Sexual Arousal of College Students in Relation to Sex Experiences

Kilmann, Peter R.; Boland, Joseph P.; West, Melissa O.; Jonet, C. Jean; Ramsey, Ryan E.

doi:10.1080/01614576.1993.11074079

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A distinction has been made between one-off (casual) sex, such as one night stand(s) (Campbell, 2008;Cubbins & Tanfer, 2000), having sex with someone once and only once (Baldwin & Baldwin, 1988;Kilmann, Boland, West, & Jonet, 1993), hook-up(s) (Lewis, Atkins, Blayney, Dent, & Kaysen, 2012;Littleton et al, 2009;Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2006;Paul & Hayes, 2002), and longer-term casual sex arrangements such as friends with benefits (e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009;Hughes, Morrision, & Asada, 2005), fuck buddies (Heldman & Wade, 2010;Lehmiller, VanderDrift, & Kelly, 2010;Wentland & Reissing, 2011) and booty calls (e.g., Jonason, Li, & Cason, 2009), as well as one-off or ongoing sex with an ex-partner (Farvid, 2005;Manning et al, 2006). Casual sex has also recently been referred to as "non-romantic sex" to capture sex that occurs outside the context of a hegemonic romantic narrative, where it is assumed "that everyone is in, or seeking, a life-long, exclusive, committed and loving relationship, and that sex only occurs in that context" (Moran & Lee, 2014a, p. 221;2014b).…”

Section: Heterosexual Casual Sex Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpacking the “Pleasures” and “Pains” of Heterosexual Casual Sex: Beyond Singular Understandings

Farvid

Braun

2016

The Journal of Sex Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discussions of heterosexual casual sex are often imbued with (gendered) assumptions regarding the motives for, and drawbacks of, such a practice. The pulls of casual sex are often depicted as sexual gratification and the drawbacks relayed in terms of physical risk, for example, sexually transmitted infections (STIs)/human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission. Most of the research in this area has largely focused on undergraduate university students or "emerging adults" in North America, using primarily quantitative methodologies. We build on this work and a small but growing amount of qualitative research to unpack the complex psychoemotional and experiential dimensions of casual sex. We report on a critical thematic analysis of interviews with 30 ethnically diverse women and men (aged 18 to 46) in New Zealand about their experiences of heterosexual casual sex to achieve two things. First, we demonstrate the complexity with which women and men discussed their casual sex experiences, highlighting how the practice was varied, contradictory, and multifaceted, and played in a localized way during the conversation. Second, we illustrate how this talk was governed by contemporary Western discourses of intimate relationships and the shape of (gendered) heterosexuality. We conclude that casual sex research must always consider the broader sociocultural context, as well as the interpersonal context, within which any sexual relating is situated.

show abstract

Section: Heterosexual Casual Sex Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpacking the “Pleasures” and “Pains” of Heterosexual Casual Sex: Beyond Singular Understandings

Farvid

Braun

2016

The Journal of Sex Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, these relationships feature friends who have sex but who do not imagine a long‐term romantic connection (Bisson & Levine, ). A larger body of research has examined “casual sexual relationships” (CSRs) with a variety of definitions to describe these types of relationships, including sex that happens one time only (Kilman, Boland, West, Jonet, & Ramsey, ), sex outside any committed relationship (Regan & Dreyer, ), one‐night stands (Montoya, ), and “hooking up” (Bogle, ). One recent study identified four related but distinctly different types of casual sexual relationships: “one‐night stands,” “booty calls,” “fuck buddies,” and “friends with benefits,” noting that frequency of contact, type of contact (sexual and/or social), level of personal disclosure, discussion of the relationship, and degree of friendship define the four into distinct categories.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Friends with benefits? Gendered performances in women's casual sexual relationships

Fahs

Munger

2015

Personal Relationships

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although some research has examined “friends with benefits” relationships (FWBRs), women's subjective accounts of FWBRs remains notably understudied. Utilizing attachment theory, scripting theory, and social constructionist theories of gender, this study drew upon qualitative interviews with a community sample of 20 women (mean age = 34, SD = 13.35) from diverse ages, races, and sexual identity backgrounds to illuminate five themes in women's FWBR narratives: (a) regulation and suppression of emotions, (b) performance and idealization of detachment and emotionlessness, (c) lack of clear communication combined with “other‐defined” experiences, (d) replication of racist and sexist scripts, and (e) transitional qualities of the relationship. Implications for the power differentials present in FWBRs, and tensions between subverting and further entrenching relationship scripts, are explored.

show abstract

Descriptive and Injunctive Social Norm Overestimation in Hooking Up and Their Role as Predictors of Hook-Up Activity in a College Student Sample

Barriger

Vélez-Blasini

2013

Journal of Sex Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the presence of norm overestimation in both injunctive and descriptive norms about hooking up. An online survey was completed by 186 college students (127 women). Overestimation was examined for hooking up as a global category, as well as for six specific behaviors. The role of norms in predicting hooking up was also examined using hierarchical multiple regression analyses. The predictive role of sensation-seeking, sociosexual orientation, self-esteem, and alcohol drinking status was also examined. Injunctive norm overestimation was present for less intimate behaviors (kissing and non-genital touching); only women showed overestimation for more intimate behaviors (genital touching, receiving oral sex, giving oral sex, and intercourse). Descriptive norms were overestimated across the board. Injunctive norms were poor predictors of behavior. Descriptive norms were good predictors only for less intimate behaviors, a pattern similar to that observed for drinking status. Ultimately, participants' level of personal comfort was the best predictor of participation in the most intimate behaviors, including oral sex and sexual intercourse.

show abstract

Sexual Arousal of College Students in Relation to Sex Experiences

Cited by 5 publications

References 12 publications

Unpacking the “Pleasures” and “Pains” of Heterosexual Casual Sex: Beyond Singular Understandings

Unpacking the “Pleasures” and “Pains” of Heterosexual Casual Sex: Beyond Singular Understandings

Friends with benefits? Gendered performances in women's casual sexual relationships

Descriptive and Injunctive Social Norm Overestimation in Hooking Up and Their Role as Predictors of Hook-Up Activity in a College Student Sample

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About