Running head: THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 1
Evolved to Be Connected: The Dynamics of Attachment and Sex over the Course of Romantic
Relationships
Gurit E. Birnbaum
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya
Harry T. Reis
University of Rochester
Word count: 2,029 (50 references)
January 31, 2018
Send Correspondence: Gurit E. Birnbaum, Ph.D. Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya P.O. Box 167 Herzliya, 46150, Israel Email address: [email protected]
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 2
Highlights
The sexual system operates as an attachment-facilitating device.
Attachment processes link sexuality with relationship quality.
Sexual desire functions as a visceral gauge of romantic compatibility.
Desire becomes sensitive to different partner traits as relationships develop.
Desire is important for relationship persistence when relationships are fragile.
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 3
Abstract
Sexual urges and emotional attachments are not always connected. Still, joint operation of the sexual and the attachment systems is typical of romantic relationships. Hence, within this context, the two systems mutually influence each other and operate together to affect relationship well-being. In this article, we review evidence indicating that sex promotes enduring bonds between partners and provide an overview of the contribution of attachment processes to understanding the sex-relationship linkage. We then present a model delineating the functional significance of sex in relationship development. We conclude by suggesting future directions for studying the dual potential of sex for either deepening attachment to a current valued partner or promoting a new relationship when the existing relationship has become less rewarding. (120 words)
Key words: attachment; sex; relationship development; romantic relationships
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 4
Evolved to Be Connected: The Dynamics of Attachment and Sex over the Course of Romantic
Relationships
Sexual urges and emotional attachments are not always connected [1]. Sexual acts may be devoid of affectional bonding, as in the case of one night-stands, and vice versa, affectional bonding between adults does not necessarily involve sexual desire, as in the case of deeply attached partners whose sexual desire for each other has dissipated over the years. Nevertheless, in ongoing romantic relationships, intimates typically serve as both attachment figures and sexual partners [2, 3]. Hence, within this context, sex has the potential to motivate intensely meaningful experiences and thereby affect the future of a relationship, beginning before it is even established, through the consolidation of the attachment bonding process, and on through potential deterioration and detachment.
In this article, we review published evidence indicating that sex promotes enduring bonds between sexual partners and provide an overview of the contribution of attachment processes to our understanding of the sex-relationship linkage. We then introduce a model that delineates the functional significance of sex in relationship development. We conclude by suggesting directions for future research on the dual potential of sex for either deepening attachment to a current valued partner or promoting a new relationship when an existing relationship has become less rewarding.
The Attachment-Promoting Function of Sex
The sexual behavioral system evolved to pass genes to the next generation; it may do so by generating sexual desire that manifests itself in approaching desirable partners and enticing them to engage in sexual intercourse [4]. Although the basic functioning of the sexual system is not dependent on attachment processes (i.e., people can mate without bonding) [1], the prolonged helplessness of human offspring promoted the development of mechanisms that keep sexual partners bonded to each other so that they could jointly care for their offspring and thereby improve their survival chances [5].
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 5
Several characteristics of human sexuality suggest that behavioral manifestations of the sexual system act as such a mechanism, fostering extended intimate contact and enhancing enduring emotional bonds between sexual partners [6, 7]. Humans, for example, prefer the “missionary” sexual position; typically have sex privately; and sleep together after sex [8]. Humans also tend to engage in sex throughout the menstrual cycle rather than just near ovulation. These tendencies increase exposure to the neuropeptide oxytocin, which is secreted during sexual activity [9], and may therefore amplify its documented attachment-promoting effects [10].
Phenomenological accounts of sexual experiences provide more direct evidence for the theorized sex-attachment linkage, revealing that people often indicate that sex nurtures the emotional connection between partners [11]. In fact, people not only associate sex with relationship promotion, but also act accordingly, such that they are more inclined to employ strategies that allow them to get closer to prospective partners (e.g., disclosing intimate personal information) or to improve a relationship with current partners (e.g., resolving conflicts constructively) when their sexual system is activated [12, 13].
In the long run, as demonstrated in longitudinal studies, sex carries the potential to operate as a stabilizing attachment-facilitating device that motivates partners to invest resources in the current relationship. For example, experiencing heightened feelings of passion for one’s partner and gratifying sex predicts lower relationship insecurity [14] and a higher probability of enacting relationship-promoting behaviors (e.g., displays of intimacy and affection) [15, 16, 17]. Moreover, sexual satisfaction tends to linger following sexual activity ("sexual afterglow"), thus helping to sustain emotional bonds between acts of sex and to enhance relationship satisfaction over the long term [18].
The Role of Attachment Processes in the Construal of Sex in Romantic Relationships
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 6
Although the sexual system normatively functions as a promoter of attachment bonds [6], it does not operate in a vacuum. Specifically, attachment strategies, which are developed earlier in life and which guide the desired levels of intimacy and interdependence with romantic partners, may shape the regulatory functioning of the sexual system, molding the construal of sexual interactions in romantic relationships [19]. Indeed, a large body of research has shown that attachment orientations help explain variations in what people want out of sexual encounters, how they get their needs met, and what functions sex serves in their close relationships [2, 3].
Research has generally indicated that smooth functioning of the attachment system encourages self-assured approach to sexuality, ease with sexual intimacy, and enjoyment of mutual sexual interactions within the context of committed relationships [2, 3]. In particular, people who are secure with respect to attachment tend to engage in sex mainly to intensify the relationship with their current partner (e.g., to express love for their partners) [20]. Their secure state of mind, which is characterized by a relative lack of attachment concerns and sexual performance anxieties [4, 15], allows them to successfully respond to partners’ sexual preferences without compromising their own needs [15]. Overall, the confident approach to sexuality that comes with attachment security promotes pleasurable engagement in affectionate and exploratory sexual activities, thereby fostering relationship quality and longevity [2, 3].
In contrast, insecure patterns of attachment are likely to impair the functioning of the sexual system in romantic relationships. To be sure, if a person feels chronically insecure about being loved, whether this insecurity is reflected in relationship worries or in intimacy fears, this person’s sexual system is unlikely to function in a healthy way. The nature of this interference, however, is manifested differently in anxious and avoidant people's love life (see Table 1 for a summary of the main findings) and is thus likely to have distinctive manifestations in their partners' sexuality (e.g.,
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 7 partners of avoidant people, but not those of anxious people, are generally less sexually satisfied)
[2, 3].
Highly anxious people's erotophilic tendencies [25] inspire them to channel their relational hopes into the sexual route and to use sex to attempt to satiate their intense needs for merger [21,
22]. Unfortunately, however, their relationship anxieties also keep haunting them into their bedroom [4, 15], eliciting harmful behavior that, perhaps ironically, may contribute to realizing their worst fears. For example, highly anxious people's fear of losing their partners motivates them to succumb to their partners' wishes [39] and engage in unwanted, and often risky, sexual activities
(e.g., unprotected sexual intercourse) [32, 34]. At the same time, their own preferences may go unexpressed [39]. These inhibited needs, along with preoccupation with relationship concerns, impede their ability to abandon themselves to erotic sensations [39, 40], resulting in lower sexual desire and other sexual difficulties [28, 29, 30]. Sexual difficulties, in turn, are likely to frustrate highly anxious people's unrealistic expectations for the ultimate union and generate a debilitating cycle of sexual and relational worries [15, 28].
Highly avoidant people, by comparison, experience discomfort with the closeness imposed by sexual contact and thus tend to strip sex of psychological intimacy. In particular, they are likely to have sex for self-serving, relationship-irrelevant reasons (e.g., self-enhancement, stress reduction)
[22, 23]. Such opportunistic sexual goals, combined with low relationship commitment [41], may explain why highly avoidant people react favorably to "no-strings attached" sex [24, 33], engage in short-term extradyadic copulations [25, 32], rarely fantasize about intimate interactions with their partners [27], and masturbate rather than have frequent sex with them [25, 42]. When highly avoidant people do have sex with their primary partners, they are less likely to display affection and respond to their partners' needs. Ironically, the resulting aversive feelings of estrangement [15] interfere with gratifying their own sexual needs [28, 29]. On the whole, avoidant people's
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 8 difficulties in relieving intimacy fears, which stretches even to the protected world of sexual imagination, deprive their relationship of warmth and deny them the opportunity of corrective experiences [2, 3].
The Relationship Development Model of Sexual Desire
Prior research has demonstrated how past attachment experiences account for individual differences in the functioning of the sexual system and its overall impact on relationship well-being
[2, 3]. Nevertheless, little is known about how current attachment experiences interact with earlier experiences to affect the construal of sex across relationship development. A recently introduced relationship development model of sexual desire [6, 7] describes how relationships normatively change over time and how these changes affect the functional significance of sexual desire vis-à-vis attachment processes. Specifically, the model proposes that sexual desire serves as a visceral indicator of romantic compatibility (i.e., the belief that two partners can function together harmoniously to create a mutually fulfilling relationship) that motivates relationship initiation, development, and persistence.
Although sexual desire is theorized to function as a tool for assessing relationship compatibility across all stages of relationship development [6], desire becomes sensitive to different partner traits over the course of the relationship. In particular, earlier in a relationship desire is likely to be particularly responsive to readily apparent surface-quality traits (e.g., friendliness, physical attractiveness) [43, 44], whereas later in a relationship desire is more likely to reflect deeper traits (e.g., sensitivity, responsiveness), which reveal themselves only as a relationship progresses [45]. Regardless of relationship stage, the experience of sexual desire serves as a signal that the relationship has value and is worth pursuing, such that high levels of desire for a partner may denote relationship compatibility (colloquially referred to as "chemistry") and motivate investment in the relationship [45]. In contrast, low levels of desire may arouse doubts about
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 9 compatibility and encourage breaking away from the current partner and instead pursuing a more suitable one [6, 46].
The model postulates that sexual desire influences the initiation, development, and maintenance of attachment bonds. And yet, the contribution of sexual desire to attachment bonds varies over the course of relationship development. Specifically, sexual desire is most important as a relationship-promoter in earlier stages, when it is often the major motivation for pursuing a relationship [44]. In later stages, once the emotional connection between partners has been formed, sexual desire may lose some of its prominence as a binding force and other non-sexual processes come to be more influential (e.g., intimacy, commitment) [6]. Still, in later stages, if non-sexual aspects of the relationship fail to sustain the relationship, the impact of sexual desire for relationship persistence may become apparent. For example, gratifying sexual activity can assuage the adverse relational effects of both momentary relationship-threatening events [47, 48] and chronic relationship deficiencies (e.g., insecurity, neuroticism) [15, 49]. In such cases, the attachment- related goal of proximity seeking is especially salient and the intimacy inherent in sexual contact may provide an alternative, compensatory route for satiating attachment needs for love and reassurance [6, 22].
Discussion and Future Directions
There was a time in behavioral research when sexuality was considered a brute necessity or, alternatively, irrelevant to an understanding of what makes romantic relationships healthy and stable, or troubled and vulnerable to dissolution. However, recent research has established that sex, far from being a footnote in relationships, is a vital force in the bond that attracts and unites romantic couples. As a consequence, the door has opened wide to integrating research on relationship processes with research on human sexuality, with important empirical findings and potentially fruitful theoretical models appearing [1, 6]. Attachment theory, as reviewed in this
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 10 article, is a prominent example in this regard, illustrating how sexual activity can nurture a secure attachment bond, and, in turn, how attachment security facilitates a gratifying sex life for couples.
Future research is necessary to expand existing insights. Longitudinal studies are needed to better track correspondences over time in the waxing and waning of sexual feelings and relationship well-being in long term couples. Of particular importance here will be a deeper understanding of how the relationship-supporting role of sexual desire and activity characteristic of early-stage relationships is maintained, once the novelty of a new relationship has faded and interdependence becomes high. Another important topic for future work involves therapeutic interventions. When couples struggle, interventions such as emotionally focused therapy, which is grounded in the attachment-theoretic idea of helping partners trust in the secure base that they provide for each other, can be effective [50; see also Johnson, this issue]. Can this method be applied to help couples cope with sexual difficulties? And might treatment of sexual problems help couples deepen their attachment bond? Answers to these and other questions will help scholars and practitioners alike to better understand the intimate and vital connection between these two central components of adult relational life, sexuality and attachment.
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 11
References
1. Diamond, L. M.: Links and distinctions between love and desire. In C. Hazan & M. Campa
(Eds.), Human bonding (pp.). New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2013: 226-250.
2. Birnbaum, G. E. Like a horse and carriage? The dynamic interplay of attachment and sex during relationship development. European Psychologist, 2015, 20: 265-274.
3.** Birnbaum, G. E. Attachment and sexual mating: The joint operation of separate motivational systems. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment, third edition:
Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: Guilford Press; 2016: 464-483.
3.** The author reviews published evidence that points to a reciprocal relationship between the sexual and the attachment systems.
4. Birnbaum, G. E., Mikulincer, M., Szepsenwol, O., Shaver, P. R., & Mizrahi, M. When sex goes wrong: A behavioral systems perspective on individual differences in sexual attitudes, motives, feelings, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2014, 106: 822-
842.
5.** Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Overall, N. C. Pair-bonding, romantic love, and evolution: The curious case of Homo sapiens. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
2015, 10: 20-36.
5.** The authors review a broad range of evidence making the case that romantic love is an evolved commitment device.
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 12
6.** Birnbaum, G. E. The fragile spell of desire: A functional perspective on changes in sexual desire across relationship development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2018.
6.** The author introduces an integrative model that delineates the functional significance of sexual desire in relationship formation and maintenance.
7. Birnbaum, G. E., & Finkel, E. J. The magnetism that holds us together: Sexuality and relationship maintenance across relationship development. Current Opinion in Psychology,
2015, 1: 29-33.
8. Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: Harper & Row; 1951.
9. Carter, C. S.: Oxytocin pathways and the evolution of human behavior. Annual Review of
Psychology, 2014, 65: 17-39.
10. Young, L. J., & Wang, Z.: The neurobiology of pair-bonding. Nature Neuroscience, 2004, 7:
1048-1054.
11. Birnbaum, G. E., & Gillath, O.: Measuring subgoals of the sexual behavioral system: What is sex good for? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2006, 23: 675-701.
12. Birnbaum, G. E., Mizrahi, M., Kaplan, A., Kadosh, D., Kariv, D., Tabib, D., Ziv, D., Sadeh, L.,
& Burban, D.: Sex unleashes your tongue: Sexual priming motivates self-disclosure to a new
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 13 acquaintance and interest in future interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
2017, 43: 706-715.
13. Gillath, O., Mikulincer, M., Birnbaum, G. E., & Shaver, P. R.: When sex primes love:
Subliminal sexual priming motivates relational goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 2008, 34: 1057-1069.
14. Mizrahi, M., Hirschberger, G., Mikulincer, M., Szepsenwol, O., & Birnbaum, G. E.:
Reassuring sex: Can sexual desire and intimacy reduce relationship-specific attachment insecurities? European Journal of Social Psychology, 2016, 46: 467-480.
15. Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A.: When sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientations, sexual experience, and relationship quality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 2006, 91: 929-943.
16. Debrot, A., Meuwly, N., Muise, A., Impett, E. A., & Schoebi, D.: More than just sex:
Affection mediates the association between sexual activity and well-being. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 2017, 43: 287–299.
17. Rubin, H., & Campbell, L.: Day-to-day changes in intimacy predict heightened relationship passion, sexual occurrence, and sexual satisfaction: A dyadic diary analysis.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2012, 3: 224-231.
18. * Meltzer, A. L., Makhanova, S., Hicks, L. L., French, J. E., McNulty, J. K., & Bradbury, T. N.:
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 14
Quantifying the sexual afterglow: The lingering benefits of sex and their implications for pair- bonded relationships. Psychological Science, 2017, 28: 587–598.
18. * The authors demonstrate the "afterglow" effect of sexual satisfaction, which lingers following sexual activity and thereby helps sustain emotional bonds between sexual interactions.
19.* Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R.: Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics and change (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press; 2016.
19.* The authors provide a systematic, comprehensive overview of theory and research on adult attachment.
20. Tracy, J. L., Shaver, P. R., Albino, A. W., & Cooper, M. L.: Attachment styles and adolescent sexuality. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romance and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003, 137-159.
21. Birnbaum, G. E., Mikulincer, M., & Austerlitz, M.: A fiery conflict: Attachment orientations and the effects of relational conflict on sexual motivation. Personal Relationships, 2013, 20:294- 310.
22. Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L.: Attachment style and subjective motivations for sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2004, 30: 1076-1090.
23. Snapp, S., Lento, R., Ryu, E., & Rosen, K. S.: Why do they hookup? Attachment style and motives of college students. Personal Relationships, 2014, 21: 468–481.
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 15
24. Sutton, T. E., & Simons, L, G.: Sexual assault among college students: Family of origin hostility, attachment, and the hook-up culture as risk factors. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 2014, 24: 2827-2840.
25. Bogaert, A. F., & Sadava, S.: Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Personal Relationships, 2002, 9: 191-204.
26. Potard, C., Courtois, R., Reveillere, C., Brechon, G., & Courtois, A.: The relationship between parental attachment and sexuality in early adolescence. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 2017, 22: 47-56.
27. Birnbaum, G. E.: Beyond the borders of reality: Attachment orientations and sexual fantasies. Personal Relationships, 2007, 14: 321-342.
28. Birnbaum, G. E.: Attachment orientations, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction in a community sample of women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2007, 24: 21-35.
29. Gewirtz-Meydan, A. & Finzi-Dottan, R.: Sexual satisfaction among couples: The role of attachment orientation and sexual motives. The Journal of Sex Research, in press.
30. Philippe, F. L., Vallerand, R. J., Bernard-Desrosiers, L., Guilbault, V., & Rajotte, G: Understanding the cognitive and motivational underpinnings of sexual passion from a dualistic model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2017, 113: 769-785.
31. Garneau, C., Olmstead, S. B., Pasley, K., & Fincham, F. D.: The role of family structure and
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 16 attachment in college student hookups. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2013, 42: 1473–1486.
32. Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A.: “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. The Journal of Sex Research, 2000, 37: 76-88.
33. Schachner, D. A., & Shaver, P. R.: Attachment style and human mate poaching. New Review of Social Psychology, 2002, 1: 122-129.
34. Szielasko, A. L., Symons, D. K., & Price, E. L.: Development of an attachment-informed measure of sexual behavior in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 2013, 36: 361–370.
35. Paulk, A. & Zayac, R.: Attachment style as a predictor of risky sexual behavior in adolescents. Journal of Social Sciences, 2013, 9: 42-47.
36. Feeney, J. A., Peterson, C., Gallois, C., Terry, D. J.: Attachment style as a predictor of sexual attitudes and behavior in late adolescence. Psychology and Health, 2000, 14: 1105-1122.
37. Karantzas, G. C., McCabe, M.P., Karantzas, K. M., Pizzirani, B., Campbell, H., Mullins, E. R.: Attachment style and less severe forms of sexual coercion: A systematic review. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 2016, 45: 1053-1068.
38. Trub, L., & Starks, T. J.: Insecure attachments: Attachment, emotional regulation, and condomless sex among women in relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017, 71: 140- 147.
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 17
39. Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., Widaman, K. F., Vernon, M. L., Follette, W. C., & Beitz, K.: “I can’t get no satisfaction”: Insecure attachment, inhibited sexual communication, and sexual dissatisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2006, 13: 465-483.
40. Mizrahi, M., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Birnbaum, G. E.: You haven't been on my mind lately:
Partner responsiveness mediates the link between attachment insecurities and dyadic fantasies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, in press.
41. DeWall, C., Lambert, N., Slotter, E., Pond, R., Deckman, T., Finkel, E., Luchies, L., & Fincham, F.: So far away from one’s partner, yet so close to romantic alternatives: Avoidant attachment, interest in alternatives, and infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011, 101: 1302-1316.
42. Brassard, A., Shaver, P. R., & Lussier, Y.: Attachment, sexual experience, and sexual pressure in romantic relationships: A dyadic approach. Personal Relationships, 2007, 14: 475- 494.
43. Fugère, M. A., Chabot, C., Doucette, K. & Cousins, A. J.: The importance of physical attractiveness to the mate choices of women and their mothers. Evolutionary Psychological
Science, 2017, 3: 243–252
44. Poulsen, F. O., Holman, T. B., Burney, D. M., & Carroll, J. S.: Physical attraction, attachment styles, and dating development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2013, 30: 301-319.
45. Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mizrahi, M., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Sass, O., & Granovski-Milner,
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 18
C.: Intimately connected: The importance of partner responsiveness for experiencing sexual desire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2016, 111: 530-546.
46.* Buss, D. M., Goetz, C., Duntley, J. D., Asao, K., & Conroy-Beam, D.: The mate switching hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 2017, 104: 143–149.
46. *The authors provide alternative to the ‘good genes’ hypothesis for why women have affairs.
47. Birnbaum, G. E., Svitelman, N., Bar-Shalom, A., & Porat, O.: The thin line between reality and imagination: Attachment orientations and the effects of relationship threats on sexual fantasies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2008, 34: 1185-1199.
48. Birnbaum, G. E., Weisberg, Y. J., & Simpson, J. A.: Desire under attack: Attachment orientations and the effects of relationship threat on sexual motivations. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 2011, 28: 448–468.
49. Russell, V. M., & McNulty, J. K.: Frequent sex protects intimates from the negative implications of neuroticism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2011, 2: 220–227.
50. Johnson, S. M.: The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creating connection. Routledge; 2012.
THE DYNAMICS OF ATTACHMENT AND SEX 19
Table 1
Attachment Insecurities and their Sexual Expressions
Attachment Anxiety Attachment Avoidance
Sexual Expressions Sexualizing attachment needs Detaching sex from intimacy
Motives Attachment-based sexual goals Self-serving sexual goals [20, 22, [20, 21, 22] 23]
Attitudes and Approval of casual sex [24]; preferences Erotophilic tendencies [25]; Erotophobic tendencies [20]; Preference for more affectionate Preference for less affectionate sexual interactions [26] sexual interactions [26]
Fantasies More frequent fantasizing; Less frequent fantasizing; Fantasizing about romantic and fantasizing about themes that submission themes [27] involve emotionless-sex [27]
Experiences and Sense of estrangement, Sense of estrangement, functioning disappointment, and intruding disappointment, and intruding thoughts [15]; thoughts [15];
Sexual dysfunctions [28, 29, 30] Sexual dysfunctions [28, 29]
Behavior Engagement in emotionless, uncommitted sexual activities [31], extradyadic copulation [25, 32], mate poaching [33]
Engagement in consensual Greater likelihood of condom use unwanted [34] and risky sexual [36] behaviors [35]
Forcing sexual contact [34] and Forcing sexual contact [37]; being the victim of sexual coercion [37];
Greater likelihood of sexting [38] Greater likelihood of sexting [38]