Human Sexuality: How Do Men and Male and Female Partners

Home , Committed relationship, Dating, Female, Gay, Man, Sexual desire

CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

mise between the desires of the Human Sexuality: How Do Men and male and female partners. In gay Women Differ? and lesbian relationships, sexual frequency is decided by partners of 1 Letitia Anne Peplau the same gender, and lesbians re- Psychology Department, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California port having sex less often than gay men or heterosexuals. Further, women appear to be more willing differences and argued for women’s than men to forgo sex or adhere to Abstract religious vows of celibacy. A large body of scientific re- sexual equality with men. Recently, psychologists have taken stock of Masturbation provides a good search documents four impor- index of sexual desire because it is tant gender differences in the available scientific evidence. Reviews of empirical research on not constrained by the availability sexuality. First, on a wide vari- of a partner. Men are more likely ety of measures, men show diverse aspects of human sexuality have identified four important than women to masturbate, start greater sexual desire than do masturbating at an earlier age, and women. Second, compared male-female differences. These gender differences are pervasive, do so more often. In a review of 177 with men, women place greater studies, Oliver and Hyde (1993) emphasis on committed relation- affecting thoughts and feelings as well as behavior, and they charac- found large male-female differences ships as a context for sexuality. in the incidence of masturbation. In Third, aggression is more terize not only heterosexuals but lesbians and gay men as well. technical terms, the meta-analytic strongly linked to sexuality for effect size2 (d) for masturbation was men than for women. Fourth, 0.96, which is smaller than the women’s sexuality tends to be physical sex difference in height more malleable and capable of SEXUAL DESIRE (2.00) but larger than most psycho- change over time. These male- logical sex differences, such as the female differences are pervasive, Sexual desire is the subjective ex- performance difference on standard- affecting thoughts and feelings perience of being interested in sexual ized math tests (0.20). These and as well as behavior, and they objects or activities or wishing to en- many other empirical findings pro- characterize not only hetero- gage in sexual activities (Regan & vide evidence for men’s greater sexuals but lesbians and gay Berscheid, 1999). Many lines of re- sexual interest. men as well. Implications of search demonstrate that men show these patterns are considered. more interest in sex than women (see review by Baumeister, Catanese, & Keywords Vohs, 2001). Compared with SEXUALITY AND human sexuality; sexual desire; women, men think about sex more RELATIONSHIPS sexual orientation; sexual plas- often. They report more frequent sex ticity fantasies and more frequent feelings A second consistent difference is of sexual desire. Across the life span, that women tend to emphasize men rate the strength of their own committed relationships as a con- A century ago, sex experts confi- sex drive higher than do their female text for sexuality more than men dently asserted that men and age-mates. Men are more interested do. When Regan and Berscheid women have strikingly different in visual sexual stimuli and more (1999) asked young adults to de- sexual natures. The rise of scientific likely to spend money on such sex- fine sexual desire, men were more psychology brought skepticism ual products and activities as X-rated likely than women to emphasize about this popular but unproven videos and visits to prostitutes. physical pleasure and sexual inter- view, and the pendulum swung to- Men and women also differ in course. In contrast, women were ward an emphasis on similarities their preferred frequency of sex. more likely to “romanticize” the between men’s and women’s sexu- When heterosexual dating and experience of sexual desire, as seen ality. For example, Masters and marriage partners disagree about in one young woman’s definition Johnson (1966) captured attention sexual frequency, it is usually the of sexual desire as “longing to be by proposing a human sexual re- man who wants to have sex more emotionally intimate and to ex- sponse cycle applicable to both often than the woman does. In het- press love for another person” (p. sexes. Feminist scholars cautioned erosexual couples, actual sexual 75). Compared with women, men against exaggerating male-female frequency may reflect a compro- have more permissive attitudes to-

38 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, APRIL 2003 ward casual premarital sex and to- ual self-concepts, the initiation of timate heterosexual relationships. ward extramarital sex. The size of sex in heterosexual relationships, Many women who are battered by these gender differences is rela- and coercive sex. a boyfriend or husband also report tively large, particularly for casual Andersen, Cyranowski, and Es- sexual assaults as part of the abuse. premarital sex (d ϭ 0.81; Oliver & pindle (1999) investigated the di- In summary, aggression is more Hyde, 1993). Similarly, women’s mensions that individuals use to closely linked to sexuality for men sexual fantasies are more likely than characterize their own sexuality. than for women. Currently, we men’s to involve a familiar partner Both sexes evaluated themselves know little about aggression and and to include affection and com- along a dimension of being roman- sexuality among lesbians and gay mitment. In contrast, men’s fanta- tic, with some individuals seeing men; research on this topic would sies are more likely to involve strang- themselves as very passionate and provide a valuable contribution to ers, anonymous partners, or multiple others seeing themselves as not our understanding of gender and partners and to focus on specific sex very passionate. However, men’s human sexuality. acts or sexual organs. sexual self-concepts were also A gender difference in emphasiz- characterized by a dimension of ing relational aspects of sexuality is aggression, which concerned the also found among lesbians and gay extent to which they saw them- SEXUAL PLASTICITY men (see review by Peplau, Finger- selves as being aggressive, power- hut, & Beals, in press). Like heterosex- ful, experienced, domineering, and Scholars from many disciplines ual women, lesbians tend to have individualistic. There was no equiv- have noted that, in comparison less permissive attitudes toward ca- alent aggression dimension for with men’s sexuality, women’s sex- sual sex and sex outside a primary women’s sexual self-concepts. uality tends to have greater plastic- relationship than do gay or hetero- In heterosexual relationships, ity. That is, women’s sexual beliefs sexual men. Also like heterosexual men are commonly more assertive and behaviors can be more easily women, lesbians have sex fantasies than women and take the lead in shaped and altered by cultural, that are more likely to be personal sexual interactions (see review by social, and situational factors. and romantic than the fantasies of Impett & Peplau, 2003). During Baumeister (2000) systematically gay or heterosexual men. Lesbians the early stages of a dating relation- reviewed the scientific evidence on are more likely than gay men to be- ship, men typically initiate touching this point. In this section, I mention come sexually involved with part- and sexual intimacy. In ongoing re- a few of the many supportive em- ners who were first their friends, lationships, men report initiating pirical findings. then lovers. Gay men in committed sex about twice as often as their fe- One sign of plasticity concerns relationships are more likely than male partners or age-mates. To be changes in aspects of a person’s lesbians or heterosexuals to have sure, many women do initiate sex, sexuality over time. Such changes sex with partners outside their pri- but they do so less frequently than are more common among women mary relationship. their male partners. The same pat- than among men. For example, the In summary, women’s sexuality tern is found in people’s sexual fan- frequency of women’s sexual activ- tends to be strongly linked to a tasies. Men are more likely than ity is more variable than men’s. If a close relationship. For women, an women to imagine themselves do- woman is in an intimate relation- important goal of sex is intimacy; ing something sexual to a partner or ship, she might have frequent sex the best context for pleasurable sex taking the active role in a sexual en- with her partner. But following a is a committed relationship. This is counter. breakup, she might have no sex at less true for men. Rape stands at the extreme end all, including masturbation, for of the link between sex and aggres- several months. Men show less sion. Although women use many temporal variability: Following a strategies to persuade men to have romantic breakup, men may sub- SEXUALITY AND sex, physical force and violence are stitute masturbation for interper- AGGRESSION seldom part of their repertoire. sonal sex and so maintain a more Physically coercive sex is primarily constant frequency of sex. There is A third gendered pattern con- a male activity (see review by Fel- also growing evidence that women cerns the association between sexu- son, 2002). There is growing recog- are more likely than men to change ality and aggression. This link has nition that stranger and acquain- their sexual orientation over time. been demonstrated in many do- tance rape are not the whole story; In an illustrative longitudinal study mains, including individuals’ sex- some men use physical force in in- (Diamond, 2003), more than 25% of

Published by Blackwell Publishing Inc.

CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 39

18- to 25-year-old women who ini- Finally, these male-female differ- interested partner must communi- tially identified as lesbian or bi- ences apply not only to heterosexu- cate his or her desire. Men typically sexual changed their sexual iden- als but also to lesbians and gay men. take the lead in expressing sexual tity during the next 5 years. Changes Several limitations of the current interest. Third, the disinterested such as these are less common research are noteworthy. First, partner’s reaction is pivotal: Does for men. much research is based on White, this partner comply or, instead, ig- A further indication of malleabil- middle-class American samples. nore or reject the request? If ity is that a person’s sexual attitudes Studies of other populations and women view sex as a way to show and behaviors are responsive to so- cultural groups would be valuable love and caring for a partner, they cial and situational influences. Such in assessing the generalizability of may be more likely than men to re- factors as education, religion, and findings. Second, although re- solve a dilemma about unwanted acculturation are more strongly search findings on lesbians and gay sex by taking their partner’s wel- linked to women’s sexuality than to men are consistent with patterns of fare into account. In abusive rela- men’s. For example, moving to a male-female difference among het- tionships, women may fear physi- new culture may have more impact erosexuals, the available empirical cal or psychological harm from a on women’s sexuality than on database on homosexuals is rela- male partner if they refuse. Finally, men’s. The experience of higher ed- tively small. Third, differences be- sexual compliance illustrates the ucation provides another illustration. tween women and men are not potential plasticity of female sexu- A college education is associated absolute but rather a matter of de- ality. In this case, women are influ- with more liberal sexual attitudes gree. There are many exceptions to enced by relationship concerns to and behavior, but this effect is the general patterns described. For engage in a sexual activity that greater for women than for men. instance, some women show high goes against their personal prefer- Even more striking is the associa- levels of sexual interest, and some ence at the time. tion between college education and men seek sex only in committed re- The existence of basic differ- sexual orientation shown in a recent lationships. Research documenting ences between men’s and women’s national survey (Laumann, Gagnon, male-female differences has ad- sexuality has implications for the Michael, & Michaels, 1994). Complet- vanced further than research sys- scientific study of sexuality. Specif- ing college doubled the likelihood tematically tracing the origins of ically, an adequate understanding that a man identified as gay or bi- these differences. We are only be- of human sexuality may require sexual (1.7% among high school ginning to understand the complex separate analyses of sexuality in graduates vs. 3.3% among college ways in which biology, experi- women and in men, based on the graduates). However, college was as- ence, and culture interact to shape unique biology and life experi- sociated with a 900% increase in the men’s and women’s sexuality. ences of each sex. Currently, efforts percentage of women identifying as These four general differences to reconceptualize sexual issues lesbian or bisexual (0.4% vs. 3.6%). between women’s and men’s sexu- have focused on women’s sexual- ality can illuminate specific pat- ity. Three examples are illustrative. terns of sexual interaction. For example, in heterosexual couples, it is CONCLUSION AND fairly common for a partner to en- Rethinking Women’s IMPLICATIONS gage in sex when he or she is not Sexual Desire really interested or “in the mood.” Diverse lines of scientific re- Although both men and women How should we interpret the search have identified consistent sometimes consent to such un- finding that women appear less in- male-female differences in sexual wanted sexual activity, women are terested in sex than men? One pos- interest, attitudes toward sex and more often the compliant sexual sibility is that researchers have in- relationships, the association be- partner (see review by Impett & advertently used male standards tween sex and aggression, and sex- Peplau, 2003). Each of the gender (e.g., penile penetration and orgasm) ual plasticity. The size of these gen- differences I have described may to evaluate women’s sexual experi- der differences tends to be large, contribute to this pattern. First, the ences and consequently ignored particularly in comparison to other stage is set by a situation in which activities, such as intimate kissing, male-female differences studied by partners have differing desires for cuddling, and touching, that may psychologists. These differences are sex, and the man is more often the be uniquely important to women’s pervasive, encompassing thoughts, partner desiring sex. Second, for erotic lives. Researchers such as feelings, fantasies, and behavior. compliant sex to occur, the more Wallen (1995) argue that it is neces-

40 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, APRIL 2003 sary to distinguish between sexual Rethinking Women’s 2. In a meta-analysis, the findings desire (an intrinsic motivation to pur- Sexual Problems of multiple studies are analyzed quan- sue sex) and arousability (the ca- titatively to arrive at an overall esti- mate of the size of a difference between pacity to become sexually aroused Finally, research on women’s two groups, in this case, between men in response to situational cues). Be- sexuality has led some scientists to and women. This effect size (known cause women’s sexual desire may question current systems for classi- technically as d) is reported using a vary across the menstrual cycle, it fying sexual dysfunction among common unit of measurement. By con- may be more appropriate to de- women. The widely used Diagnos- vention in psychological research, 0.2 is considered a small effect size, 0.5 is a scribe women’s desire as periodic tic and Statistical Manual of Mental moderate effect size, and 0.8 is a large rather than weak or limited. In con- Disorders (DSM) of the American effect size. trast, women’s receptivity to sexual Psychiatric Association catego- overtures and their capacity for sex- rizes sexual dysfunction on the ba- ual response may depend on situa- sis of Masters and Johnson’s (1966) References tional rather than hormonal cues. model of presumed normal and Andersen, B.L., Cyranowski, J.M., & Espindle, D. Other researchers (e.g., Tolman & universal sexual functioning. Crit- (1999). Men’s sexual self-schema. Journal of Diamond, 2001) argue that more at- ics (e.g., Kaschak & Tiefer, 2001) Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 645–661. Baumeister, R.F. (2000). Gender differences in tention must be paid to the impact have challenged the validity of this erotic plasticity. Psychological Bulletin, 126, of hormones that may have special model, its applicability to women, 347–374. relevance for women, such as the and its use as a basis for clinical as- Baumeister, R.F., Catanese, K.R., & Vohs, K.D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength neuropeptide oxytocin, which is sessment. They have also faulted of sex drive? Personality and Social Psychology linked to both sexuality and affec- the DSM for ignoring the relation- Review, 5, 242–273. Diamond, L.M. (2003). Was it a phase? Young tional bonding. ship context of sexuality for women. women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual Kaschak and Tiefer have proposed identities over a 5-year period. Journal of Per- instead a new “woman-centered” sonality and Social Psychology, 84, 352–364. Felson, R.B. (2002). Violence and gender reexamined. Rethinking Women’s view of women’s sexual problems Washington, DC: American Psychological As- Sexual Orientation that gives prominence to partner sociation. Impett, E., & Peplau, L.A. (2003). Sexual compli- and relationship factors that affect ance: Gender, motivational, and relationship Some researchers have pro- women’s sexual experiences, and perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87–100. also to social, cultural, and eco- Kaschak, E., & Tiefer, L. (Eds.). (2001). A new view posed new paradigms for under- of women’s sexual problems. New York: standing women’s sexual orienta- nomic factors that influence the Haworth Press. tion (e.g., Peplau & Garnets, 2000). quality of women’s sexual lives. Laumann, E., Gagnon, J., Michael, R., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality. Old models either assumed com- Chicago: University of Chicago Press. monalities among homosexuals, Recommended Reading Masters, W.H., & Johnson, V.E. (1966). Human sex- regardless of gender, or hypothe- ual response. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co. Baumeister, R.F., & Tice, D.M. (2001). Oliver, M.B., & Hyde, J.S. (1993). Gender differ- sized similarities between lesbians ences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychologi- and heterosexual men, both of The social dimension of sex. Boston: cal Bulletin, 114, 29–51. Allyn and Bacon. Peplau, L.A., Fingerhut, A., & Beals, K. (in press). whom are attracted to women. In Kaschak, E., & Tiefer, L. (Eds.). Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians and contrast, empirical research has (2001). (See References) gay men. In J. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Spre- Peplau, L.A., & Garnets, L.D. (Eds.). cher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close rela- documented many similarities in tionships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (2000). (See References) women’s sexuality, regardless of Peplau, L.A., & Garnets, L.D. (Eds.). (2000). their sexual orientation. A new Regan, P.C., & Berscheid, E. (1999). Women’s sexualities: New perspectives on (See References) sexual orientation and gender [Special issue]. model based on women’s experi- Journal of Social Issues, 56(2). ences might highlight the central- Regan, P.C., & Berscheid, E. (1999). Lust: What we know about human sexual desire. Thousand ity of relationships to women’s Oaks, CA: Sage. sexual orientation, the potential Notes Tolman, D.L., & Diamond, L.M. (2001). Desegre- for at least some women to change gating sexuality research: Cultural and biolog- ical perspectives on gender and desire. Annual their sexual orientation over time, 1. Address correspondence to Leti- tia Anne Peplau, Psychology Depart- Review of Sex Research, 12, 33–74. and the importance of sociocul- Wallen, K. (1995). The evolution of female sexual ment, Franz 1285, University of desire. In P. Abramson & S.D. Pinkerton tural factors in shaping women’s California, Los Angeles, CA 90095- (Eds.), Sexual nature/sexual culture (pp. 57–79). sexual orientation. 1563; e-mail: [email protected]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Published by Blackwell Publishing Inc.