Can sociocultural and contextual factors explain gender differences in sex drive? A response to Frankenbach et al. (2022).

Most theories predict, and most studies demonstrate, that men have a higher sex drive than women do. A spirited debate has emerged surrounding the origins of gender differences in sex drive; Frankenbach et al. (2022) commented on this controversy in the context of their impressive meta-analysis. We provide a different interpretation of these findings: Specifically, women get worse sex than men do. We argue that if the differences between the sex that women get and the sex that men get were accounted for, gender differences in sex drive would be reduced or eliminated completely. We focus more specifically on two factors that should be accounted for in future meta-analyses-narrow definitions of "sex" as penile-vaginal intercourse, and gender disparities in sexual violence-and additional factors that should be acknowledged when interpreting meta-analytic results-gendered cultural messages, respect from heterosexual partners, and sexual stigmatization. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Monogamy as protection against COVID-19?: Non-monogamy stigma and risk (Mis)perception.

COVID-19 public health messages largely communicated that Americans were "safer at home." Implicit in this advice are messages about protections ostensibly also offered by monogamy-that having more relationships is always more dangerous than having fewer relationships and that closer relationships are always safer-from a disease transmission perspective-than unfamiliar relationships. These heuristics may have led people to discount other COVID-19 dangers (such as spending more time with others of unknown infection status) and to ignore COVID-specific safety measures (such as mask-wearing, and ventilation). We conducted three studies in which we used experimental vignettes to assess people's perceptions of COVID-risky targets in monogamous relationships with a close, committed partner versus targets who were described as non-monogamous with casual partners but relatively COVID-safe. Participants perceived monogamous-but-COVID-riskier targets as more responsible and safer from COVID-19. Non-monogamy stigma seems to extend analogously to COVID-19 risk. Public health messages that fail to attend to the specifics and nuances of close relationships risk contributing to this stigma and ultimately undermining the goals of reducing the spread of infectious disease.

Women Get Worse Sex: A Confound in the Explanation of Gender Differences in Sexuality.

Gender differences in sexuality have gained considerable attention both within and outside of the scientific community. We argue that one of the main unacknowledged reasons for these differences is simply that women experience substantially worse sex than men do. Thus, in examinations of the etiology of gender differences in sexuality, a confound has largely been unacknowledged: Women and men are treated to different experiences of what is called "sexuality" and "having sex." We discuss four arenas in which women's experience of sexuality may often be worse than men's: (a) anatomical differences, (b) sexual violence, (c) stigma, and (d) masculine cultures of sexuality. Then we consider how each disparity might explain well-known gender differences in sexuality.

How <i>WEIRD</i> and Androcentric Is Sex Research? Global Inequities in Study Populations.

Previous researchers have noted the domination of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) samples in fields like psychology. In this study we asked: how WEIRD and androcentric is contemporary sex research? We focused on two historically underrepresented groups in research, namely non-WEIRD and women/gender non-conforming samples. We analyzed 2,223 articles drawn from five leading journals in scientific sexuality research (<i>Archives of Sexual Behavior, Journal of Sex Research, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, Journal of Sexual Medicine</i>, and <i>International Journal of Sexual Health</i>). We coded the national context and gender of sampled populations for articles published between 2015 and 2019 in these journals. Results indicated that WEIRD populations dominate the published findings in sex research (ranging from 68% to 88%). Two journals had a higher number of studies that only included men as participants, and one a higher number of samples that consisted of only women, and very few included gender diverse samples (i.e., non-binary, trans*, intersex). Recommendations for improving the current research and publishing practices are discussed.

Are there "Better" and "Worse" Ways to be Consensually Non-Monogamous (CNM)?: CNM Types and CNM-Specific Predictors of Dyadic Adjustment.

Research on consensual non-monogamy (CNM) has largely been restricted to comparisons between monogamous and CNM people, with researchers paying little attention to various CNM styles. The current research elucidated differences among three styles of CNM: open relationships, polyamory, and swinging. Across three studies, we demonstrated that people in polyamorous or swinger-style relationships have higher levels of relationship satisfaction and other relational outcomes (e.g., passionate love, trust) than those in open relationships. That is, people in open relationships consistently fared more poorly in their relational outcomes than those in other types of CNM relationships. In Studies 4 and 5, we isolated some of the reasons for these differences. We found that differences in relational outcomes between open-style and other styles of CNM dissipated when controlling for (a) couples' approach to communication, (b) extrinsic versus intrinsic motivations for participating in CNM, (c) adherence to pro-monogamy beliefs and (d) degree of contact with one's partner's partners ("metamours"). Thus, CNM-specific relational dynamics are associated with dyadic adjustment in these relationships.

Gender Similarities and Differences in Casual Sex Acceptance Among Lesbian Women and Gay Men.

Popular wisdom and scientific evidence suggest women desire and engage in casual sex less frequently than men; however, theories of gender differences in sexuality are often formulated in light of heterosexual relations. Less is understood about sexual behavior among lesbian and gay people, or individuals in which there is arguably less motivation to pursue sex for reproductive purposes and fewer expectations for people to behave in gender-typical ways. Drawing from scripts theory and pleasure theory, in two studies (N1 = 465; N2 = 487) we examined lesbian and gay people's acceptance of casual sex. We asked participants who had been propositioned for casual sex whether they accepted the offer and to rate their perceptions of the proposer's sexual capabilities and sexual orientation. They also reported on their awareness of stigma surrounding casual sex. We found a gender difference in acceptance: Gay men were more likely than lesbian women to have accepted a casual sex offer from other gay/lesbian people, and this difference was mediated by participants' stigma awareness. We also found the proposer's sexual orientation played a role in people's acceptance. Lesbian women and gay men were equally likely to accept offers from bisexual proposers but expressed different acceptance rates with "straight-but-curious" proposers, which was mediated by expected pleasure. We discuss dynamics within lesbian and gay communities and implications for studying theories of sexual behavior and gender differences beyond heterosexual contexts.

Communication Patterns Among Male Couples with Open and Monogamous Agreements.

Male couples in open relationships tend to have as equally fulfilling relationships as monogamous male couples; however, less is known about communication differences between monogamous and open couples. Because couples with open agreements permit sex with outside partners, they must navigate different relationship issues than monogamous couples, and this can translate to differences in communication. We therefore examined differences between cisgender men in monogamous versus open relationships regarding communication about sexual agreements, safety agreements, breaking of sexual and safety agreements, the disclosure of broken sexual and safety agreements, and general relationship communication. Using a sample of 395 couples, we found that while certain aspects of communication are different for monogamous couples compared to open couples, similarities also exist. Specifically, we identified no differences in how explicitly couples discussed their sexual and safety agreements, attitudes toward communication about safety agreements, and mutual avoidance and withholding communication. However, monogamous couples had more positive attitudes toward communication about sexual agreements. The results were mixed on the perceived impact that broken safety agreements had on communication with the primary partner. Our results are interpreted with attention to relationship well-being and implications for safer sex practices.

Re-examining the effectiveness of monogamy as an STI-preventive strategy.

The utility of monogamy (in practice) as a strategy for preventing sexually transmitted infections (STIs) was investigated. By reviewing recent literature surrounding monogamous relationships and sexual behaviors, the authors determined that monogamy might not prevent against STIs as expected. First, the authors elucidate the ways in which public health officials and the general public define and interpret monogamy and discuss how this contributes to monogamy as an ineffectual STI prevention strategy. Second, the authors provide evidence that individuals' compliance with monogamy is likely to be low, similar to rates of compliance with other medical advice. Lastly, the authors draw upon recent research findings suggesting that people who label themselves as monogamous are less likely to engage in safer sex behaviors than people who have an explicit agreement with their partner to be non-monogamous. Future research and clinical directions to promote sexual health and destigmatize sexual behaviors are considered.

Condom use errors among sexually unfaithful and consensually nonmonogamous individuals.

This research involved comparisons of the condom use behaviours of people who are in monogamous relationships but who have engaged in extradyadic sex (i.e. committed infidelity) to those who are in consensually nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships. Consensual nonmonogamy is the practice of openly having multiple sexual or romantic partners simultaneously, with the full knowledge and consent of all participating partners. Participants in CNM relationships used condoms more correctly in their last instance of intercourse than those who were committing infidelity.

A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships.

In this article, we critically examine the social institution of monogamy. First, we discuss the lack of an adequate and consistent definition of the construct of monogamy and consider how common monogamy is. Next, we address perceived benefits of monogamy and whether those ostensible benefits are supported by empirical evidence. We conclude that evidence for the benefits of monogamy relative to other relationship styles is currently lacking, suggesting that, for those who choose it, consensual non-monogamy may be a viable alternative to monogamy. Implications for theories of close relationships are discussed.

Unfaithful individuals are less likely to practice safer sex than openly nonmonogamous individuals.

INTRODUCTION: Given the prevalence and harm of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), there is a need to examine safer sex strategies in the context of romantic relationships and extradyadic sexual encounters. Sexual infidelity is associated with a variety of detrimental psychosocial outcomes; however, little research has addressed the sexual health ramifications of sexually unfaithful partners and members of other high-risk nonmonogamous lifestyles. AIMS: To determine whether sexually unfaithful individuals or "negotiated nonmonogamous" individuals are more likely to engage in sexual health risk reduction behaviors during extradyadic encounters and with their primary partner. METHOD: Data were collected via an anonymous Internet-based study. Several hundred sexually unfaithful individuals and individuals with a negotiated nonmonogamy agreement completed a sexual health questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Self-reported measures of risk reduction behaviors within the primary relationship and risk reduction behaviors during the extradyadic encounter were assessed. RESULTS: Sexually unfaithful participants demonstrated significantly lower rates of protective sexual health behaviors both within their primary partnerships and during their extradyadic sexual encounters. Sexually unfaithful participants were also less likely to engage in frequent STI testing, and less likely to discuss safer sex concerns with new partners. CONCLUSIONS: These data add to the literature on the negative effects of sexual unfaithfulness. Understanding rates of nonengagement in safer sex strategies will be helpful to those who lead efforts to increase condom use and other preventive STI measures.

Safer sex as the bolder choice: testosterone is positively correlated with safer sex behaviorally relevant attitudes in young men.

INTRODUCTION: Higher testosterone (T) is tied to risk-taking, especially in financial domains but also in health domains relevant to acquiring sexually transmitted infections (STIs). However, safer sex constructs could themselves carry the possibility of "social risk" due to sexual stigma or embarrassment, or could involve boldness or confidence because they could represent status displays of frequent sexual activity. AIM: To determine how T and behaviorally relevant attitudes about sexual risk-taking are linked, to better understand biopsychosocial aspects of sexual health related to STIs. METHODS: In 78 first-year male college students, we examined correlations between salivary T and behaviorally relevant safer sex attitudes assessed via questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: T, via saliva; safer sex attitudes, via a composite and the University of California, Los Angeles Multidimensional Condom Attitudes Scale (MCAS). RESULTS: Higher T was significantly correlated with higher scores on the following: safer sex likelihood composite, r(73)=0.33, P=0.003; the MCAS safer sex resilience, r(32)=0.36, P=0.037; and the MCAS condom purchase comfort, r(32)=0.37, P=0.031. Associations between T and safer sex likelihood and resilience were still robust after controlling for potential confounds, though the association between T and purchase comfort diminished to a trend. CONCLUSIONS: Higher T was positively linked with safer sex attitudes, especially those most closely tied to STI risk avoidance. Thus, future research and interventions for STI prevention should address the possibility that safer sex may be paradoxically perceived as a "bold" or "risky" choice even as it decreases STI risk.

Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers.

In a highly influential paper, Clark and Hatfield (1989) demonstrated that, whereas men were quite likely to accept a casual sexual offer from a confederate research assistant, women never did so. The current research provides a more in-depth explanation of gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers via 4 (quasi-) experiments. First, using a person-perception paradigm, I assessed people's impressions of women and men who proposed a casual sexual encounter in the same manner that confederates in Clark and Hatfield did. Women and men agreed that female proposers were more intelligent, successful, and sexually skilled than men who made the same proposals. Second, I demonstrated that the large gender differences from the original Clark and Hatfield study could be eliminated by asking participants to imagine proposals from (attractive and unattractive) famous individuals, friends, and same-gender individuals. Next, I assessed factors associated with likelihood of agreeing to the casual sex proposal. The extent to which women and men believed that the proposer would be sexually skilled predicted how likely they would be to engage in casual sex with this individual. Finally, I examined these factors in the context of actual encounters from the participants' previous experiences, and the results were replicated in this context. Overall findings suggest that the large gender differences Clark and Hatfield observed in acceptance of the casual sex offer may have more to do with perceived personality characteristics of the female versus male proposers than with gender differences among Clark and Hatfield's participants and that sexual pleasure figures largely in women's and men's decision making about casual sex.

O. J. Simpson as shared (and unshared) reality: the impact of consensually shared beliefs on interpersonal perceptions and task performance in different- and same-ethnicity dyads.

Shared reality theory postulates that interpersonal relationships are regulated by the degree to which people share experiences and beliefs (Hardin & Higgins, 1996). To assess consequences of shared (and unshared) reality for interpersonal relationships, we examined the effects of the 1990s Simpson trial on actual interpersonal interactions in same- and different-ethnicity dyads. In 3 experiments (conducted directly following, 5 years after, and 10 years after the trial), people who had been primed with Simpson participated in cooperative problem-solving tasks. Because the trial represented a dimension of belief discrepancy between Blacks and Whites but a dimension of shared beliefs within the two ethnic groups, shared reality theory predicts that activating memories of the trial would affect interpersonal interactions differently depending upon ethnic composition of dyads. As predicted, thoughts of Simpson caused decrements in quality of interpersonal perceptions and behaviors for different-ethnicity dyads but increases for same-ethnicity dyads. In addition, in a 4th study, we found that consensus predicted liking among partners in the previous 3 experiments and that these effects were significant in the expected direction for both same- and different-ethnicity pairs.

Gender and perceptions of romantic partners' sexual risk.

INTRODUCTION: Research shows that in most situations, women perceive themselves to be at greater risk of harm than do men. Gustafson's gender role perspective on risk perception suggests that this is because women are socialized to feel that they need protection, especially from men. AIMS: Based on Gustafson's gender role perspective on sex differences in risk perception, we predicted that in at least one context, perception of romantic partners' sexual risk, this gender difference would be reversed. Specifically, women should rate boyfriends as having lower risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) than boyfriends rate themselves having. METHODS: In two studies, we examined heterosexual couples and compared women's perceptions of their boyfriends' sexual risk level with the boyfriend's self-perception of sexual risk. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported measures of risk for STIs, perception of romantic partners' risk for STIs. RESULTS: On multiple measures, women rated their boyfriends as having a lower risk for STIs than the men rated themselves. Men did not show this pattern and, in some cases, showed the reverse pattern of perceiving their girlfriends to have a greater level of risk than girlfriends themselves believed they had. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with Gustafson's gender role perspective on risk perception, heterosexual women perceived their romantic partners as relatively less risky in terms of STI risk than men perceived themselves. One potential implication of this finding is that women may be less likely to protect themselves against disease in close romantic relationships because they believe that their partners are low risk, regardless of the partners' actual risk levels.

Attitudes, subjective experiences, and behaviors in imagined and actual encounters between gay and heterosexual people.

Across four studies, we assessed the relationship between participants' attitudes toward gay men and their experiences during either imagined or actual interpersonal encounters with gay men. In the first three studies, participants imagined interactions with gay men and either responded in an open-ended or a closed-ended fashion. In these imagined interactions, participants reported that they expected to have considerable agreement between their attitudes and their subjective experiences during the intergroup encounter. However, during actual interactions, there were no differences between members of different prejudice levels in their responses to the gay confederate. A comparison of the actual and imagined interactions demonstrated that high prejudice people are particularly unlikely to have subjective experiences that match their negative attitudes concerning actual interpersonal encounters.

Gay men and lesbians' experiences in and expectations for interactions with heterosexuals.

We analyzed 97 gay men's and lesbians' experiences with and expectations for interactions with majority group members. Respondents described reactions to previous or imagined future interactions with an unfamiliar heterosexual person who had just become aware that the respondent was lesbian or gay. Results indicated that respondents are more proactive than reactive (in contrast to expectation states theories), that the contact hypothesis can be appropriately applied to this group, even though the formulation of the theory was based upon negative attitudes in the absence of extensive contact, and that they have different reactions for people of different prejudice levels, rather than being globally suspicious, as is predicted by many intergroup theories. Future research should direct more attention to the stigmatized group members' attitudes about and reactions toward the majority group.