Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:22:17.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intimacy Through Casual Sex: Relational Context of Sexual Activity and Affectionate Behaviours

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2018

Justin R. Garcia Open the ORCID record for Justin R. Garcia [Opens in a new window] ,
Amanda N. Gesselman ,
Sean G. Massey ,
Susan M. Seibold-Simpson  and
Ann M. Merriwether
Justin R. Garcia*
Affiliation:
The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA Department of Gender Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
Amanda N. Gesselman
Affiliation:
The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
Sean G. Massey
Affiliation:
Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York, USA
Susan M. Seibold-Simpson
Affiliation:
Department of Nursing, SUNY Broome Community College, Binghamton, New York, USA
Ann M. Merriwether
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York, USA Department of Human Development, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Justin R. Garcia, The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, 150 S. Woodlawn Avenue, Lindley Hall 428, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Little is known about the role of affectionate behaviours — factors traditionally understood within the context of romantic relationships — in uncommitted ‘casual sex’ encounters. In a sample of U.S. undergraduate emerging adults aged 18–25 years (N = 639) we conducted a preliminary internet-based questionnaire investigation into the role of affectionate behaviours — operationalised here as cuddling, spending the night and cuddling, foreplay, and eye gazing — across two sexual relationship contexts: (committed) traditional romantic relationships and (uncommitted) casual sex encounters. While affectionate behaviours were desired more often in romantic relationships than in casual sexual encounters, many respondents (both men and women) engaged in these affectionate behaviours during casual sexual encounters as well. This was especially pronounced in those who expressed a preference for casual sex encounters over romantic relationships: in a casual sex context these participants were about 1.5 times as likely to cuddle, 1.5 times as likely to spend the night and cuddle, and nearly 5 times as likely to engage in foreplay with a partner. The current study emphasises the importance of considering relationship context in sexuality and relationship research, and the need for further theoretical and empirical research on dimensions of intimacy, including affection, in people's diverse romantic and sexual lives.

Keywords

casual sexhookupromantic relationshipcuddlingintimacyaffiliative behaviouraffectionate behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Relationships Research , Volume 9 , 2018 , e12
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, E.A., England, P., & Fogarty, A.C.K. (2012). Accounting for women's orgasm and sexual enjoyment in college hookups and relationships. American Sociological Review, 77, 435–462.Google Scholar
Arnett, J.J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the early twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, B.L. (1988). From front porch to back seat: Courtship in twentieth century America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bogle, K.A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, C., Kahn, A.S., & Saville, B.K. (2010). To hook up or date: Which gender benefits?. Sex Roles, 62, 661–669.Google Scholar
Brody, L.R. (1985). Gender differences in emotional development: A review of theories and research. Journal of Personality, 53, 102–149.Google Scholar
Claxton, S.E., & van Dullmen, M.H.M. (2013). Casual sexual relationships and experiences in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 138–150.Google Scholar
Conley, T.D., Ziegler, A., & Moors, A.C. (2013). Backlash from the bedroom: Stigma mediates gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 392–407.Google Scholar
Denes, A. (2012). Pillow talk: Exploring disclosures after sexual activity. Western Journal of Communication, 76, 91–108.Google Scholar
Epstein, M., Calzo, J.P., Smiler, A.P., & Ward, L.M. (2009). ‘Anything from making out to having sex’: Men's negotiations of hooking up and friends with benefits scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 414–424.Google Scholar
Fielder, R.L., Carey, K.B., & Carey, M.P. (2013). Are hookups replacing romantic relationships? A longitudinal study of first-year female college students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 657–659.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. (Ed.). (2000). Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, H.E. (2016). Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray, (Revised Edition). WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Fisher, H.E. & Garcia, J.R. (2018). Slow love: Courtship in the digital age. In Sternberg, R.J. & Sternberg, K. (Eds.), The new psychology of love (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, M.L., Worth, K., Garcia, J.R., & Meredith, T. (2012). Feelings of regret following uncommitted sexual encounters in Canadian university students. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 14, 45–57.Google Scholar
Finkel, E.J., Eastwick, P.W., Karney, B.R., Reis, H.T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 3–66.Google Scholar
Flack, W.F. Jr., Daubman, K.A., Caron, M.L., Asadorian, J.A., D'Aureli, N., Gigliotti, S.N., … Stine, E.R. (2007). Risk factors and consequences of unwanted sex among university students: Hooking up, alcohol, and stress response. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 139–157.Google Scholar
Floyd, K. (2002). Human affection exchange: V. Attributes of the highly affectionate. Communication Quarterly, 50, 135–152.Google Scholar
Frederick, D.A., Lever, J., Gillespie, B.J., & Garcia, J.R. (2017). What keeps passion alive? Profiles of sexually satisfied versus dissatisfied men and women in a national sample. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 186–201.Google Scholar
Garcia, J.R., & Fisher, H.E. (2015). Why we hook up: Searching for sex or looking for love? In Tarrant, S. (Ed.), Gender, sex, and politics: In the streets and between the sheets in the 21st century (pp. 238–250). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Garcia, J.R., & Reiber, C. (2008). Hookup behavior: A biopsychosocial perspective. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2, 192–208.Google Scholar
Garcia, J.R., Reiber, C., Massey, S.G., & Merriwether, A.M. (2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16, 161–176.Google Scholar
Garcia, J.R., Seibold-Simpson, S.M., Massey, S.G., & Merriwether, A.M. (2015). Casual sex: Integrating social, behavioral, and sexual health research. In DeLamater, J. & Plante, R.F. (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of sexualities (pp. 203–222). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Garcia, J.R., Seibold-Simpson, S.M., Massey, S.G., & Merriwether, A.M. (2018). Orgasm experiences among emerging adult men and women: Gender, relationship context, and attitudes toward casual sex. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Garneau, C., Olmstead, S.B., Pasley, K., & Fincham, F.D. (2013). The role of family structure and attachment in college student hookups. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1473–1486.Google Scholar
Gesselman, A.N., Garcia, J.R., Mark, K.P., & Frederick, D.A. (2018). Consequences of interpersonal touch experiences and attitudes on health, sexuality, and romantic relationships. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Gray, P.B. & Garcia, J.R. (2013). Evolution and human sexual behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gulledge, A.K., Gulledge, M.H., & Stahmannn, R.F. (2003). Romantic physical affection types and relationship satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 233–242.Google Scholar
Gute, G., & Eshbaugh, E.M. (2008). Personality as a predictor of hooking up among college students. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 25, 26–43.Google Scholar
Hatfield, E., Hutchison, E.S.S., Bensman, L., Young, D.M., & Rapson, R.L. (2012). Cultural, social, and gender influences on casual sex: New developments. In Turner, J.M. & Mitchell, A.D. (Eds.), Social psychology: New developments (pp. 1–38). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.Google Scholar
Heiman, J.R., Long, J.S., Smith, S.N., Fisher, W.A., Sand, M.S., & Rosen, R.C. (2011). Sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness in midlife and older couples in five countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 741–753.Google Scholar
Hertenstein, M.L., Verkamp, J.M., Kerestes, A.M., & Holmes, R.M. (2006). The communicative functions of touch in humans, nonhuman primates, and rats: A review and synthesis of the empirical research. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 5–94.Google Scholar
Horan, S.M., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2011). Is it worth lying for? Physiological and emotional implications of recalling deceptive affection. Human Communication Research, 37, 78–106.Google Scholar
Jonason, P.K., Betteridge, G.L., & Kneebone, I.I. (2016). An examination of the nature of erotic talk. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 21–31.Google Scholar
Kruger, D.J., & Hughes, S.M. (2010). Variation in reproductive strategies influences post-coital experiences with partners. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 4, 254–264.Google Scholar
Lambert, T.A., Kahn, A.S., & Apple, K.J. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and hooking up. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 129–133.Google Scholar
Lenhart, A., Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2015). Teens, technology and romantic relationships. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/01/teens-technology-and-romantic-relationships/Google Scholar
Levin, R.J. (2006). Vocalised sounds and human sex. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 21, 99–107.Google Scholar
Linden, D.J. (2015). Touch: The science of hand, heart, and mind. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
Lyons, H.A., Manning, W.D., Longmore, M.A., & Giordano, P.C. (2014). Young adult casual sexual behavior: Life-course-specific motivations and consequences. Sociological Perspectives, 57, 79–101.Google Scholar
Mark, K.P., Garcia, J.R., & Fisher, H.E. (2015). Perceived emotional and sexual satisfaction across sexual relationship contexts: Gender and sexual orientation differences and similarities. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 24, 120–130.Google Scholar
Meston, C.M., & Buss, D.M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 477–507.Google Scholar
Muehlenhard, C.L., Humphreys, T.P., Jozkowski, K.N., & Peterson, Z.D. (2016). The complexities of sexual consent among college students: A conceptual and empirical review. The Journal of Sex Research, 53, 457–487.Google Scholar
Muise, A., Giang, E., & Impett, E.A. (2014). Post sex affectionate exchanges promote sexual and relationship satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1391–1402.Google Scholar
Nelson, H. & Geher, G. (2007). Mutual grooming in human dyadic relationships: An ethological perspective. Current Psychology, 26, 121–140.Google Scholar
O'Brien, D.T., Geher, G., Gallup, A.C., Garcia, J.R., & Kaufman, S.B. (2010). Self-perceived mating intelligence predicts sexual behavior in college students: Empirical validation of a theoretical construct. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 29, 341–362.Google Scholar
Oliver, M.B., & Hyde, J.S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.Google Scholar
Owen, J. and Fincham, F.D. (2011). Young adults’ emotional reactions after hooking up encounters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 321–330.Google Scholar
Paul, E.L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). ‘Hookups’: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88.Google Scholar
Petersen, J.L., & Hyde, J.S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–38.Google Scholar
Regan, P.C., & Dreyer, C.S. (1999). Lust? Love? Status? Young adults’ motives for engaging in casual sex. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 11, 1–24.Google Scholar
Reiber, C., & Garcia, J.R. (2010). Hooking up: Gender differences, evolution, and pluralistic ignorance. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 390–404.Google Scholar
Sales, N.J. (2015, August 6). Tinder and the dawn of the ‘Dating Apocalypse’. Vanity Fair, 6. Retrieved from https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/08/tinder-hook-up-culture-end-of-datingGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, D.P., Shackelford, T.K., & Buss, D.M. (2001). Are men really more ‘oriented’ toward short-term mating than women? A critical review of theory and research. Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 3, 211–239.Google Scholar
Schneider, M.E., & Katz, J. (2017). Adult attachment and heterosexual college women's hookup behaviors: Mediating effects of sexual motives. Sex Roles, 77, 419–429.Google Scholar
Seibold-Simpson, S.M., Gesselman, A.G., Garcia, J.R., Massey, S.G., & Merriwether, A.M. (2017). Predicting abortion intentions for pregnancies resulting from casual sex. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Shields, S.A., Garner, D.N., Di Leone, B., & Hadley, A.M. (2006). Gender and emotion. In Handbook of the sociology of emotions (pp. 63–83). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
Simon, R.W., & Nath, L.E. (2004). Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior? American Journal of Sociology, 109, 1137–1176.Google Scholar
Slater, D. (2014). A million first dates: Solving the puzzle of online dating. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
Snapp, S., Lento, R., Ryu, E., & Rosen, K.S. (2014). Why do they hook up? Attachment style and motives of college students. Personal Relationships, 21, 468–481.Google Scholar
Stinson, R.D. (2010). Hooking up in young adulthood: A review of factors influencing the sexual behavior of college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 24, 98–115.Google Scholar
Suomi, S.J. (1995). Influence of attachment theory on ethological studies of biobehavioral development in nonhuman primates. In Goldberg, S., Muir, R., & Kerr, J.. (Eds.), Attachment theory: Social, developmental, and clinical perspectives (pp. 185–201). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.Google Scholar
Trobst, K.K., Herbst, J.H., Masters, H.L., & Costa, P.T. (2002). Personality pathways to unsafe sex: Personality, condom use, and HIV risk behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 117–133.Google Scholar
van Anders, S.M., Edelstein, R.S., Wade, R.M., & Samples-Steele, C.R. (2013). Descriptive experiences and sexual vs. nurturant aspects of cuddling between adult romantic partners. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 553–560.Google Scholar
Vrangalova, Z. (2015). Does casual sex harm college students’ well-being? A longitudinal investigation of the role of motivation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 945–959.Google Scholar
Wade, L. (2017). American Hookup: The new culture of sex on campus. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Wentland, J.J., & Reissing, E.D. (2011). Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of casual sexual relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20, 75–91.Google Scholar
Yglesias, M. (2013, July 16). Who will save college students from the scourage of doomed campus relationships? Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/16/hookup_culture_makes_sense_saving_students_from_the_scourge_of_doomed_relationships.htmlGoogle Scholar