro- Outliers Statistic/Std. Statistic/Std. Wilk (p- Error Error value) Chapter 3, HS 2.79 -3.12 < .001 0 Study 1 BS 4.67 -1.18 < .001 0 Men are selfish 10.66 15.51 < .001 6 Orgasm frequency 5.62 -0.57 < .001 0 Chapter 3, HS 1.33 -2.33 < .001 0 Study 2 BS -0.99 -1.79 0.01 0 Men are selfish 5.25 -0.69 < .001 0 Ask for pleasure -1.07 -2.30 < .001 0 Orgasm frequency 5.27 -0.81 < .001 0 Chapter 4 Sexual partners -1.84 -4.15 < .001 0 Relationship length -1.55 16.99 < .001 9 Partner skill -7.76 2.18 < .001 9 Ability to orgasm -0.36 -3.64 < .001 0 ISC 6.20 -0.29 < .001 0 Suspected cheating 12.84 6.15 < .001 0 Religiosity 10.64 2.70 < .001 0 Political ideology 0.75 -0.81 < .001 0 Hostile sexism 0.55 -3.13 < .001 0 Benevolent sexism -2.66 -1.30 < .001 0 Men want orgasm 4.09 -3.54 < .001 0 Men are selfish 3.15 -0.80 < .001 0 Men are responsible 1.90 -0.72 < .001 0 Chapter 5 Sexual desire 0.09 0.06 0.506 0 variability 139 Religiosity 23.29 26.29 < .001 20 Political ideology 6.90 -3.10 < .001 0 Note: tests of normality were not conducted for Level 1 variables reported in Chapter 5, as recommended by Gelman (2007), since non-normality of residuals does not affect parameter estimates.

Figure 1. Box plot for Chapter 3, Study 1, variable: men are selfish in bed

140

Figure 2. Box plot for Chapter 4, variable: Relationship length

141

Figure 3. Box plot for Chapter 4, variable: partner sexual skill

142

Figure 4. Box plot for Chapter 5, variable: religiosity

143

APPENDIX 3: APPROACH TO MISSING DATA

For the studies included in this thesis, I have largely handed missing data a study-by- study basis. When an attention check is included, I remove participants who have failed the attention check, as well as participants who do not fit the study criteria (e.g. non-heterosexual participants, male participants, or participants in a relationship). I typically also remove participants who have dropped out of the study after clicking on the study link (e.g. >10% of the study has been completed). However, my analyses use list-wise deletion, and so participants who have not completed key measures are automatically excluded in the relevant analyses. When the study design is robust to missing data, such as the experience sampling study reported in Chapter 5, I am more lenient in my approach to missing data.