A Biosocial and Developmental Theory of Male and Female Sexuality

Shuttleworth, Frank K.

doi:10.2307/348112

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, the sex-drive of women seems to be more sensitive to learning patterns which vary more with the demands of the interpersonal situation than is the case for men; thus Kinsey's data indicate that marriage elevates the sexual orgasm frequency of men only 63 percent, whereas it elevates that of women 560 percent (Shuttleworth, 1959). The less flexible nature of the male sex-drive should make the discrepancy between masculine and feminine drive more of a problem for the man, since his need for a more constant outlet is greater than that of the woman.…”

Section: Journal Of Marriage and The Family 474mentioning

confidence: 80%

“…It should be noted first that research indicates that the sex-drive of men is in general stronger than that of woman, when sexdrive is defined as the consciously experienced desire for relief from sexual tension through sexual activity (Burgess and Wallin, 1953;Terman, 1938;Kinsey et al, 1953;Shuttleworth, 1959). Men experience a greater number of orgasms over a weekly period and are more easily aroused by a wide variety of stimuli which fail to arouse women to an equal pitch.…”

Section: Journal Of Marriage and The Family 474mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stimulus. Value. Role: A Theory of Marital Choice

Murstein¹

1970

Journal of Marriage and the Family

171

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Journal Of Marriage and The Family 474mentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Journal Of Marriage and The Family 474mentioning

confidence: 98%

Stimulus. Value. Role: A Theory of Marital Choice

Murstein¹

1970

Journal of Marriage and the Family

171

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Brown and Ford (1961), for example, have described such norms for the manner in which status differences influence both physical and verbal intimacy. Similar norms exist regarding sex differences in intimate behavior (Ehrmann, 1959;Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953;Lazerson, Estrada, Roster, & Vennard, 1971;Masters & Johnson, 1970;Miles, 1935;Schofield, 1965;Schuttleworth, 1959), as well as in regard to appropriate behavior between strangers (Davis, 1973;Goffman, 1959Goffman, , 1967.…”

Section: Pleasuring and Norms Regarding Intimacymentioning

confidence: 90%

When pleasure begets pleasure: Recipient responsiveness as a determinant of physical pleasuring between heterosexual dating couples and strangers.

Davis¹,

Martin²

1978

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contrary to the well-documented notion that positive verbal responses reinforce behavior, research on physical pleasuring has demonstrated that positive verbal 'responsiveness from a recipient of pleasurable vibrations inhibits, rather than facilitates, heterosexual pleasuring. The present research sought to clarify the role of recipient responsiveness in interpersonal pleasuring through comparison of established dating couples with ad hoc pairs. Using the pleasure paradigm developed by Davis, Rainey, and' Brock, 160 undergraduate couples-either established dates or ad hoc pairs-delivered intensity-graded pleasurable vibrations to the buttocks and thighs of a recipient. It was proposed that among dating couples, intimacy would be perceived as appropriate; hence, responsiveness would facilitate rather than inhibit pleasuring. In the case of strangers, however, it was expected that intimacy would be perceived as inappropriate; hence, responsiveness would not facilitate pleasuring. Results offered support for these predictions.The ubiquitous human propensity to give and receive physical pleasure has recently become the object of systematic empirical research. Using the pleasure machine developed by Davis, Rainey, & Brock (1976), with which subjects administer pleasant vibrations to an experimental confederate rather than electric shock (e.g., Buss, 1961), investigators have explored the effects of such variables as sex combinations, recipient attractiveness, liking, anticipated future interaction (Davis et al., 1976), recipient responsiveness (Davis et al., 1976; Davis & Brock, Note 1), recipient status (Davis & Brock, Note 1), relationship meaningfulness (Cacioppo, Note 2), and perceived appropriateness of pleasure giving (Thomas, Canty, Geva, & Brock, Note 3) on the administration of physical pleasure. Special thanks are due Timothy C. Brock for his comments on previous drafts of this article. We would also like to thank Thomas M. Ostrom and Robert S. Wyer, Jr. for their comments.

show abstract

“…These theories, together with evidence from longitudinal studies and surveys of precocious puberty, suggest that a much more subtle classification is needed than the simple dimensions of Needham (1942) and Tanner (1962). Shuttleworth (1959) touches on this when he proposes his "biosocial and developmental" theory in criticizing Kinsey's (1953) severely "environmental" approach. It may well be that there is an interaction and overlapping of the various "systems", a developmental interplay which permits far wider variations and less interdependence between them than was previously supposed.…”

Section: Psychosexual Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%