2001
DOI: 10.2224/sbp.2001.29.7.625
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Partner Preferences Among Homosexual Men and Women: What Is Desirable in a Sex Partner Is Not Necessarily Desirable in a Romantic Partner

Abstract: In the present study we examined the degree to which various partner characteristics are preferred by homosexual men and women in a short-term sexual relationship versus a long-term romantic relationship. A non-college sample of adults (N = 80) individually rated the desirability of various attributes in a "short-term sexual" or a "long-term romantic" partner (randomly assigned). The results indicated that participants clearly distinguished between these two types of relational partner. Specifically, and consi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
17
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
5
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This result is similar to those reported in the adult preference literature (e.g., Kenrick, Groth, Trost, & Sadalla, 1993;Regan, 1998;Regan, Medina, & Joshi, 2001) and suggests that physical appeal is a highly important dimension in the evaluation and selection of short-term sexual partners. These participants also valued characteristics reflective of sexual passion and drive (e.g., sexual responsiveness and passion, high sex drive) in this type of relational partner.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…This result is similar to those reported in the adult preference literature (e.g., Kenrick, Groth, Trost, & Sadalla, 1993;Regan, 1998;Regan, Medina, & Joshi, 2001) and suggests that physical appeal is a highly important dimension in the evaluation and selection of short-term sexual partners. These participants also valued characteristics reflective of sexual passion and drive (e.g., sexual responsiveness and passion, high sex drive) in this type of relational partner.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…For example, numerous empirical studies of mate preference regardless of theoretical orientation have found that men value physical attractiveness more than do women, whereas women value social status more than do men (e.g., Berscheid & Walster, 1974;Buss, 1989;Buss & Barnes, 1986). However, as we have illustrated along with others (e.g., Kenrick et al, 1995;Regan et al, 2001), mate preferences depend on more than respondent gender. Moreover, gender of the respondent examined without the inclusion of gender of the partner and sexual orientation provides a relatively limited picture of the role of gender in partner preferences.…”
Section: Expansions and Complicationssupporting
confidence: 56%
“…Many of the participants discussed having contacted men for casual sex through the Internet; 4 three talked about how this had on occasion resulted in having sex with men to whom they were not attracted. Many emphasized the importance of physical attraction in casual sexual encounters (see also Regan, Medina, & Joshi, 2001). Oliver suggested that in such casual or one-off contexts, physical attraction and sexual compatibility are the most important components: men for casual sex spoke of going to hotels or having people arrive at their homes, only to discover that the prospective partners had misrepresented their appearances to varying degrees or that they simply were not attracted to these men "in the flesh."…”
Section: Unwanted Sex Through Obligation and A Lack Of Alternativesmentioning
confidence: 99%