love and sexuality essay

Love and Sex

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

Sexual connection is a vital aspect of most romantic relationships, but it’s not always as central as people may think. Partners have sex for self-interested reasons—it feels good and can boost self-esteem; and for relationship-focused reasons—it enhances closeness and pleases someone they love. Over the long term, most couples will face sexual challenges, as bodies change with age and individuals’ desire for sex waxes and wanes (and generally declines). Research consistently shows that most couples struggle to talk about sex honestly, but that when they do, it brings them closer together.

Love also brings people together, but it takes more than love to stay together. Many of us know couples that broke up despite believing that they were in love with each other, because of one partner’s infidelity or because of distance or circumstance. But even in long-term stable relationships, partners who feel that they are in love may grow apart, if one believes that they are not emotionally safe in the relationship, or that it lacks passion or intimacy.

For more, see Sex .

On This Page

• The Power of Sex
• The Power of Love
• Talking About Sex
• Facing Sexual Challenges

Sex is an important aspect of many relationships and while research finds that while regular sex does help to cement a couple's emotional bond, that boost doesn't derive from the physical act as much as from what it expresses—openness, transparency, positive communication, and a commitment to foster and maintain erotic energy. What happens after sex is also vital: Research on sexual "afterglow," including cuddling and pillow talk, finds that the feeling of enhanced sexual satisfaction following a sexual encounter can leave partners feeling better about each other for weeks or even months. While many partners worry about why they may not have sex as often as they once did, or whether they need to learn new techniques, a decline in a couple's sex life is more commonly a reflection of other problems in the relationship, rather than the cause.

Experts who research sex in relationships report that those partners who find their sex lives most fulfilling say that the keys to a great sex life are being able to stay in the moment, communicate with each other honestly about their sexual wants—and have empathy for their partner’s, be vulnerable, and remain open to trying new things together.

Married couples report having sex an average of 58 times per year, although couples in their 20s report much more frequent encounters—about 111 per year, with that number dropping about 20 percent per decade as couples age. (Researchers tend to be suspicious of such results, since they are based on self-reports.) Many experts suggest that neither very frequent nor very rare sex is necessarily a problem for couples as long as they find their relationships satisfying and believe they are having enough sex .

Would more sex make you happier ? Probably not. In experiments, when couples were asked to double their normal frequency of sex, most did not follow through, and those who were able to did not report greater sexual satisfaction. In other words, for most couples, when it comes to sex, quality is more important that quantity.

The warm, fuzzy feeling many couples experience after sex is known as “ sexual afterglow ,” and research suggests that it may be vital to a relationship: Partners who experienced a feeling of sexual satisfaction longer—as long as 48 hours after sex—reported greater relationship satisfaction overall. (Research also finds it to be a myth that men tend to fall asleep quickly after sex.)

A range of research on sexual satisfaction in heterosexual relationships finds that, at every stage—desire, kissing, and orgasm— the woman’s satisfaction is more predictive of overall relationship satisfaction for both partners than the man’s—and a decline in a woman's sexual desire is more predictive of relationship troubles than a decline in a man's.

It can, but couples should understand the role sex plays in a relationship: Research suggests that a high-quality sexual connection, especially early in a relationship, lays a foundation for long-term sustainability. Studies find, in fact, that even as sexual satisfaction begins to decline in many relationships, overall satisfaction remains high. But when partners’ levels of desire start to diverge widely, it’s crucial that the concern be addressed.

For many, if not most, people, primal, passionate sex is an essential element of a healthy sex life. But many partners in long-term relationships find themselves moving away from passionate sex, either because they don’t want to put in the effort or because they talk themselves out of it. Some experts suggest that, to restore their passion, people talk about it openly, allow themselves to express their primal selves, and learn to tolerate sexual intensity.

Loving relationships can literally be a matter of life and death: Having a supportive relationship is more predictive of warding off mortality than quitting smoking or exercising, while a toxic relationship is more damaging than no relationship at all. But love is always reciprocal, and can only survive if both partners are willing to be open and honest with each other, express gratitude, share their thoughts and feelings, and ask for support rather than trying to go it alone. Individuals often believe they are sparing their partner by keeping their troubles from them, but people can be deeply hurt when they discover that the person they love most has not confided in them or sought out their support.

Romantic love could be seen as an evolutionary adaptation—a force that increases the chance of passing one’s genes on to future generations. It has also been described as a force that enables partners to stay together over the long term. Some identify it as a blind force that brings people together, even without strong romantic feelings, through what’s known as the “mere repeated exposure” affect. And others, citing different definitions and approaches to love at different times and in different cultures, describe it as merely a sociocultural construct.

Love has been defined by some as having three elements—intimacy, commitment, and passion. But many couples worry that their passion is declining over the years, making their connection less secure. Research, however, finds that a decrease in passion is less of a problem than a couple’s belief that once it decreases it can’t be restored; partners who understand that it waxes and wanes are more likely to rekindle it, and stay together.

Saying “I love you” for the first time is seen by many as a more significant step in a relationship than having sex for the first time. The statement implies a level of commitment, exclusivity, and intimacy that one partner may not be sure the other feels yet. Contrary to a common stereotype, though, men are much more likely to say those three words first , and more likely to report having felt love first in a relationship.

Even couples that are generally successful at addressing other issues get stuck when it comes to talking about sex. Many people assume that great sex should not require conversation, but that often leads to years of stale or unsatisfying encounters. Research finds that people avoid talking about uncomfortable topics because they imagine that what they say might threaten a relationship, especially if it's about sexual fantasies or interest in "unconventional" sex; that expressing concern about their sex life will hurt their partner's feelings; or because they're reluctant to reveal too much about themselves for fear of feeling shame or being shamed. But research also shows that partners willing to discuss intimacy with each other are generally happier with their relationships because they discover that their sexual concerns are usually not, after all, a sign that their relationship is in trouble.

It’s easier when partners understand that in actuality, most types of “unconventional” sex are pretty common . Surveys find that most couples have in fact engaged in what would generally be considered kinky sex play, or at least had fantasies about it. Couples who understand this, and worry less about violating norms, are more able to talk about their desires, and more likely to maintain satisfying connections.

Many people imagine that their fantasies may be extreme or improper, or that they’d be unwelcome by their partner. Often, that’s not the case. Most people report having more fantasies about their current partner than about anyone else; men’s and women’s fantasies are broadly similar; and, in general, couples that acted on a fantasy reported that it went well (with the exception of threesomes).

Partners in long-term relationships generally sext much less often than younger people, or those in new relationships. But about 12 percent of such partners report having sexted each other , and research suggests that those who send some kind of sexual message to a partner report greater relationship well-being, with one important distinction: Sending nude or semi-nude photos was linked with greater relationship ambivalence.

Many people in long-term BDSM relationships report high satisfaction, and believe that their partnerships are widely misunderstood by those who do not take part. Fundamentally, they say, their relationships are about trust, not abuse; are built around play, not dominance; are generally safely choreographed; and that the “submissives” are typically the ones in charge.

There is no universal prescription for a healthy sex life. There are happy couples that have sex multiple times a week, and satisfied couples that hardly ever have sex. But many couples do encounter serious conflicts around their sex lives, often having to do with discrepancy in desire. When one partner—and it's not always a man—has a much higher sex drive than the other, it can threaten a relationship, with one person feeling pressure to have more sex, and the other feeling rejected. Bringing such concerns out into the open can help assuage hurt feelings, and meeting with a couples therapist may help partners find common ground.

Few people in otherwise happy long-term relationships would characterize sexual begging or pressure from their partner as sexual assault . But sexual coercion and unwanted intimacy—even if it’s not physically aggressive—is a serious concern that partners should address before it becomes normalized, and seek to reestablish healthy boundaries and ground rules.

The common stereotype is that men have higher sex drives than women, and maintain a higher sex drive as they age. But that’s not always the case, and many women have a much stronger libido than their male partners. Women with high sex drives may find increased satisfaction through greater mental presence during sex and more open communication with their partners about their desires and fantasies.

Is one obligated to have sex more often with a partner who has a higher sex drive, even if they find it unpleasant—and if one is unwilling to do so, is the other partner justified in seeking sex elsewhere ? Before anyone launches an affair, or walks away from a relationship, partners should discuss the needs that are not being met, and whether it justifies the end of their connection, or some other new understanding.

Long-term relationships can thrive with little or no sex, as long as both partners are OK with it. More often, one or the other partner enters the relationship with a much lower sex drive or experiences a significant decline over the long term. When that happens, it can put intense pressure on a couple’s connection, and lead to an unhappy dynamic in which one constantly chases the other. Often such a disparity benefits from couple’s therapy.

All couples argue. It may surprise you to learn that arguing does not in and of itself harm your relationship — but how you argue can cause damage.

In the throes of relationship dynamics, the problem isn’t the problem; the partner is the problem.

Making amends is a part of addiction recovery, but it is a beneficial practice for anyone. It can free us from guilt, repair relationships, and bring a new perspective.

You may have dozens of digital connections and seem well-connected, yet consistently feel lonely and as if you are missing out.

Microaggressions can be challenging to detect and to manage. Effectively facing microaggressions in relationships requires patience, compassion, and assertiveness.

Emotional unavailability can stem from past traumas, having a naturally rational temperament, or cultural influences that discourage emotional expression.

A new study suggests that happiness among singles and those in couples is similar.

If you have experienced betrayal in your relationship, you know how hard it can be to recover. New research discusses what the process looks like.

Discover the cognitive styles and emotional responses that most often lead to poor love choices.

Often, partners in love relationships may be out of sync emotionally. This is not necessarily a time to panic; it may be part of a natural process.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

Sexuality in Relationships

Lisa M. Diamond, Department of Psychology, University of Utah

• Published: 01 August 2013
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Sexuality is arguably the preeminent feature distinguishing romantic relationships from other emotionally significant ties, and it serves diverse and critical functions at every stage of coupledom. Over the past several decades, relationship researchers have made remarkable strides in documenting the development and functioning of sexuality within intimate relationships, including the unique dynamics of same-sex sexual relationships. The present chapter provides a comprehensive overview of these topics, most notably the prevalence of different types of sexual behavior in contemporary couples, normative changes in sexual functioning over the life course as well as over the course of specific relationships, the dynamics underlying sexual satisfaction, the importance of sexual communication, social exchange perspectives on relational sexuality, sexuality in the context of illness or disability, sexual dysfunction, and sexual coercion. With regard to same-sex sexuality, we address issues of sexual stigmatization and marginalization, the role of legal recognition of same-sex couples, gender-related dynamics in same-sex couples, and sexual norms and practices that prove distinctive for same-sex couples. Throughout the chapter, we identify key areas for future research on this historically understudied component of romantic relationship formation and functioning.

Sexuality is arguably the preeminent feature distinguishing romantic relationships from other emotionally significant ties ( Schwartz & Young, 2009 ), and it serves diverse and critical functions at every stage of coupledom. Early on, sexuality fosters the development of intimacy and attachment between new partners ( Hazan & Zeifman, 1994 ; Metts, 2004 ). As a relationship develops and deepens, sexuality provides a means for expressing vulnerability, reassurance, reconciliation, and mutual dependence, for enjoying and “playing” with one another, for dissipating tension and stress, for providing care and nurturance, for enacting and negotiating gender roles, and even for negotiating dominance and interdependence ( Giles, 2004 ; Ridley, Ogolsky, Payne, Totenhagen, & Cate, 2008 ; Sprecher & McKinney, 1993 ). Intimate relationships are increasingly viewed as dynamic systems in which partners reciprocally influence one another’s physical and mental functioning over time ( Boker & Laurenceau, 2007 ; Howe, 2007 ), and sexuality plays a fundamental role in this process.

Given the importance of sexuality within romantic relationships, it is ironic that it remains so difficult to study. Whereas practically every other aspect of intimate relationships has been subjected to direct observation and analysis (e.g., conflict, reconciliation, commitment, betrayal, support seeking, communication, dissolution), sexuality is less amenable to such scrutiny. The sexual lives of dating, cohabiting, and married couples unfold in private, obscured by societal taboos and individual inhibitions. Despite such obstacles, relationship researchers have made remarkable strides over the past several decades in documenting the development and functioning of sexuality within intimate relationships, including the unique dynamics of same-sex sexual relationships. The present chapter provides a comprehensive overview of these topics and identifies some of the most provocative and important directions for future research.

Sexual Behavior within Contemporary Heterosexual Couples

This first half of this chapter focuses exclusively on sexuality within heterosexual couples, and the unique dynamics of same-sex couples are addressed in depth in the second half. Throughout the chapter, we adopt a broad definition of sexuality that incorporates both partners’ physical capacities, motivations, attitudes, histories, and behaviors ( Waite, Laumann, Das, & Schumm, 2009 ). Hence, sexuality is not simply a matter of what couples do but also of how they think and feel about sex within their relationship. Each partner brings their own sexual attitudes, history, habits, fantasies, fears, and preferences to the dyad, where they interact with those of the other partner to create a unique erotic dynamic. Over time, couples develop a mutual sexual “script” specifying appropriate and desirable sexual behaviors, roles, and practices ( Simon & Gagnon, 1986 ). These scripts are influenced by parental socialization, social and community norms, cultural and religious beliefs, idiosyncratic personal experiences, and the couple’s evolving and changing expectations and experiences over the course of the relationship.

One important historical change in sexual scripts since the 1960s and 1970s concerns the increased acceptability of premarital sex. Contemporarily, the vast majority of married couples engage in sexual activity before getting married, and this practice is no longer roundly stigmatized ( Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994 ; Willets, Sprecher, & Beck, 2004 ). However, context still matters: Premarital sex within an established, long-standing, committed romantic relationship may be considered acceptable, but premarital sex with a casual stranger is not (reviewed in Willets et al., 2004 ).

These norms have an undeniable influence on individuals’ sexual practices, as evidenced by the fact that most sexual activity occurring in Western industrialized countries (approximately 90 percent) takes place within established romantic relationships ( Gagnon, Giami, Michaels, & Colomby, 2001 ; Laumann et al., 1994 ; Waite et al., 2009 ; Willets et al., 2004 ). Hence, long-standing stereotypes portraying single individuals as leading more voracious and satisfying sex lives than married individuals are simply wrong. Married individuals engage in far more sexual activity than single individuals and experience greater emotional and physical satisfaction with their sex lives ( Laumann et al., 1994 ; Lawrance & Byers, 1995 ; Waite & Joyner, 2001 ). Furthermore, most individuals’ first sexual partner is someone with whom they have an ongoing, emotionally significant relationship ( de Gaston, Jensen, & Weed, 1995 ; Sprecher, Barbee, & Schwartz, 1995 ), and one of the most reliable predictors of an adolescents’ sexual “debut” is their involvement in serious dating relationships ( Scott-Jones & White, 1990 ). As summarized by Gagnon and colleagues, living in a couple is the chief regulator of an individual’s sexual conduct in Western society ( Gagnon et al., 2001 ).

With this in mind, what does the average couple’s sexual script “look like?” Based on several large, representative studies, most married couples engage in sexual contact one to two times a week ( Call, Sprecher, & Schwartz, 1995 ; Laumann et al., 1994 ). Penile-vaginal intercourse is by far the most popular sexual practice. Laumann and colleagues (1994) found that 95 percent of respondents reported having vaginal sex the last time that they had sex, and 80 percent reported having vaginal sex every time that they had partnered sexual contact in the past year. Although a majority of individuals have engaged in oral sex at some point in their lifetime, fewer than 30 percent of individuals reported that their most recent sexual experience involved oral sex, and less than 2 percent reported that their most recent sexual experience involved anal sex (although these percentages are higher among younger, more educated, and white individuals).

Within heterosexual couples, gender plays a significant role in structuring sexual interactions. Although both men and women report wanting to have more frequent sex with their partner than they are currently having ( McNulty & Fisher, 2008 ), men initiate sexual activity more frequently than women do ( Byers & Heinlein, 1989 ; Laumann et al., 1994 ), and men report wanting more frequent and varied sexual activities ( Purnine & Carey, 1998 ; Simms & Byers, 2009 ). Although some would argue that these reflect biologically based differences in sex drive ( Baumeister, Catanese, & Vohs, 2001 ), they also reflect the fact that women receive persistent messages from parents, schools, and the media suggesting that women are less interested in sex than men, and that their role is to be the sexual “gatekeeper” in a relationship ( Tolman, 2002 ). Women receive more stigmatization than do men for engaging in casual and premarital sexual contact, for contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and for engaging in nontraditional sexual practices (like threesomes) ( Kreager & Staff, 2009 ; Lai & Hynie, 2011 ).

Notably, some research indicates that women do not want less sexual activity than their male partners, but different types of sexual activities: Specifically, although both men and women rate foreplay as an important part of the sexual interaction (S. A. Miller & Byers, 2004 ), women report wanting more foreplay than men and (perhaps more importantly) more foreplay than they are actually having ( Purnine & Carey, 1998 ; Witting et al., 2008 ).

The Great Equalizer: Age and Time

Laumann and colleagues (1994) detected few differences in couples’ rates of sexual activity based on demographic factors such as ethnicity, geography, income, education, or religion. Yet two demographic variables have reliably predicted a couple’s sexual frequency in every single study conducted: Age and relationship duration. Quite simply, older individuals have less sexual activity than do younger individuals, and long-standing relationships involve less sexual activity than new relationships ( Call et al., 1995 ; Gagnon et al., 2001 ; Laumann et al., 1994 ; Willets et al., 2004 ; Yabiku & Gager, 2009 ). Although age and relationship duration are of course confounded, each demonstrates unique predictive utility in studies where they can be reliably disentangled (i.e., studies of older individuals in brand-new relationships). The decline in sexual activity associated with relationship duration is particularly stark and immediate: The average couple has more frequent sexual activity during the first year of their relationship than they will ever have again ( Call et al., 1995 ).

Given the obvious pleasures of sexual activity, why does it decline so precipitously over time? Habituation appears to be the best explanation for the declines associated with relationship length ( Call et al., 1995 ). Both men and women report less frequent feelings of sexual desire and arousal in longer-term relationships ( Durr, 2009 ). Some have interpreted this as evidence that a primary function of sexual activity within developing relationships is the establishment of emotional intimacy and attachment, such that the subjective perception of increasing emotional intimacy serves as a potent erotic stimulus in and of itself. Once the relationship solidifies and emotional intimacy stabilizes, this particular stimulus wanes in intensity, resulting in less frequent sexual motivation and behavior (see Durr, 2009 ; Perel, 2007 ). Having children can dramatically accelerate this decline ( Serati et al., 2010 ). In addition to the discomfort and fatigue that many women experience during pregnancy, some report finding sex less satisfying after pregnancy, and indicate that reestablishing their previous level of sexual intimacy is less important to them than to their male partners. In other cases, postpartum depression exacerbates women’s low sexual motivation, low sexual self-esteem, or relationship tensions ( Huang & Mathers, 2006 ). After the immediate postpartum period has passed, couples with children face a host of new and ongoing stressors as they balance work demands with household labor and childrearing. The resulting fatigue and stress can significantly dampen sexual motivation ( Leiblum, 2003 ).

Advancing age brings a host of additional hurdles, such as declines in overall health and fitness ( Laumann, Paik, & Rosen, 1999 ) and common age-related health conditions such as arthritis, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and diabetes ( Schiavi, 1999 ). Hence, with each advancing decade, individuals pursue progressively less sexual activity. In one national study, the average rate of sexual activity among individuals 50 to 54 years of age was 5.5 times per month, compared with 2.4 times per month among individuals 65 to 69 years of age and less than once a month among individuals over 75 years of age ( Call et al., 1995 ). Yet importantly, closer inspection of these data reveals that these declines vary in magnitude from couple to couple. In other words, it is not the case that all couples undergo a uniform, progressive drop in sexual activity from year to year. Rather, it appears that with each passing decade, a greater proportion of couples stop having sex altogether, whereas the remaining couples continue engaging in sexual activity at relatively stable rates. For example, Call and colleagues (1995) found that among individuals over the age of 75 years who were still sexually active, the average sexual frequency was approximately 3 times per month. Hence, when considering age-related declines in sexual activity, it makes sense to first differentiate older couples who are having any sexual activity from those who are not.

It is also important to account for the fact that couples may change the types of sexual behaviors they pursue with advancing age, instead of eliminating sexual intimacy altogether. For example, couples contending with physical limitations that interfere with vaginal intercourse may gravitate toward oral stimulation or manual stimulation, and may place greater priority on physically affectionate behaviors such as cuddling and kissing ( Clarke, 2006 ). As argued by DeLamater, Hyde, and Fong (2008) , older individuals’ attitudes and expectations about sexual intimacy prove far more predictive of later-life sexual frequency than physical and health limitations ( Clarke, 2006 ; DeLamater, Hyde, & Fong, 2008 ). In short, where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Sexual Satisfaction and Relationship Satisfaction: The Role of Communication

Up until now, we have focused exclusively on questions of “what and how often,” leaving aside questions of quality. Yet there is tremendous variation in how individuals experience and evaluate their sexual practices. Two different couples might both engage in vaginal intercourse twice a week, and yet one couple might find their sex life exhilarating and intimate, whereas the other couple finds their sex life awkward, distant, and boring. Hence, extensive research has focused on understanding the antecedents and implications of couples’ sexual satisfaction, typically defined as “an affective response arising from one’s subjective evaluation of the positive and negative dimensions associated with one’s sexual relationship” ( Lawrance & Byers, 1995 , p. 268). Overall, the majority of American individuals in committed relationships report high levels of physical and emotional satisfaction with the sexual aspect of their partnership, and unlike sexual frequency, these levels do not tend to decline with age or relationship duration ( Laumann et al., 1994 ).

The strongest and most reliable single predictor of sexual satisfaction is overall relationship satisfaction (reviewed in Sprecher & Cate, 2004 ). Regardless of whether couples are dating, cohabitating, or married, regardless of the length of their relationship, and regardless of the specific challenges they face (such as chronic illness or disability or sexual dysfunction), those in happier, well-functioning relationships report higher sexual satisfaction ( Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983 ; Byers & Demmons, 1999 ; Henson, 2002 ; MacNeil & Byers, 1997 ; Nelson, Choi, Mulhall, & Roth, 2007; Sprecher, 2002 ; Trudel, Villeneuve, Preville, Boyer, & Frechette, 2010 ; Trudel, Villeneuve, Anderson, & Pilon, 2008 ; Yeh, Lorenz, Wickrama, Conger, & Elder, 2006 ), and changes in one domain predict changes in the other ( Byers, 2005 ; Sprecher, 2002 ; Yeh et al., 2006 ). Similarly, sexual satisfaction is associated with a range of more specific positive features of relationship functioning, such as feelings of love ( Aron & Henkemeyer, 1995 ; Hendrick & Hendrick, 2004 ; Sprecher, 2002 ; Sprecher & Regan, 1998 ), attachment security ( Alexander, Feeney, Hohaus, & Noller, 2001 ; Birnbaum, Reis, Mikulincer, Gillath, & Orpaz, 2006 ; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994 ), commitment ( Sprecher, 2002 ; Waite & Joyner, 2001 ; Warehime & Bass, 2008 ), and intimacy ( Haning et al., 2007 ). Greater sexual satisfaction is also associated with greater relationship stability. In addition to the fact that prospective studies have found that more sexually satisfied couples are more likely to stay together ( Sprecher, 2002 ; Yeh et al., 2006 ), retrospective studies have found that couples often list sexual problems and incompatibilities as contributing to their eventual break-up ( Lowenstein, 2005 ).

The key question, of course, concerns the direction and mechanisms of causal influence. Longitudinal studies have yielded a mixed pattern of findings on this question. Using cross-lagged analysis of longitudinal data, Yeh and colleagues (2006) found that sexual satisfaction influenced marital quality, which in turn increased marital stability. Yet another longitudinal study ( Byers, 2005 ) found limited evidence for a strong causal “push” from sexual satisfaction to relationship satisfaction or vice versa. Rather, the authors argued that the two constructs probably change concurrently, and that the quality of a couple’s intimate communication may play a critical role in this process. Specifically, couples who started out with poor communication reported declines in both sexual and relationship satisfaction over an 18-month period, whereas couples who started out with good communication reported increases in both domains.

These findings are consistent with extensive research suggesting the critical importance of intimate communication for couples’ sexual functioning and overall relationship functioning (reviewed in Byers, 2011 ; Byers & Demmons, 1999 ; Cupach & Comstock, 1990 ; Kelly, Strassberg, & Turner, 2006 ). Communication may prove particularly important for preventing a couple’s sexual hurdles from spilling over into their overall relationship functioning. For example, one study found that low levels of sexual satisfaction were only related to low marital quality among couples with poor communication skills ( Litzinger & Gordon, 2005 ). Unfortunately, many couples with otherwise strong communication skills may fail to communicate effectively about sexual matters, given that societal taboos and personal discomfort may make it difficult for couples to discuss such issues openly. For example, Kelly and colleagues compared the communication skills of couples with a female nonorgasmic partner to the communication skills of couples without a female nonorgasmic partner ( Kelly, Strassberg, & Turner, 2004 ; Kelly et al., 2006 ). The couples with a female nonorgasmic partner had significantly poorer communication overall, but especially when discussing sexual matters. Specifically, partners in these couples assigned more blame to the female partner and showed more discomfort when discussing the very sexual practice (clitoral stimulation) that might actually remedy the problem.

This example provides a useful illustration of Cupach and Metts’ (1991) argument that good communication enhances a couple’s sexual satisfaction through two mechanisms, which MacNeil and Byers ( MacNeil & Byers, 2005 , 2009 ) called the instrumental pathway and the expressive pathway . The instrumental pathway refers to the fact that good communication allows partners to understand one another’s sexual needs and preferences and to make appropriate modifications to their sexual practices ( Cupach & Metts, 1991 ; Purnine & Carey, 1997 ). The expressive pathways refers to the fact that open disclosure of partners’ respective sexual needs and preferences tends to enhance relational intimacy, which in turn enhances sexual satisfaction ( Cupach & Metts, 1991 ; MacNeil & Byers, 1997 ). Interestingly, the expressive function of sexual communication appears to be more predictive of sexual satisfaction for women, whereas the instrumental function proves important for both women and men ( MacNeil & Byers, 2005 ).

Despite the obvious importance of good sexual communication for sexual satisfaction, evidence suggests that few couples engage in comprehensive and open self-disclosure about their sexual needs (reviewed in Byers, 2011 ). One study found that even partners who had been together as long as 14 years had not completely disclosed their sexual desires and preferences to one another ( MacNeil & Byers, 2009 ). As a result, misperceptions were common: Partners reported understanding only 62 percent of what their partner found pleasing, and only 26 percent of what the partner found displeasing. Notably, several studies have found that in heterosexual couples, men are actually better judges of their partner’s needs and desires than are women ( Purnine & Carey, 1997 ; Simms & Byers, 2009 ), and their accuracy in perceiving the partner’s needs is more predictive of both partners’ sexual satisfaction than women’s accuracy ( MacNeil & Byers, 2005 ; S. A. Miller & Byers, 2004 ; Purnine & Carey, 1997 ). In interpreting this finding, Miller and Byers (2004) suggested that because men are typically socialized to take a more instrumental, agentic role in sex, and because men often feel social pressure to “perform” well sexually by pleasing their partners, men’s accuracy in perceiving their partner’s needs may be more likely to result in beneficial modifications to the couple’s sexual repertoire.

Social Exchange Perspectives on Sexual Satisfaction

The foregoing discussion highlights a fundamental fact about sexual satisfaction that poses a potential challenge for all couples: Partners rarely have the same sexual desires, preferences, expectations, or cognitive sexual “scripts” (S. A. Miller & Byers, 2004 ; Simms & Byers, 2009 ). Certain sexual practices, positions, or styles might be highly preferred by one partner but displeasing and uncomfortable to the other. Hence, achieving sexual satisfaction requires some degree of negotiation or compromise in order to achieve a mutual sexual script (or series of scripts) that provides maximal pleasure, comfort, and intimacy for both partners ( Cupach & Metts, 1991 ; MacNeil & Byers, 2009 ). In acknowledgment of this critical process, Byers and her colleagues have applied social exchange theory to the study of sexual satisfaction ( Byers, 2005 ; Byers & Wang, 2004 ; Lawrance & Byers, 1992 , 1995 ). Social exchange theory represents interpersonal behavior as a function of each partner’s motives to maximize their rewards and minimize their costs, as well as to achieve relative equity in partners’ respective “inputs” and “outcomes” ( Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1973 ). Applied to the domain of sexuality, Lawrance and Byers (1992 , 1995 ) argued that an individual’s sexual satisfaction in a relationship is determined by: (1) the overall balance of one’s sexual rewards and costs, (2) how these rewards and costs compare with one’s expectations, (3) perceptions of equity between one’s own rewards/costs and those of one’s partner, and (4) the quality of the nonsexual dimensions of the relationship.

The rewards associated with sexuality in a specific relationship might include such factors as physical pleasure, release of tension, emotional expression, and feelings of closeness; costs associated with sexuality might include dislike of certain practices, embarrassment, or sexual dysfunction ( Lawrance & Byers, 1992 ). The key contribution of the exchange perspective is that these rewards and costs are not conceived as independent and isolated predictors of sexual satisfaction—rather, their relevance derives from how individuals appraise the overall ratio of sexual rewards to costs. Hence, a woman who has highly pleasurable orgasms during sexual contact with her partner might actually have low levels of sexual satisfaction if this reward comes with numerous pernicious costs (e.g., the partner’s complaints about how long it takes her to reach orgasm, the low rate of sex altogether, and a climate of emotional distance). A man with untreatable erectile dysfunction might have extremely high sexual satisfaction if the costs associated with his sexual dysfunction are balanced out by important rewards (e.g., the intimacy and trust he experiences in talking through alternative sexual behaviors with his partner, the partner’s reassurances of his desirability, the fun and enjoyment experienced by the couple as they experiment with different toys and positions).

Numerous studies have confirmed that individuals’ perceptions of a high ratio of sexual rewards to sexual costs (regardless of the specific nature of each reward and cost) reliably predict their sexual satisfaction ( Byers & Demmons, 1999 ; Lawrance & Byers, 1995 ). The social exchange perspective is also particularly useful for understanding discrepancies between partners’ sexual satisfaction because partners may assign different values to certain aspects of their sexual relationship. Such discrepancies are particularly notable in heterosexual relationships because they tend to align with traditional gender differences regarding the valuation of physical versus emotional intimacy. For example, relationship dynamics such as emotional closeness, security, and open communication play a larger role in women’s sexual arousal and sexual satisfaction than is the case for men ( Basson, 2001 ; Byers, 2001 ; Lawrance & Byers, 1992 ).

Sexuality in Couples Coping with Illness or Disability

Couples coping with chronic illness or disability face special challenges when it comes to sexual functioning, most commonly precipitous declines in sexual frequency and satisfaction (reviewed in Esmail, Esmail, & Munro, 2001 ; Gilbert, Ussher, & Perz, 2010 ). Studies have also found clinically significant levels of sexual dysfunction among men and women suffering from (or showing risk factors for) numerous chronic health conditions ( DeRogatis & Burnett, 2008 ; Lewis et al., 2010 ), most notably cardiovascular disease ( Baumhakel et al., 2011 ; Meuleman, 2011 ). Yet research and rehabilitative practice with such couples typically focuses on psychological adjustment to the physical challenges posed by illness or disability, and less often on strategies for maintaining sexual intimacy (L. Miller, 1994 ; Rolland, 1994 ). This creates the potential for long-term health risks, given that untreated sexual problems tend to amplify relationship problems and erode partners’ capacity to give and receive support, eventually hindering the couples’ ability to cope with the demands of treatment and recovery ( Gunzler, Kriston, Harms, & Berner, 2009 ). Accordingly, researchers and clinicians have called for a more integrative approach to the simultaneous management of chronic illness and sexual problems, most notably in the realm of cancer and cardiovascular disease ( Jackson, Rosen, Kloner, & Kostis, 2006 ; Maggi & Corona, 2011 ; Meuleman, 2011 ). Importantly, evidence suggests that such approaches must adopt a dyadic approach, taking both partners’ responses into account ( Gilbert et al., 2010 ; Maggi & Corona, 2011 ). For example, one recent study found that just as a man’s sexual dysfunction is significantly related to his own cardiovascular risk, his perception of low or absent sexual desire on the part of his partner is also uniquely predictive of his cardiovascular risk, independent of potential confounds such as depressive symptoms and risky behaviors such as alcohol use and smoking ( Corona et al., 2010 ).

Numerous studies find greater sexual and relationship satisfaction among couples who manage to communicate openly and clearly about sexual needs and limits, who adopt broader, more flexible definitions of sexual intimacy and satisfaction, and who are willing to experiment with new and different sexual practices in order to cope with the changes posed by physical limitations (L. Miller, 1994 ; Milligan & Neufeldt, 1998 ). This may help to explain why couples who initiated their relationship after the onset of illness or disability tend to have higher sexual and relationship satisfaction than couples for whom the illness or disability interrupted their preexisting intimate life ( Kreuter, Sullivan, & Siosteen, 1994 ). For couples in which the illness or disability was present from the very beginning of the relationship, creative adjustments to physical limitations are part and parcel of their sexual repertoire, rather than substitutes for “what we did before.” Hence, such couples are not plagued by the feelings of loss or regret that often accompany couples for whom the illness or disability necessitated a stark change in their sexual routine ( Kreuter et al., 1994 ). Importantly, making such changes need not be experienced negatively: Some couples find that the process of reframing and reimagining their sexual scripts provides a new source of intimacy and meaning to their erotic and emotional connection with one another ( Gilbert et al., 2010 ).

Another challenge faced by couples coping with illness and disability is that the more able-bodied partner typically takes on a significant caregiving role, which may interfere with both partners’ perceptions of themselves as lovers ( Milligan & Neufeldt, 1998 ; Yoshida, 1994 ). In fact, studies suggest that the longer a spouse takes on significant caregiving duties, the more difficulty faced by the couple in returning to the levels of sexual intimacy they had before the illness or disability (L. Miller, 1994 ). This may be why Taleporos and McCabe (2003) found that individuals with physical disabilities reported higher depression if they were cohabitating with their romantic/sexual partner than if they maintained separate residences: Specifically, living together necessarily blurs the boundaries between a sexual partnership and a caretaking relationship, whereas living apart allows partners to maintain clearer boundaries between those functions, along with a greater sense of autonomy and choice regarding the maintenance of the relationship. The type and severity of impairment also proves important. Couples typically report more difficulty coping with cognitive impairments than physical impairments ( Sandel, 1997 ) because deficits in cognition and communication have more direct implications for couples’ ability to exchange meaningful and interpretable expressions of emotional intimacy ( Rolland, 1994 ). In some of these cases, sexual intimacy may be discontinued entirely in favor of a greater emphasis on companionship and comfort (L. Miller, 1994 ).

Much research remains to be done investigating the long-term interpersonal processes through which couples successfully renegotiate sexual intimacy in the wake of illness or disability. Given that many of these issues are similar to those faced by couples coping with age-related declines in physical and sexual functioning, research in this area would profit by more substantive integration of research findings from these two domains. This is not to suggest that aging should be equated with disability when it comes to sexuality, only that the core interpersonal processes necessary for managing these life transitions require similar core skills and face similar challenges. Longitudinal, dyadic research is particularly critical, given that couples may need to continue revisiting and readjusting their sexual script to accommodate ongoing changes in each partner’s physical capacities and expectations.

Sexual Dysfunction

Among the most obvious and important physical conditions that potentially impair a couple’s sexual relationship is sexual dysfunction, affecting more than 40 percent of women and more than 30 percent of American men ( Laumann et al., 1999 ). The most common dysfunctions among men include difficulty achieving or maintaining an erection, with prevalence estimates ranging from 10 to 50 percent, and premature ejaculation, with prevalence estimates ranging from 28 to 30 percent ( Heiman, 2002 ; Laumann et al., 1999 ; Simons & Carey, 2001 ). Among women, the most common dysfunctions include difficulty reaching orgasm, with prevalence estimates ranging from 10 to 24 percent, and low or absent (i.e., hypoactive) sexual desire, with prevalence estimates ranging from 15 to 58 percent ( Hayes, Dennerstein, Bennett, & Fairley, 2008 ; Heiman, 2002 ; Laumann et al., 1999 ; Simons & Carey, 2001 ). The etiology of sexual dysfunction is complex, involving a diverse range of biological, psychosocial, and interpersonal factors that interact in different ways for different individuals ( DeRogatis & Burnett, 2008 ; Hayes, Dennerstein, Bennett, Sidat et al., 2008 ; Heiman, 2002 ; Lewis et al., 2010 ).

In some cases, sexual problems develop abruptly, often in response to specific events such as major illness or injury ( Barsky, Friedman, & Rosen, 2006 ; Corona et al., 2010 ; Jackson et al., 2006 ; Meuleman, 2011 ), major life transitions such as the birth of a child ( Heiman, 2002 ) or job loss ( Morokoff & Gillilland, 1993 ), or experiences of acute psychological trauma ( Hirsch, 2009 ). In other cases, the problem emerges more gradually and/or sporadically, sometimes associated with generalized stress ( Morokoff & Gillilland, 1993 ) or developmental transitions such as menopause ( Hayes, Dennerstein, Bennett, Sidat et al., 2008 ). Predisposing factors such as early traumatic experience, family dysfunction, sexual victimization, or internalization of negative and stigmatizing messages about sexuality often play a role, even when such events occurred long in the past (reviewed in Aubin & Heiman, 2004 ). A formal clinical diagnosis of sexual dysfunction (as opposed to periodic sexual complaints and problems) depends on meeting DSM-IV criteria regarding frequency and severity, as well as (and perhaps most importantly) the experience of psychological distress owing to the problem (reviewed in Aubin & Heiman, 2004 ). Yet notably, many individuals with sexual problems that are frequent and severe enough to meet diagnostic criteria for sexual dysfunction do not report significant psychological distress ( Hayes, Dennerstein, Bennett, & Fairley, 2008 ) and report being able to maintain satisfying sexual relations despite the dysfunction ( Heiman, 2000 ; Heiman & Meston, 1997 ). Even couples who experience significant distress and dissatisfaction often wait many years before seeking treatment ( Trudel et al., 2001 ), often after trying a variety of unsuccessful strategies to avoid or work around the problem. Hence, the implications of sexual dysfunction for a couple’s sexual and nonsexual relationship depend on each partner’s appraisal of the problem and their combined ability to confront and communicate about its potential antecedents and implications ( Barsky et al., 2006 ).

Notably, partners often have starkly different perceptions of their sexual problems, and these differences often fall out along gender lines. In one study, 69 percent of men with erectile dysfunction perceived it as an important problem, compared with only 45 percent of women with orgasmic disorder ( Fugl-Meyer & Fugl-Meyer, 1999 ). This may reflect gender-based socialization that emphasizes the centrality of penile–vaginal intercourse for healthy adult sexuality, and especially for a male’s sexual self-esteem. Hence, men often show heightened concern about dysfunctions that affect penile–vaginal intercourse, even when their female partners report being highly physically and emotionally satisfied by nonpenetrative sexual activities ( Aubin & Heiman, 2004 ). In contrast, women are often more distressed by the relationship strains introduced by sexual dysfunction ( Fugl-Meyer & Fugl-Meyer, 1999 ; Heiman & Meston, 1997 ), such as increased resentment, anger, criticism, or blame, conflicts over sexual practices, diminishment of communication, emotional distancing, reduced physical affection, and diminished expression of positive and loving feelings toward one another ( Pridal & LoPiccolo, 2000 ; Rosen & Leiblum, 1995 ).

Historically, such relationship issues received little clinical attention: Conventional diagnosis and treatment of sexual dysfunction focused on treating “the individual with the problem,” and relationship issues were considered ancillary effects of the dysfunction rather than potential contributing or exacerbating causes ( Aubin & Heiman, 2004 ). This, however, has changed significantly over the past decade, and relationship-centered approaches to both diagnosing and treating sexual dysfunctions have become widespread and show significant clinical success ( Heiman, 2000 ; Leiblum & Rosen, 2000 ; Pridal & LoPiccolo, 2000 ). Among the relationship issues that have proved particularly relevant to sexual dysfunction are problems with excessively low or high intimacy, emotion regulation, adaptation to stressful life events, transition to parenthood, insecurity about the status of a relationship, fear of disappointing the partner, and preexisting history of trauma or abuse (reviewed in Aubin & Heiman, 2004 ). Relationship distress and conflict have been found to play a particularly pronounced role in the development and exacerbation of female sexual dysfunction, especially hypoactive sexual desire ( Hayes, Dennerstein, Bennett, Sidat et al., 2008 ; Rosen & Leiblum, 1995 ; Trudel et al., 2001 ; Witting et al., 2008 ).

Yet at the same time as clinicians are becoming increasingly aware of, and responsive to, the contributions of interpersonal factors to sexual dysfunction, there is a corresponding push toward ever-greater medicalization of sexual dysfunction ( Leiblum & Rosen, 2000 ; Tiefer, 2002 ), sparked by the Viagra revolution, which has electrified the search for “quick fixes” that might obviate the need for visiting a therapist and confronting uncomfortable, potentially embarrassing topics with one’s partner. The task for contemporary clinicians is to craft “the best of both worlds,” making use of contemporary biomedical treatment options without neglecting the long-standing interpersonal issues that are known to make fundamental contributions to the emergence and maintenance of couples’ sexual problems ( Aubin & Heiman, 2004 ). Another important direction for future research is to devote greater attention to sexual dysfunction in younger populations. Because rates of sexual dysfunction increase steeply with age ( Laumann et al., 1999 ), it is often stereotyped as a problem of older individuals in long-established couples. Yet recent research has found surprisingly high rates of sexual dysfunction among men and women in their late teens and early twenties ( Fisher & Boroditsky, 2000 ; O’Sullivan & Majerovich, 2008 ), including the same types of difficulties with physical and psychological arousal, orgasm, and pain that characterize older individuals. Although these problems are more sporadic among younger individuals, they nonetheless warrant close attention, given that sexual and romantic experiences during adolescence and young adulthood can set the stage for later sexual scripts and expectations ( Else-Quest, Hyde, & DeLamater, 2005 ). Also, younger couples may have more difficulty coping with sexual problems than older couples, given that their shorter sexual and relationship histories leave them with less direct experience in negotiating difficult relationship issues and less advanced communication skills ( Abel & Fitzgerald, 2006 ).

Sexual Coercion and Unwanted Sexual Contact

Historically, research on sexual victimization focused exclusively on forcible sexual assault. Yet in recent years, researchers have come to view sexual assault as part of a broader continuum of coercive attempts to gain sexual access to an unwilling partner ( Abbey, BeShears, Clinton-Sherrod, & McAuslan, 2004 ; A. L. Brown, Messman-Moore, Miller, & Stasser, 2005 ; O’Sullivan, 2005 ). Over the past decade, researchers have increasingly refined their assessments of sexual victimization to better capture the entire spectrum of sexual coercion, including not only forcible assault but also pleading, bullying, manipulation, threatening, administering drugs or alcohol, or invoking guilt or embarrassment ( O’Sullivan, 2005 ). These “lower-level” forms of coercion are particularly common in long-standing intimate relationships, whereas forcible rape is more commo nly committed by acquaintances ( Abbey, Ross, McDuffie, & McAuslan, 1996 ; Testa & Livingston, 2000 ). Although the psychological consequences of sexual coercion are less severe than for forcible sexual assault, they nonetheless pose significant risks to well-being, especially when the coercion is chronic; these risks include psychological distress and trauma, low relationship satisfaction, and problems with sexual functioning, ( Abbey et al., 2004 ; A. L. Brown et al., 2005 ; Glenn & Byers, 2009 ; Testa, VanZile-Tamsen, Livingston, & Koss, 2004 ). Guilt and shame are also frequently involved because individuals who have undergone sexual coercion hold themselves more responsible and the other person less responsible than for forcible assault ( Abbey et al., 2004 ; Glenn & Byers, 2009 ).

The prevalence of sexual coercion in long-standing relationships appears to be attributable to the fact that longer-term couples tend to presume an implicit contract ensuring mutual sexual availability ( Basile, 2002 ; Shotland & Goodstein, 1992 ). Hence, many men view sexual pressure or persuasion as acceptable activities and do not even consider them coercive ( O’Sullivan, 2005 ). Correspondingly, many women acquiesce to a male partner’s coercion with little open resistance, for the sake of preserving the relationship or because they feel it is their duty ( Basile, 2002 ; O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998 ; Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2010 ). Notably, the types of sexually coercive tactics used by men vary according to the status of the relationship. In newer couples where there has been no prior sexual intercourse, coercive tactics typically involve flattery and discussions of moving the relationship forward. Yet in couples who have already had sexual intercourse, coercion is more direct and more negative, aimed at invoking feelings of obligation and guilt ( Livingston, Buddie, Testa, & VanZile-Tamsen, 2004 ). Furthermore, Livingston and colleagues found that these tactics appeared to become chronic, representing long-standing maladaptive patterns in the relationship.

O’Sullivan (2005) argued that we remain ill-equipped to understand the full range of antecedents and consequences of sexual coercion for intimate relationships because we do not yet fully understand the entire communicative and negotiation process in which coercion unfolds. The point at which sexual initiation in an established relationship crosses the line into coercion is likely to vary from couple to couple and from situation to situation, and requires a deeper understanding of the coerced partner’s subjective experience and the larger cultural and interpersonal context. Toward this end, a number of studies have attempted to gain greater understanding of the larger phenomenon of unwanted but consensual sexual contact in couples. These episodes are distinct from coercion because participants report that although they did not want to have sexual contact, they nonetheless consented, essentially “going along” with it. Such episodes are fairly common. Using a diary methodology, O’Sullivan and Allgeier (1998) found that about half of young adults (aged 21 to 30 years) in committed relationships reported at least one occasion of unwanted sex in a 2-week period, with an average lifetime prevalence of 12 occasions. Women were more likely to consent to unwanted activity than men, similar to prior research ( Impett & Peplau, 2002 ), but there were no gender differences in retrospective reports of lifetime and 1-year incidence estimates. Notably, studies that focus on longer-term couples ( Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2010 ) tend to find fewer gender differences, suggesting that the longer individuals have been a couple, the more they may be adhering to an implicit “contract” of mutual sexual availability ( Shotland & Goodstein, 1992 ). Further supporting this view, individuals who periodically consented to unwanted sexual contact reported believing that their partners occasionally did the same.

Men and women report similar reasons for complying with unwanted sexual activity: most commonly, to satisfy the partner’s needs, promote intimacy, and avoid tension ( O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998 ; Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2010 ). Unwanted sexual contact appears particularly likely when there are large desire discrepancies between partners combined with poor communication ( Traeen & Skogerbo, 2009 ). Perhaps most interesting, individuals often report that the positive outcomes of consenting to unwanted sex (such as increased intimacy and avoidance of tension or conflict) often outweigh the negative outcomes (such as emotional discomfort and feelings of disappointment; O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998 ). Such findings demonstrate the complexity of sexual interactions in established couples and the importance of carefully discerning each partner’s motives for engaging in both mutually desired and one-sided (or otherwise unsatisfying or uncomfortable) sexual interactions. For example, considerable research has charted a diverse range of motives that individuals bring to coupled sexual interactions, from interpersonal intimacy to relationship maintenance to power assertion to emotion regulation to seeking and providing caregiving ( Birnbaum, 2010 ; Birnbaum, Weisberg, & Simpson, 2010 ; Cooper et al., 2006 ; Davis, Shaver, & Vernon, 2004 ). Importantly, recent research shows that individuals’ motives for seeking sexual activity with their partners at a given time is shaped by dynamic interactions between the immediate affective and relational context (e.g., experiences of negative affect and perceptions of relationship threat) and one’s attachment orientation.

For example, Davis, Shaver, & Vernon (2004) found that anxiously attached individuals were most interested in sex when they felt insecure about their relationships. Notably, all attachment-related motivations for sexual activity (i.e., emotional closeness, reassurance, stress reduction, elicitation of caregiving, and subtle coercion and manipulation) were endorsed more strongly among anxiously attached individuals, and the only form of sexual motivation that was not positively associated with anxiety was physical pleasure. This finding was echoed by Birnbaum, Weisberg, and Simpson (2010) , who found that anxious individuals were less sexually motivated by desires for pleasure. Hence, although physical pleasure might appear to be the most straightforward, elemental reason to seek sexual contact with one’s partner, among individuals preoccupied with chronic relationship worries and concerns, physical pleasure is the least salient motive. Rather, sexual contact becomes yet another strategy for seeking proximity to, and gaining reassurance from, one’s partner, sometimes in a manipulative and coercive fashion.

Among avoidant individuals, a notably different pattern emerges. Directly contrary to the findings of Davis and colleagues (2004) , Birnbaum and colleagues ( Birnbaum et al., 2010 ) found that relationship threats were associated with decreased motivation for sex among avoidant individuals, consistent with the finding that avoidant individuals tend to use sex to maintain or maximize distances, rather than to achieve greater intimacy and closeness ( Birnbaum, 2010 ). Other motives for sexual contact endorsed by avoidant individuals included exerting power over the partner, protecting oneself from the partner’s negative affect, and reducing one’s own stress ( Davis et al., 2004 ). The finding regarding stress reduction is particularly notable, given that previous research indicates that avoidant individuals generally prefer not to seek comfort from their romantic attachment figures when distressed ( Simpson, Rholes, Orina, & Grich, 2002 ). Davis et al. (2004) reasoned that sexual activity might provide a strategy for avoidant individuals to achieve a measure of stress-reducing comfort and pleasure without having to actively seek it, to engage in emotionally intimate exchanges, or to adopt a position of vulnerability.

These findings clearly demonstrate that each and every sexual interaction involves a complex interplay of partners’ predispositions, insecurities, immediate feelings and concerns, and both overt and covert motivations. An important direction for future research involves more careful parsing of these potentially “hidden” dynamics in couples’ sexual lives, examining how they interact dynamically with one another in the course of a single sexual interaction as well as over time, and investigating their implications for both immediate and long-term relationship satisfaction and stability. In particular, we need a greater understanding of the process by which couples negotiate (either directly or manipulatively) their mutual sexual scripts at the beginning of their relationship, how they go about revising these scripts, and how “violations” of the script are perceived and experienced by each partner. Greater investigation of these topics among adolescents and young adults is particularly important. Many women who accede to unwanted or coercive sex report doing so repeatedly, and it is possible that these patterns become established in some of their earliest romantic ties. We need a greater understanding of how both young men and women develop conceptions of sexual “consent” and sexual “obligation” in their earliest relationships, how these conceptions may be related to enduring vulnerabilities such as attachment insecurity, and how best to promote models of healthy intimate relationships in which partners can identify and articulate their own motives for sexual activity and negotiate strategies for accommodating one another’s (potentially divergent) needs and preferences without sacrificing either partner’s sense of safety, trust, and autonomy.

Same-Sex Intimate Relationships

Up until this point, this chapter has focused exclusively on sexuality within heterosexual couples. We now turn our attention to the unique issues and dynamics facing same-sex couples. One might argue that every aspect of same-sex couple functioning is tied to issues of sexuality, given that it is the partners’ mutual same-sex desire that draws them into this type of relationship. Hence, we provide an overview of the unique dynamics of same-sex intimate relationships more generally, followed by specific discussion of their sexual norms and practices.

Before proceeding, certain clarifications are needed. Although discussions of same-sex couples are usually couched as discussions of gay/lesbian/bisexual couples, such terminology is misleading because the majority of individuals experiencing same-sex attractions and behavior do not , in fact, openly identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual ( Laumann et al., 1994 ; Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005 ; Wichstrom & Hegna, 2003 ). Some of these individuals are actively hiding their same-sex sexuality; others, however, find that the “gay/lesbian/bisexual” terminology is irrelevant to their own self-concept, that it provides too restrictive a model of sexuality, or that it conflicts with their religious or ethnic identity (see Diamond, 2008 ). Hence, individuals with same-sex attractions and relationships are increasingly described as sexual minorities rather than gay/lesbian/bisexual. This term captures the fact that regardless of how they publicly label their sexuality, all of these individuals violate conventional norms prescribing uniform heterosexuality.

Historically, sexual-minority individuals were stereotyped as sexually promiscuous and fundamentally incapable of forming long-term committed partnerships, but contemporary research provides strong evidence to the contrary. Evidence suggests that between 40 and 60 percent of self-identified gay men and 50 and 80 percent of self-identified lesbians are partnered (reviewed in Peplau, Fingerhut, & Beals, 2004 ), and researchers have conducted numerous studies demonstrating that the basic relationship dynamics of same-sex couples resemble those of heterosexual couples. For example, same-sex couples show similar communication and conflict resolution skills as heterosexual couples; similar degrees of interpersonal empathy; similar appraisals of intimacy, autonomy, equality, and mutual trust; similar day-to-day cognitive and behavioral strategies for maintaining their relationships; similar struggles over equity, housework, and fairness; and even similar strategies for deciding to parent and coping with the birth of a new child ( Roisman, Clausell, Holland, Fortuna, & Elieff, 2008 ; Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2005 ). They have even been found to fight about the same core issues (finances, affection, sex, criticism, and household tasks) at the same frequencies ( Kurdek, 2004 ; Solomon et al., 2005 ), and even to show similar levels of physiological reactivity to conflict ( Gottman, Levenson, Swanson et al., 2003 ; Roisman et al., 2008 ).

Same-sex couples have lower stability than married heterosexual relationships, but do not differ significantly from unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals. For example, in a 5-year prospective study, Kurdek (1998) found that 7 percent of married heterosexual couples broke up, compared with 14 percent of cohabiting male–male couples and 16 percent of cohabitating female–female couples. Yet a 12-year longitudinal study found that the break-up rates of male–male and female–female couples (19 percent and 24 percent, respectively) were no different from cohabiting heterosexuals (14 percent) after controlling for demographic factors such as length of cohabitation ( Kurdek, 2004 ). This is consistent with other studies that have consistently found that the absence of structural barriers to dissolution, such as legal marriage, joint property, and the presence of children, is largely responsible for the fact that same-sex couples have lower relationship stability than married heterosexual couples ( Kurdek, 1998 ).

The primary differences between same-sex and heterosexual couples can be grouped into four main areas: (1) exposure to stigma and stigmatization, (2) lack of opportunities for legal formalization, (3) magnification of gender-related emotional dynamics, and (4) sexual norms and practices. Each of these areas is reviewed below.

Sexual Stigmatization and Marginalization

Perhaps the most important defining characteristic of individuals with same-sex attractions and relationships is their marginalized status in contemporary society. Although attitudes toward same-sex sexuality have grown more tolerant in recent years (reviewed in Loftus, 2001 ), stigma and intolerance remain pervasive. A national survey by the Kaiser foundation found that three fourths of lesbian/gay/bisexual adults reported some form of prejudice or discrimination as a result of their sexuality, one third of gay men and one half of lesbians reported experiencing rejection by a friend or family member, and one third said that they had actually suffered violence against them or their property ( Kaiser Foundation, 2001 ). This consistent stigmatization, rejection, and legal disenfranchisement produces a phenomenon called minority stress , defined as the unique strain experienced as a result of occupying a socially marginalized category ( Meyer, 2003 ). As comprehensively reviewed by Meyer, the fundamental tenet underlying the conceptualization of minority stress is that individuals learn about themselves and develop their self-concepts on the basis of how they are treated and perceived by others. Hence, chronic negative evaluations, at the level of both concrete interpersonal interactions and broad-based cultural norms, have detrimental implications for sexual minorities’ self-evaluations and well-being. Minority stress can operate via exposure to objective, external stressors (including harassment, discrimination, ostracization, or public shaming or rudeness; Balsam, Beauchaine, Mickey, & Rothblum, 2005 ; Oswald, 2002 ) or gradual internalization of negative social attitudes toward same-sex sexuality ( Igartua, Gill, & Montoro, 2003 ; Meyer & Dean, 1998 ).

Minority stress has been advanced as an explanation for the fact that sexual-minority individuals tend to show disproportionately high rates of anxiety, depression, suicidality, self-injurious behavior, substance use, and use of mental health services ( Austin et al., 2004 ; Paul et al., 2002 ). In particular, sexual minorities with greater levels of stigmatization and victimization tend to have poorer mental health outcomes ( Balsam, Rothblum, & Beauchaine, 2005 ; D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2006 ). However, all of the extant research on minority stress is correlational and based on self-reports. Hence, it is also possible that individuals with higher levels of anxiety or depression are more likely to perceive, remember, and report day-to-day experiences of stigmatization, ostracization, or marginalization, and to attribute these experiences to their sexual-minority status.

Although most research on minority stress has focused on its implications for sexual-minority individuals, researchers have begun to extend the minority stress perspective to explain the distinctive dynamics of same-sex couples ( Fingerhut, 2010 ; Goldberg & Smith, 2010 ; Riggle, Rostosky, & Horne, 2010 ; Rostosky, Riggle, Gray, & Hatton, 2007 ). Hence, although minority stress began as a theory of intrapsychic functioning, it is increasingly being used to understand and explain interpersonal processes and cognitions. Much of this work has focused on the detrimental implications of internalized homophobia. For example, sexual-minority men with higher levels of internalized homophobia have lower rates of romantic relationship participation ( Meyer & Dean, 1998 ), and their romantic relationships are shorter, more problematic, and more conflict ridden ( Meyer & Dean, 1998 ). One intriguing line of research has taken advantage of the “natural experiment” provided by statewide ballot initiatives outlawing same-sex marriage to investigate how sexual-minority individuals and their relationships are affected by living in communities that take active, visible steps to deny legitimacy to their partnerships. These studies have found that sexual-minority individuals living in states that passed laws against same-sex marriage experienced significantly higher levels of psychological distress, consistent with minority stress theory ( Rostosky, Riggle, Horne, & Miller, 2009 ) and also heightened fears about the status of their relationships ( Rostosky, Riggle, Horne, Denton, & Huellemeier, 2010 ). Furthermore, studies have found that sexual-minority stress can “spill over” from one partner to another, potentially magnifying the negative repercussions for the couple as a whole ( Rostosky & Riggle, 2002 ).

Researchers have increasingly begun to investigate the “flip side” of stigma and marginalization— social support —as an important moderator of minority stress. Specifically, sexual-minority individuals who have access to friends, family members, and colleagues who specifically support their sexuality and who affirm and validate their same-sex relationships appear to be less vulnerable to mental health problems ( Grossman, D’Augelli, & Hershberger, 2000 ; Zea, Reisen, & Poppen, 1999 ) as well as relationship problems ( Blair & Holmberg, 2008 ; Rostosky et al., 2004 ). Notably, many sexual-minority individuals face difficulty obtaining such support from family members. Even when family members do not explicitly reject them, sexual-minority individuals often report that their sexual orientation is quietly tolerated, but never openly acknowledged ( D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2005 ), and that their family never formally acknowledges their romantic partners.

Yet importantly, such instances of family disapproval often serve to strengthen the tie between same-sex partners by drawing them together against a common challenge ( LaSala, 1998 ), fostering the development of adaptive coping strategies, and prompting them to develop strong “chosen families” of supportive friends ( Nardi, 1999 ; Weston, 1991 ). One unique dynamic of sexual-minority social networks is that these “chosen families” often include previous lovers ( Harkless & Fowers, 2005 ; Nardi & Sherrod, 1994 ; Weinstock, 2004 ). To some extent, this reflects the fact that the boundaries between “friend” and “lover” are often somewhat ambiguous within sexual-minority communities. Especially in small communities, one’s pool of potential romantic partners and one’s pool of potential sexual-minority friends is essentially the same. As a result, many sexual minorities report developing romantic relationships out of existing friendships, pursuing periodic sexual contact with close, trusted friends, and maintaining highly emotionally significant ties with former lovers ( Nardi & Sherrod, 1994 ; Peplau & Amaro, 1982 ). The latter practice runs counter to conventional heterosexual norms ( Harkless & Fowers, 2005 ), which prescribe relatively rigid boundaries between the categories of “friend” and “lover” and which tend to treat ex-lover relationships with some suspicion ( Weinstock, 2004 ). Yet among sexual minorities, this practice appears to represent a common and adaptive strategy for maximizing access to social support and nurturance in light of the exclusion and disapproval commonly faced at the hands of colleagues, family members, and society at large.

Lack of Opportunities for Legal Formalization

The majority of sexual-minority individuals report that they would like the option of formalizing their relationships through same-sex marriage ( Kaiser Foundation, 2001 ), and in fact nearly 30 percent of cohabiting same-sex couples consider themselves spouses, despite the fact that their relationships have no formal standing in federal law ( National Center for Family & Marriage Research, 2010 ). As of 2013 in the United States, nine states legally recognize same-sex marriage:Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, and the District of Columbia (California’s recognition of same-sex marriage remains under legal challenge). Yet because of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex marriages cannot be recognized at the federal level, and no state is obligated to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state (although Rhode Island, New York, and Maryland currently do so). Same-sex marriages performed in other countries are also denied recognition (currently, same-sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden). In addition, 39 American states have explicitly banned gay marriages, either through state laws or constitutional amendments. Poll data consistently show greater public support for “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” (which provide many of the same rights as marriage, but are not legally considered marriages, and do not offer benefits such as sponsorship for immigration) than for same-sex relationships, sometimes by nearly 20 percentage points ( Brewer & Wilcox, 2005 ). Yet currently, civil unions are only available in Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, and New Jersey. Altogether, only 25 percent of the country’s 581,000 cohabiting same-sex couples live in an area where some form of legal recognition for their relationship is an option ( Gates, Badgett, & Ho, 2008 ).

Increasing evidence suggests that the lack of opportunities for formal recognition of same-sex relationships has implications for the stability and satisfaction of same-sex couples. For example, several studies have directly compared same-sex cohabiting couples in civil unions to same-sex cohabiting couples without civil unions, and also to the married heterosexual siblings of civil union couples ( Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2004 ; Solomon et al., 2005 ; Todosijevic, Rothblum, & Solomon, 2005 ). These couples started out quite similar to each other on overall satisfaction or functioning, yet a 3-year follow-up assessment found that the same-sex couples in civil unions were less likely to have broken up than same-sex couples who had not pursued civil unions ( Balsam, Beauchaine, Rothblum, & Solomon, 2008 ), supporting the notion that barriers to relationship dissolution can enhance couples’ perceptions of their relationship and bolster their motivation to resolve problems ( Kurdek, 1998 ).

Along the same lines, same-sex couples report that formalizing their relationships makes them feel more “real” ( Lannutti, 2007 ) and enhances their sense of commitment, even if they had already been committed to one another beforehand ( Alderson, 2004 ). Perhaps for this reason, Solomon and colleagues (2005) found that 54 percent of same-sex couples reported increased love and commitment to one another after having had a civil union. One question that awaits future longitudinal research is whether other methods of legally acknowledging and formalizing same-sex relationships, such as naming one another as insurance beneficiaries and/or legal heirs, purchasing property together, giving one another power of attorney, designating one another as medical proxies, legally taking the same last name, or merging finances ( Beals, Impett, & Peplau, 2002 ; Suter & Oswald, 2003 ), have the same repercussions for couple functioning, commitment, and stability as more “official” forms of recognition, such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Magnification of Gender-Related Emotional Dynamics

Gender differences in interpersonal attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors have long been fruitful topics of relationship research, and research has consistently shown that sexual-minority men and women show largely the same gender-related patterns that have been observed among heterosexuals (e.g., Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, & Gladue, 1994 ). This, of course, runs directly counter to long-standing stereotypes positing that same-sex sexual orientations entail some degree of “gender inversion,” rendering sexual-minority men more feminine than heterosexual men and sexual-minority women more masculine than heterosexual women. Although some studies have found that this characterization is true for some traits and occupational/activity preferences ( Lippa, 2002 , 2008 ), it is not the case for intimate relationship behavior. Quite to the contrary, in many cases sexual-minority women and men appear to represent “extreme” versions of female-typed and male-typed relationship behavior.

To some degree, this should not be surprising: Not only have sexual-minority men and women received the same gender-related socialization regarding intimate relationships as have their heterosexual counterparts, but also the vast majority have had extensive romantic experience (and sometimes their earliest and most formative experiences) in conventional heterosexual relationships ( Bailey, Dunne, & Martin, 2000 ; Laumann et al., 1994 ; Mosher et al., 2005 ). Hence, they have internalized the same heteronormative cultural scripts regarding gender-related interpersonal behavior as have heterosexuals. The end result appears to be that same-sex relationships provide for a “double dose” of gender-typed attitudes and behavior.

A salient example is provided by relationship initiation. Consistent with the fact that heterosexual women typically place greater priority than heterosexual men on emotional versus sexual intimacy in new relationships, sexual-minority women tend to follow a “friendship script” for new relationships, in which emotional compatibility and communication are of greater importance than sexual activity, whereas sexual-minority men’s relationship scripts are more likely to involve the establishment of sexual intimacy before the development of emotional intimacy ( Rose, Zand, & Cimi, 1993 ), a pattern that has now become evident in online dating activity as well ( Helfand, 2002 ). Female–female couples tend to exhibit more emotional connectedness, cohesion, empathy, and intimacy than male–male or heterosexual couples ( Green, Bettinger, & Zacks, 1996 ; Kurdek, 1998 ; Ussher & Perz, 2008 ). In addition, they show greater egalitarianism, more flexibility in shared decision making ( Eldridge & Gilbert, 1990 ; Green et al., 1996 ; Matthews, Tartaro, & Hughes, 2003 ), and greater adaptability in dealing with emotional needs and household tasks ( Connolly, 2006 ). Observational research has found that female–female couples also show more effective and more emotionally positive patterns of conflict negotiation ( Gottman, Levenson, Gross et al., 2003 ; Roisman et al., 2008 ).

All of these characteristics can be attributed to the fact that women are generally socialized to seek and prioritize high levels of connectedness and intimacy within their close interpersonal ties, whereas men are socialized to prioritize autonomy, independence, and self-reliance ( Cross & Madson, 1997 ). As a result, women tend to develop superior skills, at younger ages, regarding interpersonal sensitivity, empathy, emotional awareness, and emotional expressivity ( Barrett, Lane, Sechrest, & Schwartz, 2000 ). Yet might the high emotional intimacy of female–female couples represent “too much of a good thing?” Some clinical psychologists have raised concerns that female–female couples may be prone to developing psychological “fusion” or “merger” that inhibits each woman’s well-being (L. Brown, 1995 ) and potentially deadens mutual sexual desire ( Durr, 2009 ). There is no reliable evidence that the high emotional intimacy of female–female couples reliably draws them into “merged” relationships. Rather, successful female–female couples appear to combine high emotional intimacy with boundary setting, autonomy, and self-differentiation ( Ussher & Perz, 2008 ).

If female–female couples have extremely high levels of mutual connection and intimacy, do male–male couples show unusually low levels? The answer appears to be no. Most studies detect no differences (or trivial differences) between levels of support, intimacy, cohesion, emotional engagement, and satisfaction between male–male and male–female couples ( Kurdek, 2001 , 2004 ), and in many cases male–male relationship functioning appears to surpass that of male–female couples ( Green et al., 1996 ). For example, whereas relationship issues tend to be stronger predictors of sexual satisfaction among heterosexual women than heterosexual men ( Lawrance & Byers, 1995 ), among sexual minorities relational issues are strong predictors of sexual satisfaction for men as well as women ( Cohen, Byers, & Walsh, 2008 ; Deenen, Gijs, & van Naerssen, 1994 ). Hence, whereas women’s relationally oriented socialization appears to provide a “boost” to female–female couples, the lack of such socialization does not appear to place male–male couples at a disadvantage.

Clearly, research on how each partner’s gender—and gender socialization—shapes same-sex relationship dynamics has important implications for understanding such dynamics in all couples. Yet future investigations of such topics must be paired with more systematic assessments of individual differences other than gender in order to more clearly specify the mechanisms through which gender-related effects operate. For example, how might individual difference dimensions such as locus of control ( Kurdek, 1997 ), attachment style ( Birnbaum et al., 2006 ), rejection sensitivity ( Downey & Feldman, 1996 ), sociosexuality ( Simpson & Gangestad, 1991 ; Simpson, Wilson, & Winterheld, 2004 ), and affective states such as anxiety and depression ( Kurdek, 1997 ; Oetjen & Rothblum, 2000 ) mediate or moderate the effects of each partners’ gender on couple functioning? Future research along these lines will enable researchers not only to explain differences between female–female, male–male, and heterosexual couples but also to identify and explain differences within each relationship type.

Norms and Practices Regarding Sexuality

In many ways, sexual behavior might appear to be the most distinctive aspect of same-sex couples, given that their basic sexual practices are so different. Whereas penile–vaginal intercourse is the single most common sexual act among heterosexuals, manual, oral, and anal contact are the most common sexual behaviors in same-sex couples ( Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983 ; Laumann et al., 1994 ; Lever, 1994 , 1995 ). Yet importantly, none of these acts uniformly “stands in” for penile–vaginal intercourse as the primary form of sexual contact in male–male or female–female couples. Rather, all same-sex couples must engage in some degree of open and explicit negotiation with their sexual partners about their respective sexual likes and dislikes. As far back as 1979, Masters and Johnson noted that this was likely responsible for the fact that same-sex couples often reported more satisfying sexual interactions than did heterosexuals (1979), and this supposition has been borne out by later studies (cited earlier) on the importance of communication for sexual satisfaction ( Byers & Demmons, 1999 ; MacNeil & Byers, 1997 ; Purnine & Carey, 1997 ).

One critical difference between the sexual practices of same-sex versus heterosexual couples is that same-sex couples are more likely to “trade off” between active and passive sexual roles, with respect to initiating sexual activity and also when it comes to performing certain sexual behaviors, such as adopting the insertive versus receptive role in anal sex and the giving versus receiving role in oral or manual sex ( Bell & Weinberg, 1978 ; Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983 ; Lever, 1994 , 1995 ). This is notably consistent with the fact that same-sex couples tend to have more equitable role distributions than heterosexual couples in a variety of nonsexual domains, such as household labor, decision making, and general influence ( Kurdek, 1993 ; Solomon et al., 2004 ), and that they tend to divide up responsibilities on a case-by-case basis according to each partner’s respective interests and desires ( Huston & Schwartz, 2002 ). Furthermore, studies have found that even when one partner in a same-sex couple tends to consistently adopt a stereotypically “male” or “female” activity in one domain, it does not typically carry over to other domains ( Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983 ; Harry, 1984 ). For example, the partner who is the primary breadwinner in a same-sex couple is not necessarily the partner who takes the more active role in sexual activity. Hence, because same-sex couples cannot default to conventional “male” and “female” roles in their relationships, they engage in more active and ongoing negotiation about each partner’s respective contributions to both sexual and nonsexual aspects of their relationship, and tend to adopt more diverse and idiosyncratic patterns of roles, responsibilities, and behaviors.

Studies assessing global sexual satisfaction (as opposed to satisfaction with the progress and outcome of specific sexual episodes), have found no overall differences between same-sex versus heterosexual couples ( Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983 ; Kurdek, 1991 ), and the primary predictors of sexual satisfaction are also the same, most notably relationship satisfaction ( Bryant & Demian, 1994 ; Deenen et al., 1994 ; Eldridge & Gilbert, 1990 ; Henderson, Lehavot, & Simoni, 2009 ; Holmberg, Blair, & Phillips, 2010 ). Yet one unique predictor of sexual satisfaction and sexual dysfunction among sexual minorities is internalized homophobia ( Henderson et al., 2009 ; Meyer & Dean, 1998 ; Rowen & Malcolm, 2002 ; Szymanski, Kashubeck-West, & Meyer, 2008 ), which is also related to lower romantic relationship satisfaction more generally ( Meyer & Dean, 1998 ; Szymanski et al., 2008 ). Hence, sexual minorities who have difficulty feeling positively about their sexual orientation and identity have difficulty expressing and enjoying sexual intimacy with their partners.

Sexual Frequency: The Case of “Lesbian Bed Death”

Sexual satisfaction in same-sex couples is significantly related to sexual frequency ( Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983 ; Deenen et al., 1994 ), similar to the case with heterosexual couples ( McNulty & Fisher, 2008 ; Simms & Byers, 2009 ; Yabiku & Gager, 2009 ). Rates of sexual frequency among male–male couples are largely similar to those found among heterosexual couples, including the propensity for sexual frequency to decline over time: New male–male couples typically engage in sexual activity three or more times per week, and sometimes as often as every day, whereas sexual frequency in longer term male–male couples drops to one to two times a week, similar to the rates found among heterosexual couples ( Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983 ; Bryant & Demian, 1994 ; Deenen et al., 1994 ; Laumann et al., 1994 ). Female–female couples, however, represent a notable exception when it comes to sexual frequency. Although their rates of sexual frequency are comparable (although slightly lower) to those of heterosexual and male–male couples at the beginning of a new relationship, averaging several times per week ( Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983 ; Lever, 1995 ), female couples show a much steeper decline in sexual frequency as a function of relationship duration.

In fact, some long-term female couples stop engaging in genital sexual contact altogether, a phenomenon that has been denoted “lesbian bed death” ( Iasenza, 2002 ), and that has generated extensive controversy both among sex researchers and the lesbian/bisexual community ( Fassinger & Morrow, 1995 ). Some of the controversy concerns the prevalence of “bed death,” which is difficult to reliably ascertain because of long-standing problems with measurement and with cultural definitions of “sex.” Surveys that assess sexual frequency often fail to specify exactly which behaviors “count” as sex, and therefore women who engage in sexual contact that does not involve mutual genital stimulation to orgasm may not report this behavior on such surveys ( Frye, 1990 ). Numerous researchers have argued that the conventional definition of “sex” as requiring genital contact represents a male-centric conceptualization of sexual activity, and fails to represent the fact that many women gain sexual satisfaction from a broader range of erotic nongenital activities ( Fassinger & Morrow, 1995 ; Rothblum, 1994 ). Hence, it is not clear how many female-–female couples who appear to be experiencing “bed death” are actually engaging regularly in a broad range of erotic, physically intimate activities that simply fail to meet conventional definitions of “sex” ( Peplau et al., 2004 ).

Even if the term “bed death” potentially overstates the case, studies clearly demonstrate that female–female couples in long-term relationships have lower rates of sexual activity than male–male or heterosexual couples: Why is this the case? Is it a dysfunctional consequence of excessive intimacy, a side effect of women’s socialization toward sexual passivity and shame, or an inevitable consequence of the fact that women have lower sex drives than men? In wading through these debates, it becomes clear that research on the causes and consequences of this phenomenon would benefit greatly from more systematic integration with the research literature on heterosexual female sexuality, particularly female sexual dysfunction. As noted earlier, nearly a third of American women report difficulties with sexual arousal and sexual desire ( Laumann et al., 1999 ). Given that men tend to do most of the sexual initiation in heterosexual couples ( Byers & Heinlein, 1989 ), low sexual desire on the part of a heterosexual woman may never manifest itself as low sexual frequency; rather, she might simply go along with male-initiated sexual activity despite her lack of interest ( O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998 ). Yet if the very same woman had a female sexual partner, sexual activity might be unlikely to occur. Women are typically socialized not to take the lead in initiating sexual activity, and hence female–female couples often report that the initiation of sex is mutually negotiated and depends on clear-cut signs of reciprocal interest from both partners ( Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983 ; Nichols, 1990 ). Hence, one partner’s occasional reticence has a much stronger influence on overall sexual frequency in female couples than in heterosexual or male–male couples. Given this fact, one might question whether most long-term heterosexual couples might also experience “lesbian bed death” if they did not have a reliably interested and initiatory male partner.

Another controversy regarding “bed death” concerns its implications for relationship quality. Historically, clinicians have argued that infrequent sexual contact in female–female couples might indicate deep-seated problems in the relationship, or serious sexual dysfunction on the part of one or both partners (reviewed in Fassinger & Morrow, 1995 ). Yet there is little reliable evidence to suggest that this is the case. Some have argued that as long as both partners are satisfied with their sexual relationship, and with the overall degree of sensual, affectionate, and nongenital intimacy in their day-to-day lives, the lack of genital contact need not raise concerns, and the persistent preoccupation with sexual frequency represents reliance on male-defined models of sexuality that privilege genital contact and orgasm over the more sensual and emotional aspects of sexual intimacy ( Fassinger & Morrow, 1995 ; Rothblum & Brehony, 1993 ). Clearly, we need to maintain a critical perspective on contemporary definitions of—and proposed clinical treatments for—female sexual “problems” in general ( Tiefer, 1999 ) in order to understand the causes and consequences of diminished sexual activity in female–female couples.

It is also important, as noted earlier, to keep in mind that the phenomenon of diminished (or absent) sexual activity is not unique to female–female couples, and attempts to discern the causes and consequences of this pattern should make relevant comparisons to male–male and male–female couples. Notably, although the Viagra revolution was widely heralded for initiating the rebirth of sexual intimacy in many older heterosexual couples, many clinicians have noted that it subsequently triggered significant relationship problems for many couples who discovered, once sex was a possibility again, that the female partner was no longer interested ( Harvard Health Publications, 2010 ). As discussed by Donnelly and Burgess (2008) , the healthfulness and satisfaction of “celibate” couples depends largely on the reasons for the decline in sexual activity, whether both partners are satisfied with the current state of affairs, and the strategies they adopt to cope with discrepancies in sexual interest. These issues deserve more substantive attention in all couples, regardless of age or sexual orientation.

Sexual Nonexclusivity in Male–Male Couples

One notable area in which male–male couples prove distinct from both female–female and heterosexual couples is sexual exclusivity. Male–male couples are more likely than either male–female or female–female couples to engage in extradyadic sexual activity, usually with the explicit knowledge of their partner (see also Bonello, 2009 ; Solomon et al., 2004 ). Estimates vary from study to study, but data suggest that between one-third and two-thirds of male–male couples have “open” (i.e., sexually nonmonogamous) relationships ( Bryant & Demian, 1994 ; Crawford et al., 2003 ; LaSala, 2004 ; Prestage et al., 2008 ). Sexual-minority men rate monogamy as less important to their relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction than do female–female and heterosexual couples ( Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983 ; Kurdek, 1991 ), and studies comparing “open” and “closed” relationships find no differences in satisfaction or stability (reviewed in Bonello, 2009 ).

Historically, nonmonogamy among sexual- minority men was viewed as a dysfunctional outgrowth of stigmatization, leading them to compartmentalize sexual and emotional intimacy and to avoid long-term committed relationships ( Driggs & Finn, 1991 ). Yet this view has been critiqued as inappropriately applying “heterocentrist” standards (in which monogamy is paramount) to male–male couples ( Green et al., 1996 ). Some have argued instead that open relationships among sexual-minority men represent adaptive solutions to their combined desire for emotional intimacy and a desire for sexual variety, and a means of coping with the declines in sexual frequency that typically occur in long-term relationships ( LaSala, 2004 ). Given that men (regardless of sexual orientation) appear better able than women to separate sexual from emotional intimacy ( Banfield & McCabe, 2001 ; Duncombe & Marsden, 1999 ), male–male couples appear particularly well suited to maintaining arrangements that permit both partners to pursue recreational sexual activity without threatening their primary partnership ( Bonello, 2009 ). Such couples explicitly distinguish emotional monogamy from sexual monogamy ( Adam, 2006 ; LaSala, 2004 ).

Importantly, the fact that nonmonogamy is so much more common among male–male couples than female–female or heterosexual couples does not suggest that this is the preferred pattern for all gay men ( Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983 ; Bryant & Demian, 1994 ; Lever, 1994 ). Personality, ideological factors, and preferences for sexual variety appear to predict which sexual-minority men seek open relationships ( Crawford et al., 2003 ). Furthermore, most sexual-minority men engaged in open relationships also have experience with conventional monogamous relationships ( Ramirez & Brown, 2010 ), suggesting that the decision to pursue nonmonogamy depends upon the specific features of the relationship in question (such as whether both partners share the same views and expectations regarding monogamy). Couple-level characteristics are also important. Longer-term relationships are more likely to be nonmonogamous ( Ramirez & Brown, 2010 ; Wheldon & Pathak, 2010 ), although the causal mechanism underlying this association is not clear. One possibility is that sexual-minority men may not be comfortable establishing nonmonogamy in a relationship until after it has progressed to a sufficient level of commitment and trust. Alternatively, sexual-minority men may only be motivated to seek extradyadic sexual activity after the “honeymoon” phase characterizing the first few years of a new relationship winds down, and sexual frequency declines. Finally, it is possible that the decision to open up a relationship stabilizes male–male relationships by circumventing the potential obstacle of sexual boredom, obviating the need for infidelity, and prompting both partners to make explicit their emotional investment and commitment to one another.

Openness and good communication appear to be critical for the successful maintenance of open relationships. Couples without clear agreements about the boundaries regarding these relationships have lower levels of satisfaction and affection than those who establish and maintain clear parameters regarding extradyadic activity ( Bonello, 2009 ; Ramirez & Brown, 2010 ). The specific types of rules that couples establish vary widely, although most are aimed at protecting the emotional primacy of the relationship, preventing either partner from feeling hurt or left out, and also preventing the acquisition and transmission of sexually-transmitted infections ( Hoff & Beougher, 2010 ; Ramirez & Brown, 2010 ). For example, some couples only pursue extradyadic sex in the form of threesomes; other rules specify that mutual friends and former lovers are off limits, or that new friendships or emotional connections cannot be formed with outside sexual partners; some couples agree not to discuss outside sexual partners with one another, whereas other couples specifically request that details be provided afterward (for more examples, see Hoff & Beougher, 2010 ). Regardless of the rules that couples establish, many find that these rules must be continually updated and revisited over time to account for unanticipated reactions and situations ( LaSala, 2001 ), further underscoring the importance of good communication.

Given recent historical changes regarding attitudes toward, recognition of, and men’s participation in committed same-sex partnerships, rates of—and rules about—extradyadic sexual activity may change, and deserve closer attention. For example, one notable topic for future research is whether contemporary cohorts of young gay men, who are exposed to a far greater number of positive images of successful gay male couples than previous cohorts have been, might have significantly more optimistic expectations for forming stable and satisfying long-term relationships, and hence different attitudes about sexual exclusivity.

Emerging Directions

The first several decades of substantive research on same-sex couples focused considerable attention on comparing them to heterosexual couples and documenting their similarities and differences. Although this research has made important contributions to our understanding of same-sex relationships, it may be time to move beyond the comparative approach and focus more attention on variability among same-sex couples. One important reason for such a shift is to escape the presumption—still implicitly underlying much comparative research—that heterosexual relationships set the standard for normal, healthy functioning ( Bonello & Cross, 2010 ; Kitzinger & Coyle, 1995 ). According to this implicit standard, same-sex couples appear healthy and “normal” to the extent that they resemble heterosexual couples. When differences between same-sex and heterosexual couples are observed, researchers generally question why same-sex couples think and behave the way that they do, instead of asking why heterosexual couples think and behave the way they do. Of course, it is perfectly reasonable to use heterosexual relationships as the normative standard based on their overwhelming prevalence in society. Yet “normative” should not be taken to imply “healthful.” Rather, one of most important potential contributions of future research on same-sex couples is to demonstrate the wide range of alternative practices through which individuals might adaptively meet needs for emotional and physical intimacy. The healthfulness of both heterosexual and same-sex practices should be treated as ongoing empirical questions, and researchers should continually challenge and test assumptions about the optimal form and function of intimate relationships.

The institution of legal marriage provides a productive example: As reviewed earlier, most same-sex couples would like the option of formalizing their relationships through marriage, and the lack of legal formalization has negative implications for the satisfaction and stability of same-sex relationships. Yet little research has focused on the subset of sexual minorities (roughly one-fourth) who do not want the option of legal marriage. What might their resistance reveal about the potential downsides of legal formalization more generally? Many scholars have responded to the historical exclusion of sexual-minority individuals from the institution of marriage with critical reflection about the political, social, legal, and personal meaning of marriage and “marriage-like” relationships. Some have come away from such reflections strongly critical of the patriarchal underpinnings of traditional marriage and the specter of religious and/or governmental regulation of personal relationships. Others, more provocatively, have argued that an even more dangerous problem is the hegemonic notion that exclusive, monogamous sexual/romantic partnerships are the most healthy, desirable, and worthy of legal recognition (for a range of views on these issues, see Ettelbrick, 2001 ; Sullivan & Landau, 1997 ; Warner, 1999 ). In light of these debates, some have argued that instead of focusing so much attention on same-sex marriage, researchers should document the potential benefits of alternative relationship practices that are commonly observed in same-sex couples, such as maintaining separate residences from a primary partner ( Hess & Catell, 2001 ); pursuing multiple and/or nonmonogamous partnerships ( Rust, 1996 ; West, 1996 ); developing romantic, emotionally primary, but nonsexual relationships ( Rothblum & Brehony, 1993 ); or forgoing “primary” ties altogether in favor of “chosen families” of close friends ( Nardi, 1999 ). Such investigations have the potential to enrich our understanding of same-sex and heterosexual relationships.

Fluidity in sexual attractions and behavior, and the way in which it shapes and is shaped by relationship experiences, constitutes another emerging direction for future research. Researchers have long noted that some sexual-minority individuals—especially women—appear to experience same-sex desires only in the context of a single, unexpectedly intense emotional bond (reviewed in Diamond, 2003 ), and this phenomenon now appears to be related to the broader phenomenon of “situation dependence” or “plasticity” in sexuality (see Baumeister, 2000 , for a comprehensive review). Given that intimate relationships appear to be among the most common triggers for sexual fluidity, future research should systematically investigate how common such experiences are among men and women, the mechanisms through which they operate, and their long-term implications for sexual experience and identity. Another fascinating topic with regard to fluidity concerns how same-sex and other-sex couples manage a partner’s periodic experience—and potential expression—of desires that contradict one’s self-described sexual orientation. Some research in this vein has been conducted on bisexually attracted individuals in heterosexual relationships ( Buxton, 2001 ; Reinhardt, 2002 ), but much more could be gained by a broader perspective that treats incongruencies among love, desire, and identity as its central focus, and that does not presume neat and impermeable boundaries between heterosexual and sexual-minority identities and life histories.

The past several decades have witnessed an enormous change in how sexuality is studied and conceptualized by psychologists. Historically, disproportionate attention was devoted to the negative repercussions of sexual behavior, such as STIs, unplanned pregnancies, and sexual assault and abuse. Yet numerous scholars within various subdisciplines of psychology have argued for greater study of the positive and normative dimensions of sexual functioning, particularly within the contexts of intimate relationships ( Russell, 2005 ; Willets et al., 2004 ). Individuals with well-functioning intimate relationships are known to have superior physical and mental health over the life span, including more positive day-to-day emotional functioning and lower morbidity and mortality (see reviews in Ryff & Singer, 2001 ). The quality of a couple’s sexual functioning undoubtedly contributes to these effects. As shown in this chapter, the sexual dynamic between a couple reflects dynamics that characterize other, nonsexual aspects of their relationship, yet also provides unique information about their enactment and management of intimacy, comfort, pleasure, power, gender, love, and attachment. The next generation of relationship research will no doubt advance our understanding of the multiple psychological, behavioral, and biological mechanisms through which sexuality shapes—and is shaped by—our experiences in intimate relationships, and our physical and mental well-being more generally.

Abbey, A. , BeShears, R. , Clinton-Sherrod, A. M. , & McAuslan, P. ( 2004 ). Similarities and differences in women’s sexual assault experiences based on tactics used by the perpetrator.   Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 323–332.

Google Scholar

Abbey, A. , Ross, L. T. , McDuffie, D. , & McAuslan, P. ( 1996 ). Alcohol and dating risk factors for sexual assault among college women.   Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 147–169.

Abel, G. , & Fitzgerald, L. ( 2006 ). “When you come to it you feel like a dork asking a guy to put a condom on”: Is sex education addressing young people’s understandings of risk?   Sex Education, 6, 105–119.

Adam, B. D. ( 2006 ). Relationship innovation in male couples.   Sexualities, 9, 5–26.

Alderson, K. G. ( 2004 ). A phenomenological investigation of same-sex marriage.   Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 13, 107–122.

Alexander, R. , Feeney, J. , Hohaus, L. , & Noller, P. ( 2001 ). Attachment style and coping resources as predictors of coping strategies in the transition to parenthood.   Personal Relationships, 8, 137–152.

Aron, A. P. , & Henkemeyer, L. ( 1995 ). Marital satisfaction and passionate love.   Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 139–146.

Aubin, S. , & Heiman, J. R. ( 2004 ). Sexual dysfunction from a relationship perspective. In J. H. Harvey , A. Wenzel & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 477–517). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Google Preview

Austin, S. B. , Ziyadeh, N. , Kahn, J. A. , Camargo, C. A. J. , Colditz, G. A. , & Field, A. E. ( 2004 ). Sexual orientation, weight concerns, and eating-disordered behaviors in adolescent girls and boys.   Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 1115–1123.

Bailey, J. M. , Dunne, M. P. , & Martin, N. G. ( 2000 ). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524–536.

Bailey, J. M. , Gaulin, S. , Agyei, Y. , & Gladue, B. ( 1994 ). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1081–1093.

Balsam, K. F. , Beauchaine, T. P. , Mickey, R. M. , & Rothblum, E. D. ( 2005 ). Mental health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual siblings: Effects of gender, sexual orientation, and family.   Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 471–476.

Balsam, K. F. , Beauchaine, T. P. , Rothblum, E. D. , & Solomon, S. E. ( 2008 ). Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples.   Developmental Psychology, 44, 102–116.

Balsam, K. F. , Rothblum, E. D. , & Beauchaine, T. P. ( 2005 ). Victimization over the life span: A comparison of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual siblings.   Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 477–487.

Banfield, S. , & McCabe, M. P. ( 2001 ). Extra relationship involvement among women: Are they different from men?   Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 119–142.

Barrett, L. F. , Lane, R. D. , Sechrest, L. , & Schwartz, G. E. ( 2000 ). Sex differences in emotional awareness.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1027–1035.

Barsky, J. L. , Friedman, M. A. , & Rosen, R. C. ( 2006 ). Sexual dysfunction and chronic illness: The role of flexibility in coping.   Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 32, 235–253.

Basile, K. C. ( 2002 ). Prevalence of wife rape and other intimate partner sexual coercion in a nationally representative sample of women.   Violence and Victims, 17, 511–524.

Basson, R. ( 2001 ). Using a different model for female sexual response to address women’s problematic low sexual desire.   Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 27, 395–403.

Baumeister, R. F. ( 2000 ). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive.   Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247–374.

Baumeister, R. F. , Catanese, K. R. , & Vohs, K. D. ( 2001 ). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence.   Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273.

Baumhakel, M. , Schlimmer, N. , Kratz, M. , Hacket, G. , Jackson, G. , & Bohm, M. ( 2011 ). Cardiovascular risk, drugs and erectile function—a systematic analysis.   International Journal of Clinical Practice, 65, 289–298.

Beals, K. P. , Impett, E. A. , & Peplau, L. A. ( 2002 ). Lesbians in love: Why some relationships endure and others end.   Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6, 53–63.

Bell, A. P. , & Weinberg, M. S. ( 1978 ). Homosexualities: A study of diversity among men and women . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Birnbaum, G. E. ( 2010 ). Bound to interact: The divergent goals and complex interplay of attachment and sex within romantic relationships.   Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 245–252.

Birnbaum, G. E. , Reis, H. T. , Mikulincer, M. , Gillath, O. , & Orpaz, A. ( 2006 ). When sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientations, sexual experience, and relationship quality.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 929–943.

Birnbaum, G. E. , Weisberg, Y. J. , & Simpson, J. A. ( 2010 ). Desire under attack: Attachment orientations and the effects of relationship threat on sexual motivations.   Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 448–468.

Blair, K. L. , & Holmberg, D. ( 2008 ). Perceived social network support and well-being in same-sex versus mixed-sex romantic relationships.   Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 769–791.

Blumstein, P. , & Schwartz, P. ( 1983 ). American couples: Money, work, sex . New York: Morrow.

Boker, S. M. , & Laurenceau, J. P. ( 2007 ). Coupled dynamics and mutually adaptive context. In T. D. Little , J. A. Bovaird , & N. A. Card (Eds.), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies. (pp. 299–324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bonello, K. ( 2009 ). Gay monogamy and extra-dyadic sex: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature.   Counseling Psychology Review, 24, 51–65.

Bonello, K. , & Cross, M. C. ( 2010 ). Gay monogamy: I love you but I can’t have sex with only you.   Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 117–139.

Brewer, P. R. , & Wilcox, C. ( 2005 ). The polls-trends: Same-sex marriage and civil unions.   Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 599–616.

Brown, L. ( 1995 ). Lesbian identities: Concepts and issues. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan (pp. 3–23). New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown, A. L. , Messman-Moore, T. L. , Miller, A. G. , & Stasser, G. ( 2005 ). Sexual victimization in relation to perceptions of risk: mediation, generalization, and temporal stability.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 963–976.

Bryant, A. S. , & Demian . ( 1994 ). Relationship characteristics of American gay and lesbian couples: Findings from a national survey.   Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 1, 101–117.

Buxton, A. P. ( 2001 ). Writing our own script: How bisexual men and their heterosexual wives maintain their marriages after disclosure.   Journal of Bisexuality, 1, 155–189.

Byers, E. S. ( 2001 ). Evidence for the importance of relationship satisfaction for women’s sexual functioning.   Women & Therapy, 24, 23–26.

Byers, E. S. ( 2005 ). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of individuals and long-term relationships.   Journal of Sex Research, 42, 113–118.

Byers, E. S. ( 2011 ). Beyond the birds and the bees and was it good for you?: Thirty years of research on sexual communication.   Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 52, 20–28.

Byers, E. S. , & Demmons, S. ( 1999 ). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating relationships.   Journal of Sex Research, 36, 180–189.

Byers, E. S. , & Heinlein, L. ( 1989 ). Predicting initiations and refusals of sexual activities in married and cohabiting heterosexual couples.   Journal of Sex Research, 26, 210–231.

Byers, E. S. , & Wang, A. ( 2004 ). Understanding sexuality in close relationships from a social exchange perspective. In J. H. Harvey , A. Wenzel , & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 203–234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Call, V. , Sprecher, S. , & Schwartz, P. ( 1995 ). The incidence and frequency of marital sex in a national sample.   Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 639–652.

Clarke, L. H. ( 2006 ). Older women and sexuality: Experiences in marital relationships across the life course.   Canadian Journal on Aging, 25, 129–140.

Cohen, J. N. , Byers, E. S. , & Walsh, L. P. ( 2008 ). Factors influencing the sexual relationships of lesbians and gay men.   International Journal of Sexual Health, 20, 162–176.

Connolly, C. M. ( 2006 ). A feminist perspective of resilience in lesbian couples.   Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 18, 137–162.

Cooper, M. L. , Pioli, M. , Levitt, A. , Talley, A. E. , Micheas, L. , & Collins, N. L. ( 2006 ). Attachment styles, sex motives, and sexual behavior: Evidence for gender-specific expressions of attachment dynamics. In M. Mikulincer & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, and sex. (pp. 243–274). New York: Guilford Press.

Corona, G. , Monami, M. , Boddi, V. , Cameron-Smith, M ., Lotti, F. , de Vita, G. , et al. ( 2010 ). Male sexuality and cardiovascular risk: A cohort study in patients with erectile dysfunction.   Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 1918–1927.

Crawford, I. , Hammack, P. L. , McKirnan, D. J. , Ostrow, D. , Zamboni, B. D. , Robinson, B. , et al. ( 2003 ). Sexual sensation seeking, reduced concern about HIV and sexual risk behaviour among gay men in primary relationships.   AIDS Care, 15, 513–524.

Cross, S. E. , & Madson, L. ( 1997 ). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender.   Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.

Cupach, W. R. , & Comstock, J. ( 1990 ). Satisfaction with sexual communication in marriage: Links to sexual satisfaction and dyadic adjustment.   Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 179–186.

Cupach, W. R. , & Metts, S. ( 1991 ). Sexuality and communication in close relationships. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships. (pp. 93–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

D’Augelli, A. R. , Grossman, A. H. , & Starks, M. T. ( 2005 ). Parents’ awareness of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths’ sexual orientation.   Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 474–482.

D’Augelli, A. R. , Grossman, A. H. , & Starks, M. T. ( 2006 ). Childhood gender atypicality, victimization, and PTSD among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth.   Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1462–1482.

Davis, D. , Shaver, P. R. , & Vernon, M. L. ( 2004 ). Attachment style and subjective motivations for sex.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1076–1090.

Deenen, A. A. , Gijs, L. , & van Naerssen, A. X. ( 1994 ). Intimacy and sexuality in gay male couples.   Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 421–431.

de Gaston, J. F. , Jensen, L. , & Weed, S. ( 1995 ). A closer look at adolescent sexual activity.   Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 465–479.

DeLamater, J. , Hyde, J. S. , & Fong, M.-C. ( 2008 ). Sexual satisfaction in the seventh decade of life.   Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 34, 439–454.

DeRogatis, L. R. , & Burnett, A. L. ( 2008 ). The epidemiology of sexual dysfunctions.   Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 289–300.

Diamond, L. M. ( 2003 ). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire.   Psychological Review, 110, 173–192.

Diamond, L. M. ( 2008 ). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Donnelly, D. A. , & Burgess, E. O. ( 2008 ). The decision to remain in an involuntarily celibate relationship.   Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 519–535.

Downey, G. , & Feldman, S. I. ( 1996 ). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327–1343.

Driggs, J. H. , & Finn, S. E. ( 1991 ). Intimacy between men . New York: Penguin.

Duncombe, J. , & Marsden, D. ( 1999 ). Love and intimacy: The gender division of emotion and “emotion work”: A neglected aspect of sociological discussion of heterosexual relationships. In G. Allan (Ed.), The sociology of the family: A reader (pp. 91–110). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Durr, E. ( 2009 ). Lack of “responsive” sexual desire in women: Implications for clinical practice.   Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 24, 292–306.

Eldridge, N. S. , & Gilbert, L. A. ( 1990 ). Correlates of relationship satisfaction in lesbian couples.   Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 43–62.

Else-Quest, N. M. , Hyde, J. S. , & DeLamater, J. D. ( 2005 ). Context counts: Long-term sequelae of premarital intercourse or abstinence.   Journal of Sex Research, 42, 102–112.

Esmail, S. , Esmail, Y. , & Munro, B. ( 2001 ). Sexuality and disability: The role of health care professionals in providing options and alternatives for couples.   Sexuality and Disability, 19, 267–282.

Ettelbrick, P. ( 2001 ). Domestic partnership, civil unions, or marriage: One size does not fit all.   Albany Law Review, 64, 905.

Fassinger, R. E. , & Morrow, S. L. ( 1995 ). Overcome: Repositioning lesbian sexualities. In L. Diamant & R. D. McAnulty (Eds.), The psychology of sexual orientation, behavior, and identity: A handbook (pp. 197–219). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Fingerhut, A. W. ( 2010 ). Relationship formalization and individual and relationship well-being among same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 956–969.

Fisher, W. A. , & Boroditsky, R. ( 2000 ). Sexual activity, contraceptive choice, and sexual and reproductive health indicators among single Canadian women aged 15–29: Additional findings from the Canadian Contraception Study.   Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 9, 79.

Frye, M. ( 1990 ). Lesbian “sex.” In J. Allen (Ed.), Lesbian philosophies and cultures . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Fugl-Meyer, A. R. , & Fugl-Meyer, K. S. ( 1999 ). Sexual disabilities, problems and satisfaction in 18–74 year old Swedes.   Scandinavian Journal of Sexology, 2, 79–105.

Gagnon, J. H. , Giami, A. , Michaels, S. , & Colomby, P. ( 2001 ). A comparative study of the couple in the social organization of sexuality in France and the United States.   Journal of Sex Research, 38, 24–34.

Gates, G. J. , Badgett, M. V. L. , & Ho, D. ( 2008 ). Marriage, registration, and dissolution by same-sex couples in the US . Los Angeles: The Williams Institute.

Gilbert, E. , Ussher, J. M. , & Perz, J. ( 2010 ). Renegotiating sexuality and intimacy in the context of cancer: The experiences of carers.   Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 998–1009.

Giles, J. ( 2004 ). The nature of sexual desire . Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Glenn, S. A. , & Byers, E. S. ( 2009 ). The roles of situational factors, attributions, and guilt in the well-being of women who have experienced sexual coercion.   Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 18, 201–219.

Goldberg, A. E. , & Smith, J. Z. ( 2010 ). Stigma, social context, and mental health: Lesbian and gay couples across the transition to adoptive parenthood.   Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 149–150.

Gottman, J. M. , Levenson, R. W. , Gross, J. J. , Frederickson, B. L. , McCoy, K. , Rosenthal, L. , et al. ( 2003 ). Correlates of gay and lesbian couples’ relationship satisfaction and relationship dissolution.   Journal of Homosexuality, 45, 23–43.

Gottman, J. M. , Levenson, R. W. , Swanson, C. , Swanson, K. , Tyson, R. , & Yoshimoto, D. ( 2003 ). Observing gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples’ relationships: Mathematical modeling of conflict interaction.   Journal of Homosexuality, 45, 65–91.

Green, R. J. , Bettinger, M. , & Zacks, E. ( 1996 ). Are lesbian couples fused and gay male couples disengaged? Questioning gender straightjackets. In J. Laird & R. J. Green (Eds.), Lesbians and gays in couples and families: A handbook for therapists. (pp. 185–230). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grossman, A. H. , D’Augelli, A. R. , & Hershberger, S. L. ( 2000 ). Social support networks of lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults 60 years of age and older.   Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55B, P171–P179.

Gunzler, C. , Kriston, L. , Harms, A. , & Berner, M. M. ( 2009 ). Association of sexual functioning and quality of partnership in patients in cardiovascular rehabilitation: A gender perspective.   Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 164–174.

Haning, R. V. , O’ Keefe, S. L. , Randall, E. J. , Kommor, M. J. , Baker, E. , & Wilson, R. ( 2007 ). Intimacy, orgasm likelihood, and conflict predict sexual satisfaction in heterosexual male and female respondents.   Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 33, 93–113.

Harkless, L. E. , & Fowers, B. J. ( 2005 ). Similarities and differences in relational boundaries among heterosexuals, gay men, and lesbians.   Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 167–176.

Harry, J. ( 1984 ). Gay couples . New York: Praeger.

Harvard Health Publications. ( 2010 ). Sexuality in midlife and beyond . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Medical School.

Hayes, R. D. , Dennerstein, L. , Bennett, C. M. , & Fairley, C. K. ( 2008 ). What is the “true” prevalence of female sexual dysfunctions and does the way we assess these conditions have an impact?   Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 777–787.

Hayes, R. D. , Dennerstein, L. , Bennett, C. M. , Sidat, M. , Gurrin, L. C. , & Fairley, C. K. ( 2008 ). Risk factors for female sexual dysfunction in the general population: Exploring factors associated with low sexual function and sexual distress.   Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 1681–1693.

Hazan, C. , & Zeifman, D. ( 1994 ). Sex and the psychological tether. In D. Perlman & K. Bartholomew (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: A research annual (Vol. 5, pp. 151–177). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Heiman, J. R. ( 2000 ). Orgasmic disorders in women. In S. R. Leiblum & R. C. Rosen (Eds.), Principles and practice of sex therapy (3rd ed., pp. 118–153). New York: Guilford.

Heiman, J. R. ( 2002 ). Sexual dysfunction: Overview of prevalence, etiological factors, and treatments.   Journal of Sex Research, 39, 73–78.

Heiman, J. R. , & Meston, C. M. ( 1997 ). Evaluating sexual dysfunction in women.   Clinical Obsterics and Gynecology, 40, 616–629.

Helfand, G. ( 2002 ). Gay goes online . Retrieved November 30, 2012, from http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Gay-Goes-Online-Sex-drives-the-gay-male-s-Web-2816715.php .

Henderson, A. W. , Lehavot, K. , & Simoni, J. M. ( 2009 ). Ecological models of sexual satisfaction among lesbian/bisexual and heterosexual women.   Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 50–65.

Hendrick, C. , & Hendrick, S. S. ( 2004 ). Sex and romantic love: Connects and disconnects. In J. H. Harvey , A. Wenzel , & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 159–182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Henson, H. K. ( 2002 ). Breast cancer and sexuality.   Sexuality and Disability, 20, 261–275.

Hess, J. , & Catell, P. ( 2001 ). Dual dwelling duos: An alternative for long-term relationships. In B. J. Brothers (Ed.), Couples, intimacy issues, and addiction (pp. 25–31). New York, NY: Haworth Press, Inc.

Hirsch, K. A. ( 2009 ). Sexual dysfunction in male Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom patients with severe post-traumatic stress disorder.   Military Medicine, 174, 520–522.

Hoff, C. C. , & Beougher, S. C. ( 2010 ). Sexual agreements among gay male couples.   Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 774–787.

Holmberg, D. , Blair, K. L. , & Phillips, M. ( 2010 ). Women’s sexual satisfaction as a predictor of well-being in same-sex versus mixed-sex relationships.   Journal of Sex Research, 47, 1–11.

Howe, G. W. ( 2007 ). Socially situated cognition and the couple as a dynamic system: A commentary.   Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 299–304.

Huang, Y. C. , & Mathers, N. J. ( 2006 ). A comparison of sexual satisfaction and post-natal depression in the UK and Taiwan.   International Nursing Review, 53, 197–204.

Huston, M. , & Schwartz, P. ( 2002 ). Gendered dynamics in the romantic relationships of lesbians and gay men. In A. E. Hunter (Ed.), Readings in the psychology of gender: Exploring our differences and commonalities (pp. 167–178). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Iasenza, S. ( 2002 ). Beyond “lesbian bed death”: The passion and play in lesbian relationships.   Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6, 111–120.

Igartua, K. J. , Gill, K. , & Montoro, R. ( 2003 ). Internalized homophobia: A factor in depression, anxiety, and suicide in the gay and lesbian population.   Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 22, 15–30.

Impett, E. A. , & Peplau, L. A. ( 2002 ). Why some women consent to unwanted sex with a dating partner: Insights from attachment theory.   Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 360–370.

Jackson, G. , Rosen, R. C. , Kloner, R. A. , & Kostis, J. B. ( 2006 ). The second Princeton consensus on sexual dysfunction and cardiac risk: New guidelines for sexual medicine.   Journal of Sexual Medicine, 3, 28–36.

Kaiser Foundation. ( 2001 ). Inside-out: Report on the experiences of lesbians, gays and bisexuals in America and the public’s view on issues and policies related to sexual orientation . Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Foundation.

Kelly, M. P. , Strassberg, D. S. , & Turner, C. M. ( 2004 ). Communication and associated relationship issues in female anorgasmia.   Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 30, 263–276.

Kelly, M. P. , Strassberg, D. S. , & Turner, C. M. ( 2006 ). Behavioral assessment of couples’ communication in female orgasmic disorder.   Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 32, 81–95.

Kitzinger, C. , & Coyle, A. ( 1995 ). Lesbian and gay couples: Speaking of difference.   The Psychologist, 8, 64–69.

Kreager, D. A. , & Staff, J. ( 2009 ). The sexual double standard and adolescent peer acceptance.   Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 143–164.

Kreuter, M. , Sullivan, M. , & Siosteen, A. ( 1994 ). Sexual adjustment after spinal cord injury—Comparison of partner experiences in pre- and post-injury relationships.   Paraplegia, 32, 759–770.

Kurdek, L. A. ( 1991 ). Sexuality in homosexual and heterosexual couples. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 177–191). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kurdek, L. A. ( 1993 ). The allocation of household labor in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual married couples.   Journal of Social Issues, 49, 127–139.

Kurdek, L. A. ( 1997 ). The link between facets of neuroticism and dimensions of relationship commitment: Evidence from gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples.   Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 503–514.

Kurdek, L. A. ( 1998 ). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples.   Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 553–568.

Kurdek, L. A. ( 2001 ). Differences between heterosexual-nonparent couples and gay, lesbian, and heterosexual-parent couples.   Journal of Family Issues, 22, 727–754.

Kurdek, L. A. ( 2004 ). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples?   Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880–900.

Lai, Y. , & Hynie, M. ( 2011 ). A tale of two standards: An examination of young adults’ endorsement of gendered and ageist sexual double standards.   Sex Roles, 64, 360–371.

Lannutti, P. J. ( 2007 ). The influence of same-sex marriage on the understanding of same-sex relationships.   Journal of Homosexuality, 53, 135–157.

LaSala, M. C. ( 1998 ). Coupled gay men, parents, and in-laws: Intergenerational disapproval and the need for a thick skin.   Families in Society, 79, 585–595.

LaSala, M. C. ( 2001 ). Monogamous or not: Understanding and counseling gay male couples.   Families in Society, 82, 605–611.

LaSala, M. C. ( 2004 ). Extradyadic sex and gay male couples: Comparing monogamous and nonmonogamous relationships.   Families in Society, 85, 405–412.

Laumann, E. O. , Gagnon, J. H. , Michael, R. T. , & Michaels, F. ( 1994 ). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Laumann, E. O. , Paik, A. , & Rosen, R. C. ( 1999 ). Sexual dysfunction in the United States: Prevalence and predictors.   Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 537–544.

Lawrance, K. A. , & Byers, E. S. ( 1992 ). Development of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction in long term relationships.   Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 1, 123–128.

Lawrance, K. A. , & Byers, E. S. ( 1995 ). Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction.   Personal Relationships, 2, 267–285.

Leiblum, S. R. ( 2003 ). Sex-starved marriages sweeping the US.   Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 18, 427–428.

Leiblum, S. R. , & Rosen, R. C. ( 2000 ). Introduction: Sex therapy in the age of Viagra. In S. R. Leiblum & R. C. Rosen (Eds.), Principles and practice of sex therapy (3rd ed., pp. 1–13). New York: Guilford.

Lever, J. (August 23, 1994 ). Sexual revelations. The Advocate, 17–24.

Lever, J. (August 22, 1995 ). Lesbian sex survey.   The Advocate, 21–30.

Lewis, R. W. , Fugl-Meyer, K. S. , Corona, G. , Hayes, R. D. , Laumann, E. O. , Moreira, E. D. , Jr., et al. ( 2010 ). Definitions/epidemiology/risk factors for sexual dysfunction.   Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 1598–1607.

Lippa, R. A. ( 2002 ). Gender-related traits of heterosexual and homosexual men and women.   Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 83–98.

Lippa, R. A. ( 2008 ). Sex differences and sexual orientation differences in personality: Findings from the BBC Internet survey.   Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 173–187.

Litzinger, S. , & Gordon, K. C. ( 2005 ). Exploring relationships among communication, sexual satisfaction, and marital satisfaction.   Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 31, 409–424.

Livingston, J. A. , Buddie, A. M. , Testa, M. , & VanZile-Tamsen, C. ( 2004 ). The role of sexual precedence in verbal sexual coercion.   Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 287–297.

Loftus, J. ( 2001 ). America’s liberalization in attitudes toward homosexuality.   American Sociological Review, 66, 762–782.

Lowenstein, L. F. ( 2005 ). Causes and associated features of divorce as seen by recent research.   Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 42, 153–171.

MacNeil, S. , & Byers, E. S. ( 1997 ). The relationships between sexual problems, communication, and sexual satisfaction.   Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 6, 277–283.

MacNeil, S. , & Byers, E. S. ( 2005 ). Dyadic assessment of sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples.   Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 169–181.

MacNeil, S. , & Byers, E. S. ( 2009 ). Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satisfaction of long-term heterosexual couples.   Journal of Sex Research, 46, 3–14.

Maggi, M. , & Corona, G. ( 2011 ). Love protects lover’s life.   Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8, 931–935.

Masters, W. H. , & Johnson, V. E. ( 1979 ). Homosexuality in perspective . Boston: Little, Brown.

Matthews, A. K. , Tartaro, J. , & Hughes, T. L. ( 2003 ). A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual women in committed relationships.   Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7, 101–114.

McNulty, J. K. , & Fisher, T. D. ( 2008 ). Gender differences in response to sexual expectancies and changes in sexual frequency: A short-term longitudinal study of sexual satisfaction in newly married couples.   Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 229–240.

Metts, S. ( 2004 ). First sexual involvement in romantic relationships: Empirical investigation of communicative framing, romantic beliefs, and attachment orientation in the passion turning point. In J. H. Harvey , A. Wenzel , & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 135–158). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Meuleman, E. J. H. ( 2011 ). Men’s sexual health and the metabolic syndrome.   Journal of Sex Research, 48, 142–148.

Meyer, I. H. ( 2003 ). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence.   Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697.

Meyer, I. H. , & Dean, L. ( 1998 ). Internalized homophobia, intimacy, and sexual behavior among gay and bisexual men. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 160–186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, L. ( 1994 ). Sex and the brain-injured patient: Regaining love, pleasure, and intimacy.   Journal of Cognitive Rehabilitation, 12, 12–20.

Miller, S. A. , & Byers, E. S. ( 2004 ). Actual and desired duration of foreplay and intercourse: Discordance and misperceptions within heterosexual couples.   Journal of Sex Research, 41, 301–309.

Milligan, M. S. , & Neufeldt, A. H. ( 1998 ). Post-injury marriage to men with spinal cord injury: Women’s perspectives on making a commitment.   Sexuality and Disability, 16, 117–132.

Morokoff, P. J. , & Gillilland, R. ( 1993 ). Stress, sexual functioning, and marital satisfaction.   Journal of Sex Research, 30, 43–53.

Mosher, W. D. , Chandra, A. , & Jones, J. ( 2005 ). Sexual behavior and selected health measures: Men and women 15–44 years of age, United States, 2002 . Advance data from vital and health statistics, no. 362. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Nardi, P. M. ( 1999 ). Gay men’s friendships . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nardi, P. M. , & Sherrod, D. ( 1994 ). Friendship in the lives of gay men and lesbians.   Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 185–199.

National Center for Family & Marriage Research. ( 2010 ). Same-sex couple households in the US, 2009 , FP.10.08. Retrieved November 11, 2012, from http://ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/family_profiles/file87414.pdf .

Nelson, C. J. , Choi, J. M. , Mulhall, J. P. , & Roth, A. J. ( 2007 ). Determinants of sexual satisfaction in men with prostate cancer.   Journal of Sexual Medicine, 4, 1422–1427.

Nichols, M. ( 1990 ). Lesbian relationships: Implications for the study of sexuality and gender. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 350–364). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Oetjen, H. , & Rothblum, E. D. ( 2000 ). When lesbians aren’t gay: Factors affecting depression among lesbians.   Journal of Homosexuality, 39, 49–73.

O’Sullivan, L. F. , & Allgeier, E. R. ( 1998 ). Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships.   Journal of Sex Research, 35, 234–243.

O’Sullivan, L. F. ( 2005 ). Sexual coercion in dating relationships: Conceptual and methodological issues.   Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 3–11.

O’Sullivan, L. F. , & Majerovich, J. ( 2008 ). Difficulties with sexual functioning in a sample of male and female late adolescent and young adult university students.   Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 17, 109–121.

Oswald, R. F. ( 2002 ). Inclusion and belonging in the family rituals of gay and lesbian people.   Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 428–436.

Paul, J. P. , Catania, J. , Pollack, L. , Moskowitz, J. , Canchola, J. , Mills, T. , et al. ( 2002 ). Suicide attempts among gay and bisexual men: Lifetime prevalence and antecedents.   American Journal of Public Health, 92, 1338–1345.

Peplau, L. A. , & Amaro, H. ( 1982 ). Understanding lesbian relationships. In W. Paul , J. D. Weinrich , J. C. Gonsiorek & M. E. Hotvedt (Eds.), Homosexuality: Social, psychological, and biological issues (pp. 233–248). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Peplau, L. A. , Fingerhut, A. , & Beals, K. P. ( 2004 ). Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians and gay men. In J. H. Harvey , A. Wenzel & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 349–369). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Perel, E. ( 2007 ). Mating in captivity: Sex, lies, and domestic bliss . London: Hodder.

Prestage, G. , Jin, F. , Zablotska, I. , Grulich, A. , Imrie, J. , Kaldor, J. , et al. ( 2008 ). Trends in agreements between regular partners among gay men in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, Australia.   AIDS and Behavior, 12, 513–520.

Pridal, C. G. , & LoPiccolo, J. ( 2000 ). Multielement treatment of desire disorders: Integration of cognitive, behavioral, and systemic therapy. In S. R. Leiblum & R. C. Rosen (Eds.), Principles and practice of sex therapy (3rd ed., pp. 57–81). New York: Guilford.

Purnine, D. M. , & Carey, M. P. ( 1997 ). Interpersonal communication and sexual adjustment: The roles of understanding and agreement.   Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 1017–1025.

Purnine, D. M. , & Carey, M. P. ( 1998 ). Age and gender differences in sexual behavior preferences: A follow-up report.   Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 24, 93–102.

Ramirez, O. M. , & Brown, J. ( 2010 ). Attachment style, rules regarding sex, and couple satisfaction: A study of gay male couples.   ANZJFT Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 202–213.

Reinhardt, R. U. ( 2002 ). Bisexual women in heterosexual relationship.   Journal of Bisexuality, 2, 163–171.

Ridley, C. , Ogolsky, B. , Payne, P. , Totenhagen, C. , & Cate, R. ( 2008 ). Sexual expression: Its emotional context in heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples.   Journal of Sex Research, 45, 305–314.

Riggle, E. D. B. , Rostosky, S. S. , & Horne, S. G. ( 2010 ). Psychological distress, well-being, and legal recognition in same-sex couple relationships.   Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 82–86.

Roisman, G. I. , Clausell, E. , Holland, A. , Fortuna, K. , & Elieff, C. ( 2008 ). Adult romantic relationships as contexts of human development: A multimethod comparison of same-sex couples with opposite-sex dating, engaged, and married dyads.   Developmental Psychology, 44, 91–101.

Rolland, J. S. ( 1994 ). In sickness and in health: The impact of illness on couples’ relationships.   Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 20, 327–347.

Rose, S. , Zand, D. , & Cimi, M. A. ( 1993 ). Lesbian courtship scripts. In E. D. Rothblum & K. A. Brehony (Eds.), Boston marriages (pp. 70–85). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Rosen, R. C. , & Leiblum, S. R. ( 1995 ). Hypoactive sexual desire.   Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 18, 107–121.

Rostosky, S. S. , Korfhage, B. A. , Duhigg, J. M. , Stern, A. J. , Bennett, L. , & Riggle, E. D. B. ( 2004 ). Same-sex couple perceptions of family support: A consensual qualitative study.   Family Process, 43, 43–57.

Rostosky, S. S. , & Riggle, E. D. B. ( 2002 ). “Out” at work: The relation of actor and partner workplace policy and internalized homophobia to disclosure status.   Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 411–419.

Rostosky, S. S. , Riggle, E. D. B. , Gray, B. E. , & Hatton, R. L. ( 2007 ). Minority stress experiences in committed same-sex couple relationships.   Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 392–400.

Rostosky, S. S. , Riggle, E. D. B. , Horne, S. G. , Denton, F. N. , & Huellemeier, J. D. ( 2010 ). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals’ psychological reactions to amendments denying access to civil marriage.   American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 302–310.

Rostosky, S. S. , Riggle, E. D. B. , Horne, S. G. , & Miller, A. D. ( 2009 ). Marriage amendments and psychological distress in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adults.   Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 56–66.

Rothblum, E. D. ( 1994 ). Transforming lesbian sexuality.   Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 627–641.

Rothblum, E. D. , & Brehony, K. A. (Eds.). ( 1993 ). Boston marriages . Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Rowen, C. J. , & Malcolm, J. P. ( 2002 ). Correlates of internalized homophobia and homosexual identity formation in a sample of gay men.   Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 77–92.

Russell, S. T. ( 2005 ). Conceptualizing positive adolescent sexuality development.   Sexuality Research and Social Policy: A Journal of the NSRC, 2, 4–12.

Rust, P. C. R. ( 1996 ). Monogamy and polyamory: Relationship issues for bisexuals. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority (pp. 127–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ryff, C. D. , & Singer, B. H. (Eds.). ( 2001 ). Emotions, social relationships, and health . New York: Oxford University Press.

Sandel, M. E. ( 1997 ). Traumatic brain injury. In M. L. Sipski & C. J. Alexander (Eds.), Sexual function in people with disability and chronic illness: A health professional’s guide (pp. 221–245). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.

Schiavi, R. C. ( 1999 ). Aging and male sexuality . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schwartz, P. , & Young, L. ( 2009 ). Sexual satisfaction in committed relationships.   Sexuality Research and Social Policy: A Journal of the NSRC, 6, 1–17.

Scott-Jones, D. , & White, A. B. ( 1990 ). Correlates of sexual activity in early adolescence.   Journal of Early Adolescence, 10, 221–238.

Serati, M. , Salvatore, S. , Siesto, G. , Cattoni, E. , Zanirato, M. , Khullar, V. , et al. ( 2010 ). Female sexual function during pregnancy and after childbirth.   Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 2782–2790.

Shotland, R. L. , & Goodstein, L. ( 1992 ). Sexual precedence reduces the perceived legitimacy of sexual refusal: An examination of attributions concerning date rape and consensual sex.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 756–764.

Simms, D. C. , & Byers, E. S. ( 2009 ). Interpersonal perceptions of desired frequency of sexual behaviours.   Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 18, 15–25.

Simon, W. , & Gagnon, J. H. ( 1986 ). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change.   Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120.

Simons, J. S. , & Carey, M. P. ( 2001 ). Prevalence of sexual dysfunctions: Results from a decade of research.   Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 177–219.

Simpson, J. A. , & Gangestad, S. W. ( 1991 ). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.

Simpson, J. A. , Rholes, W. S. , Orina, M. M. , & Grich, J. ( 2002 ). Working models of attachment, support giving, and support seeking in a stressful situation.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 598–608.

Simpson, J. A. , Wilson, C. L. , & Winterheld, H. A. ( 2004 ). Sociosexuality and close relationships. In J. H. Harvey , A. Wenzel , & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 87–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Solomon, S. E. , Rothblum, E. D. , & Balsam, K. F. ( 2004 ). Pioneers in partnership: Lesbian and gay male couples in civil unions compared with those not in civil unions and married heterosexual siblings.   Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 275–286.

Solomon, S. E. , Rothblum, E. D. , & Balsam, K. F. ( 2005 ). Money, housework, sex, and conflict: Same-sex couples in civil unions, those not in civil unions, and heterosexual married siblings.   Sex Roles, 52, 561–575.

Sprecher, S. ( 2002 ). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability.   Journal of Sex Research, 39, 190–196.

Sprecher, S. , Barbee, A. , & Schwartz, P. ( 1995 ). “Was it good for you, too?” Gender differences in first sexual intercourse experiences.   Journal of Sex Research, 32, 3–15.

Sprecher, S. , & Cate, R. ( 2004 ). Sexual satisfaction and sexual expression as predictors of relationship satisfaction and stability. In J. H. Harvey , A. Wenzel , & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 235–256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sprecher, S. , & McKinney, K. ( 1993 ). Sexuality . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sprecher, S. , & Regan, P. C. ( 1998 ). Passionate and companionate love in courting and young married couples.   Sociological Inquiry, 68, 163–185.

Sullivan, A. , & Landau, J. (Eds.). ( 1997 ). Same-sex marriage: Pro and con . New York: Vintage.

Suter, E. A. , & Oswald, R. F. ( 2003 ). Do lesbians change their last names in the context of a committed relationship?   Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7, 71–83.

Szymanski, D. M. , Kashubeck-West, S. , & Meyer, J. ( 2008 ). Internalized heterosexism: Measurement, psychosocial correlates, and research directions.   Counseling Psychologist, 36, 525–574.

Taleporos, G. , & McCabe, M. P. ( 2003 ). Relationships, sexuality and adjustment among people with physical disability.   Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 18, 5–6.

Testa, M. , & Livingston, J. A. ( 2000 ). Alcohol and sexual aggression: Reciprocal relationships over time in a sample of high-risk women.   Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 413–427.

Testa, M. , VanZile-Tamsen, C. , Livingston, J. A. , & Koss, M. P. ( 2004 ). Assessing women’s experiences of sexual aggression using the sexual experiences survey: Evidence for validity and implications for research.   Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 256–265.

Tiefer, L. ( 1999 ). “Female sexual dysfunction” alert: A new disorder invented for women.   Sojourner: The Women’s Forum, 11.

Tiefer, L. ( 2002 ). Beyond the medical model of women’s sexual problems: A campaign to resist the promotion of “female sexual dysfunction.”   Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 17, 127–135.

Todosijevic, J. , Rothblum, E. D. , & Solomon, S. E. ( 2005 ). Relationship satisfaction, affectivity, and gay-specific stressors in same-sex couples joined in civil unions.   Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 158–166.

Tolman, D. L. ( 2002 ). Dilemma of desire: Teenage girls and sexuality . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Traeen, B. , & Skogerbo, A. ( 2009 ). Sex as an obligation and interpersonal communication among Norwegian heterosexual couples.   Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 221–229.

Trudel, G. , Marchand, A. , Ravart, M. , Aubin, S. , Turgeon, L. , & Fortier, P. ( 2001 ). The effect of a cognitive-behavioral group treatment program on hypoactive sexual desire in women.   Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 16, 145–164.

Trudel, G. , Villeneuve, V. , Anderson, A. , & Pilon, G. v. ( 2008 ). Sexual and marital aspects of old age: An update.   Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 23, 161–169.

Trudel, G. , Villeneuve, L. , Preville, M. , Boyer, R. , & Frechette, V. ( 2010 ). Dyadic adjustment, sexuality, and psychological distress in older couples.   Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 25, 306–316.

Ussher, J. M. , & Perz, J. ( 2008 ). Empathy, egalitarianism and emotion work in the relational negotiation of PMS: The experience of women in lesbian relationships.   Feminism and Psychology, 18, 87–111.

Vannier, S. A. , & O’Sullivan, L. F. ( 2010 ). Sex without desire: Characteristics of occasions of sexual compliance in young adults’ committed relationships.   Journal of Sex Research, 47, 429–439.

Waite, L. J. , & Joyner, K. ( 2001 ). Emotional satisfaction and physical pleasure in sexual unions: Time horizon, sexual behavior, and sexual exclusivity.   Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 247–264.

Waite, L. J. , Laumann, E. O. , Das, A. , & Schumm, L. P. ( 2009 ). Sexuality: Measures of partnerships, practices, attitudes, and problems in the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Study.   Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 64, I56-I66.

Walster, E. , Berscheid, E. , & Walster, G. W. ( 1973 ). New directions in equity research.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176.

Warehime, M. N. , & Bass, L. E. ( 2008 ). Breaking singles up: Sexual satisfaction among men and women.   International Journal of Sexual Health, 20, 247–261.

Warner, M. ( 1999 ). The trouble with normal: Sex, politics and the ethics of queer life . New York: The Free Press.

Weinstock, J. S. ( 2004 ). Lesbian ex-lover relationships: Under-estimated, under-theorized and under-valued? In J. S. Weinstock & E. D. Rothblum (Eds.), Lesbian ex-lovers: The really long-term relationships. (pp. 1–8). Binghamton, NY: The Harrington Park Press/The Haworth Press.

West, C. ( 1996 ). Lesbian polyfidelity . San Francisco: Bootlegger Publishing.

Weston, K. ( 1991 ). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship . New York: Columbia University Press.

Wheldon, C. W. , & Pathak, E. B. ( 2010 ). Masculinity and relationship agreements among male same-sex couples.   Journal of Sex Research, 47, 460–470.

Wichstrom, L. , & Hegna, K. ( 2003 ). Sexual orientation and suicide attempt: A longitudinal study of the general Norwegian adolescent population.   Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 144–151.

Willets, M. C. , Sprecher, S. , & Beck, F. D. ( 2004 ). Overview of sexual practices and attitudes within relational contexts. In J. H. Harvey , A. Wenzel , & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 57–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Witting, K. , Santtila, P. , Varjonen, M. , Jern, P. , Johansson, A. , von der Pahlen, B. , et al. ( 2008 ). Female sexual dysfunction, sexual distress, and compatibility with partner.   Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 2587–2599.

Yabiku, S. T. , & Gager, C. T. ( 2009 ). Sexual frequency and the stability of marital and cohabiting unions.   Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 983–1000.

Yeh, H. C. , Lorenz, F. O. , Wickrama, K. A. S. , Conger, R. D. , & Elder, G. H. , Jr. ( 2006 ). Relationships among sexual satisfaction, marital quality, and marital instability at midlife.   Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 339–343.

Yoshida, K. K. ( 1994 ). Intimate and marital relationships: An insider’s perspective.   Sexuality and Disability, 12, 179–189.

Zea, M. a. C. , Reisen, C. A. , & Poppen, P. J. ( 1999 ). Psychological well-being among Latino lesbians and gay men.   Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5, 371–379.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Back to Dmytro Taranovsky's home page . Author: Dmytro Taranovsky Date: 2007-2012 Last Modified: July 10, 2012 (Last Small Change: September 17, 2015)

An Essay about Sex

List of Sections: The Nature of Sexual Feelings , Sex in an Ideal Society , Sex and the Law , Morality and Sex , Cultural Beliefs about Sex , Sex versus Drugs , Sex and Fundamental Rights

The Nature of Sexual Feelings

Sexual feelings are defined as feelings with a very strong localized physical pleasure component, or feelings that are closely connected/associated with such feelings. Evolutionary, sexual feelings are closely connected with reproduction; however, the connection is not ordinarily a part of the feeling. Sexual feelings are closely connected towards love and attraction, but these are not necessary for feelings to be sexual. As with all feelings, the essence and identity of sexual feelings lies in the understanding and perception of the feelings. As such, sexual pleasure cannot exist without an appropriate mental context. For example, otherwise pleasant feelings may be not truly enjoyable when the sex is coerced, and the victim may be confused over whether he or she enjoyed the encounter. It is also possible for a victim to enjoy the physical feelings, yet suffer much more from the emotional distress.

Sexual conduct refers to conduct with a sufficient nexus to sexual feelings. Throughout this essay, sex will be used to mean touching with intense sexual feelings, especially touching by another person. This differs somewhat from the standard usage. In particular masturbation, especially mutual masturbation, is treated as a type of sex. The term "sexual intercourse" is used in the conventional way.

As the definition suggests, sexual feelings are not special. The primary difference between sexual and non-sexual feelings is cultural, and the primary non-cultural difference is in the magnitude of the feelings. Consequently, the correct morality for sex is similar to morality for ordinary non-sexual massage. Although sexual feelings may be very strong, sexual behavior can quickly become a normal part of life, with the person's personality largely undisturbed.

Sexual feelings are likely to be stronger when equivalent stimulation is done by another person rather than oneself because with stimulation by another person, you lack a mental preimage of the feelings. Feelings are likely to be stronger when having sex first time (assuming that the physical behavior is equivalent to subsequent times) because of lack of mental constructs to deal with the feelings, and similarly for particular sexual behaviors/situations.

Physical feelings from comparable physical contact tend to be stronger in children partly because to some extent the strength of feelings is relative to other feelings experienced, and partly because of a reduced capacity to internalize feelings into routine mental constructs. (However, biological changes such as puberty may make analogous stimulation incomparable.)

The strength of sexual feelings can create a temporary mental state of altered reality. Basic properties of objects such as shape and color will be remain the same, but the perception will be different, the sexual experience will be the dominant feeling, and the physical world may appear less real.

Physical risks of sexual behaviors are not discussed here. The reader is encouraged to learn about the risks elsewhere, especially if the reader is planning on having sex. Here, it suffices to note that strong sexual feelings and interactions are often physically safe.

Most people in most situations sexually prefer a person of opposite sex. (By contrast, on average people tend to socialize with people of the same sex.) However, it is not possible for one to be sexually attracted to just males or to just females. Sexual orientation is a matter of degree, and your primary sexual orientation does not extend to all possible situations.

On an abstract level, homosexuality has the benefits of equality and inclusiveness. Specifically, in homosexual sex, (when desired) one partner can have approximately the same physical experience as the other. Furthermore, mutual attraction is possible even if there are more than two people. However, there are practical advantages to heterosexuality, such as are diversity (having two types of bodies may provide richer experience), certain biological adaptations, commonness of partners, cultural acceptance, and possibility of procreation.

Sexual feelings are on average pleasurable, but even then, they are not just pleasure. Sexual feelings contain other components and may even include significant pain.

Sexual urges are sexual feelings with a significant desire/suffering component: desire for sexual feelings, and suffering from lack of these sexual feelings. Sexual urges can be satisfied by creating these sexual feelings, usually through some type of genital massage (such as masturbation or sexual intercourse). Sexual urges are generally caused by sex-related thoughts and feelings and can be quite strong. For many people, sexual urges occur quite frequently. Although sexual urges involve suffering or something closely related to suffering, they may have pleasurable aspects as well. Suffering is necessary for pleasure to exist, and sexual pleasure is not an exception. When done in moderation, unfulfilled sexual desire and sexual abstinence can increase sexual pleasure.

Sex in an Ideal Society

Eventually, technological advances may make human biology irrelevant, but until then, sex as we know it will play an important role. Here is my vision of its role. The role represents both freedom and restraint.

On the one hand, sex is practiced openly, publicly, and casually. Sex is guilt-free. Most people are not shy about soliciting strangers for sex. Exchange of sex for money or favors is generally accepted. The right of everyone to have sex is respected both by law and private parties. Among other things, parents do not prevent children from having sex. A spouse does not get mad when the husband or wife has some casual extramarital sex. Sexual images are uncensored.

On the other hand, a majority are in (mostly) monogamous relationships. The family as we know it continues to be important. Sex is practiced in moderation, with people confident in declining it. The right to privacy and individual objections to sex and even (to a reasonable extent) sexual images are respected. Generally, no money is exchanged for sex--sex is generally enjoyable to both/all participants.

While humans will eventually transcend biological bodies, sex-like experiences will likely remain because of their emotional value. Future technology will overcome the limitations of wrong gender and of physical ugliness that currently prevent people from enjoying sex with each other.

Sex and the Law

Consent to sex.

• The conduct has no unacceptable physical risks (including any physical pain that persists after the activity).
• The conduct can be terminated immediately upon request.
• The person is either aware of the feelings that the interaction will involve, or the feelings are introduced gradually and the person is not deceived about the feelings involved.
• The conduct is not in exchange for money or other consideration, and the person knows that (see the next subsection about sex for money).
• The person is not deceived about the benefits of the conduct, or about any suffering that occurs during the conduct.
• The person is conscious and is readily capable of making and communicating an objection and knows or expects that an objection will be honored.
• The person makes no objection to the conduct or all objections are honored.
• The person affirmatively grants consent.
• Physical risks should be acceptable in sex if they are acceptable in other activities such as sports. Which physical risks are acceptable strongly depends on the presence of informed consent (or partial informed consent) to such risks. Psychological risks are excluded here since psychological harm is caused primarily by thoughts, and the right to have harmful thoughts is protected by the core freedom of thought. In addition, the concept of psychological risk is too amorphous, and psychological risks of safe consensual sex are mostly cultural and unpredictable.
• The second requirement refers to the technical ability to stop the conduct, and is usually satisfied for sex. By contrast, most mind altering drug use does not meet this requirement since drug effects ignore the user's request to become sober.
• Given the strength of sexual feelings, even with the availability of immediate termination, an additional protection is needed, namely a basic understanding of what feelings to expect. The person has to understand the feelings well enough to decide whether they are enjoyable or otherwise evaluate the feelings. Understanding the expected feelings as if from memory is sufficient. Also, gradual introduction of feelings in a state where the person is ready to object is sufficient, as the person is given ample opportunity to evaluate the feelings. However, a person may not be deceived into painful sex through a misleading promise of pleasure at the end. Real moral or psychological understanding of the feelings is not required; as of 2012, very few people have such understanding.
• Money can be a strong coercive force.
• It is not acceptable to trick a person into having sex by fabricating various benefits of sex (such as "sex will make you rich", "sex will make your skin beautiful"). 'Benefits' is construed broadly to include moral benefits and benefits to third parties. Moreover, deception can be indirect.
• Without an expectation that an objection will be honored and not trigger penalties, a person may be unlikely to object even to unwanted sex. Also, some psychological states make a person unlikely to object; if a person in such a state is unlikely to object to moderate pain, the person may be deemed incapable of objecting to sex. Also, a person may be incapable of objecting if he or she does not connect the sexual act with the other's intent; an example is when the person is deceived into believing that the sexual touching is unintentional.
• This is the basic element of consent.
• The requirement of affirmative agreement should be waived in the ordinary case where the person is expected to enjoy conduct and there are no special risks.
• In defining legal consent, the key factor is what the person is consenting to. In case of safe sex, the consent is to the immediate feeling. The issue of informed consent arises in case of tangible harm that cannot be undone. Because safe sex involves no such harm, consent to sex is treated more like consent to an amusement park ride than a consent to surgery. No intelligence test is required for consent to safe sex.
• Meeting the conditions of legal consent may require communication, explaining to the person certain aspects of the interaction.
• It is difficult for a person having sex the first time or having a new sexual experience to know exactly how it will feel, which necessitates the right to introduce unexpected feelings gradually. However, sudden sexual conduct (even when an objection is immediately honored) can still be criminalized; without affirmative consent, touching should be started gradually. Conditions (2) and (3)--to the extent they are required by law--may not be construed so as to prohibit ordinary orgasm, including the first orgasm.
• Videotaping and other recording of sexual interaction should be permitted if all participants are given a fair notice. In cases of sexual abuse, recording without notice should be permitted. Such recordings are, among other things, useful to secure a criminal conviction.
• Although explanation of psychological risks and of cultural perception of the conduct should not be required, it is a nice thing to do anyway.
• An affirmative 'yes' to sex should not ordinarily be required since much of clearly consensual sex is done without it. In addition, if one person is unsure of whether to have sex, a common practice is to introduce sexual touching/behavior gradually, letting the person decide on the limits as the interaction proceeds.
• A person can be indirectly deceived about the benefits of sex from claims (even such as "everyone your age has had sex") that imply a special benefit without explicitly stating it. Moreover, even in the absence of a specific claim, deception can occur through the presence of a special trust to act only in beneficial (or otherwise special) ways. Doctors, parents, teachers, and police officers are commonly entrusted in this way. Religious deception should be handled carefully so as to protect both the right to persuade a person to a religion, and the right not to be deceived into sex. Deception about things other than the benefits of sex should not invalidate the consent to sex (provided the other conditions of consent are met). However, such deception (for example, slander about the person's other sexual partners) can in certain cases be treated as a separate offense.
• The penalty for sex without legal consent should be determined on a case-by-case basis, some violations are much more serious than others. People should not be punished for activity that they non-negligently and in good-faith believed to be safe consensual sex.
• The eight proposed conditions are sufficient but not always necessary for consent. However, since sexual feelings may be unbearably strong, the right not to have sex (including the right to terminate an ongoing sex) is fundamental, and as such must be honored. Forced sex is unacceptable even in the rare cases when it is enjoyable and beneficial to the victim (even if such enjoyment and benefit was the intended and likely result). Consent refers to choice and will and is different from desire (which refers to feelings). Thus sex may be consensual but unwanted (legal) or wanted but nonconsensual (unlikely, but still illegal and unacceptable). Also, consent cannot be given retroactively. Sexual stimulation may be a permissible side-effect of a necessary treatment for a physical illness. However, forced sex may not be used as a treatment for mental illness, even if it is "medically" necessary and the person is a danger to self or others.
• Bondage role-playing should be permitted as long as the consent conditions are met. In such role-play, it is not necessary for word "No" to count as an objection provided that both of the following are met (a) given the totality of circumstances, the person does not appear to object, and (b) the person is clearly capable of giving a genuine objection.
• Deprivation of sex should not ordinarily be used as punishment. However, some punishment, such as incarceration, properly involves physical segregation and the corresponding deprivation of sex.
• Intoxicated persons should not be prohibited from having safe consensual sex. A later regret of sex is not very different from regret of a number of other choices the person may have made while being intoxicated.
• A person should be allowed to make directions about possible sex in case the person becomes unconscious. The legal default should be no sex, except perhaps in narrow circumstances (such as some cases waking up one's sexual partner through sexual contact).
• Laws about sex should ideally be written in age neutral terms.
• Infant circumcision that is not medically necessary should be criminalized, without religious exceptions. Circumcision amounts to a permanent body mutilation. One's religion is not a legal excuse to harm other people.
• Although infants cannot be meaningfully give consent, they can still give a positive or a negative response. Genital stimulation of infants by parents and other authorized caretakers should be permitted provided that the immediate response is positive and the stimulation is harmless or beneficial to the infant.
• Corporal punishment (by parents, educators, and other people) must not be permitted. This is a matter of fundamental rights. The fundamental freedom from physical restraint includes the right to engage in safe consensual physical interaction (excluding commerce). This right applies to people of limited intelligence and experience (such as children) and to conduct that is traditionally regarded as immoral (such as sex). However, there is more to consent than lack of objection. In addition to the eight conditions, it is probably constitutional to require provision (but not understanding) of reasonable additional information clearly specified by the law. Parents must not be permitted to violate the children's fundamental rights, including the right to engage in safe consensual sex. Distribution of all information (including pornography) to all people is protected by the fundamental right of freedom of expression.

Sex for Money

Because sex for money is commercial, and because of the inherent risk of coercion, such sex is not (in my opinion) constitutionally protected. However, a ban on prostitution would be unwise. Instead, laws may require (using more specific phrasing than here) that (1) sex is consensual, (2) sex is physically safe, (3) the payment is fair, and (4) all involved parties receive appropriate information, and know what the compensation is. Part of the fairness involves the right to terminate the sexual conduct at any time without undue penalty. Non-monetary compensation may be used provided that it is not based on special authority of one person. Use of special authority as compensation should ordinarily be prohibited. For example, the government may not shorten someone's jail term in exchange for sex.

A contract to abstain from sex should not ordinarily be enforceable, as such contract is in tension with the fundamental freedom to physical interaction.

When both people and rational and informed, their relationship is (usually) mutually beneficial even if it involves monetary exchange. Informal use of sex in exchange for something is very common, and cannot, consistent with fundamental rights, be entirely prohibited. For example, a person may terminate a friendship (and its benefits) in part because of a lack of sexual satisfaction. Much of pornography production involves paying actors to have sex. Also, many people, including children, rely on money from sex to buy food and other necessities; these people cannot reasonably be expected to stop having sex for money.

Sex Education

Public nudity and indecent exposure.

In deciding to what extent to prohibit nudity, indecent exposure, and outdoor sex, the enjoyment of the participants should be weighted against the offense to the observers. In evaluating offensiveness, one should consider the offense from ugliness of the appearance, rather than the moral offense from violating cultural norms. Considerations of offensives should be significantly discounted because the viewer can avert his or her eyes, and because there is no right not be offended. Moreover, because the sole reason for prohibition is visual offensives, indecent exposure should be treated as pure speech, thus magnifying the value of the perpetrator's interests.

Nudity should be legal in most outdoor areas, including inside cities. Nudity is a natural state of the human body, and is comfortable for sunbathing and swimming. Nudity can be very beautiful, and is frequently used in art. The right to be without clothing is an important freedom that should be respected. The right to nudity should include the right to have an erection (erections can arise spontaneously and prohibiting them would cause anxiety and limit freedom).

Outdoor sex should be legal when it is done discreetly, "not in your face". While there are substantial offensiveness considerations, they are ordinarily outweighed by the liberty of the participants, as the right to have sex is part of the freedom from physical restraint and sex can be one of the most meaningful activities humans engage in. Current (as of 2012) laws may effectively require postponement of sex for hours (or worse) and otherwise impair sex.

Morality and Sex

Introduction.

In the section "Morality and Sex", I list various recommendations relating to sex. These recommendations are directed to the present society rather than a hypothetical society with correct views about sex. The reader should keep in mind that I am not perfect and can make mistakes.

The essay does not advise you whether to have sex. The decision whether to have sex is a personal manner, and it is ordinarily wrong to pressure people to have sex. Moreover, to the extent that sex is enjoyable and without impediments, people usually end up having sex, so it is unnecessary to advise here for people to have sex.

The main reason to have non-reproductive sex is that sex can be a source of happiness. In addition to directly causing happiness, sex can enrich one's experience and promote human bonds. (This essay does not discuss whether and when to have children.) I subscribe to utilitarian theory of morality. The good is to maximize happiness, with equal consideration of everyone's interests.

However, in receiving pleasure, there is a risk of other activities becoming less enjoyable, which decreases (and can even reverse) the net effect of the pleasure. The key is to have sexual pleasure in a meaningful and enriching way.

Sexual conduct has no moral significance beyond the feelings that it causes. (Here, the feelings include long-term feelings as well, such as suffering from a disease.) Sexual feelings have no moral significance beyond the significance attached to them by the mind. For example, when sexual feelings are perceived as pleasurable and without negative connotations, their presence (all other things being equal) is good.

Different societies have attached various moral and religious significance to sex. Examples include "sex is wife's sacred duty to the husband", "boys should be masculine and girls feminine", and "homosexuality is wrong". These beliefs are wrong, and ultimately, irrational. However, there are sufficient historical reasons for their prevalence.

Morality and Law

In ordinary cases, you should respect the law. In choosing to break the law, you should evaluate its effect on you and (with equal consideration of interests) on other people, and then apply a strong weighting towards compliance with the law. The weighting towards compliance is decreased if the law is routinely ignored and unenforced, or if the law is profoundly unjust or irrational or inconsistent with important freedoms.

A List of Suggestions

• It is important to learn about sex.
• Sexual relationships with love and commitment are likely to be more fulfilling than anonymous purely sexual encounters.
• It is very difficult to learn how sex feels without trying it. It is difficult to know whether one would enjoy sex without trying it. A reasonable suggestion is to try sexual conduct to gain understanding and to see whether sex is something that you like.
• Sexual relationships should ordinarily be non-exclusive. Do not pressure your partner to not have sexual relationships with other people.
• Try to be open about your feelings and relationships. It is especially important to be open with your partner about your feelings. However, to the extent that you may be discriminated against because of erroneous beliefs other people have about sex, you should balance this factor against the natural benefits of openness.
• You should ordinarily respect your commitments to keep someone's sexual interactions and preferences private. This is not an absolute rule, particularly in cases of sexual abuse. You can also discuss the relationships anonymously. Ordinarily, you have a right not to disclose you sexual preferences and activities, and ordinary you should not pressure other people to reveal their sexual preferences and conduct. It may be best to be assertive about your right to sexual privacy.
• Relationships where one party does not like sexual conduct but accepts it as a debt of friendship are likely to be unfulfilling and problematic. Consider making such a relationship non-sexual. If you and your partner choose to continue the sexual relationship, then make sure you both understand the role of sex in the relationship, and consider whether using explicit compensation for sex is better.
• Following your sexual orientation--even if it is considered unacceptable in your society--can lead to great joy and emotional fulfillment. If seeking counseling about sex, it is important that the counselor accepts your sexual orientation.
• If you have strong deeply held beliefs against sex, then consider them as an important argument against sex since your enjoyment of sex may be marred by guilt and anxiety. You may want to delay sex until you resolve these (erroneous) beliefs. However, it is important to learn about sex, even if such learning is expressly contrary to your religion. If objecting to sex for moral reasons, then state your objection early. By waiting until the latest possible moment, you may find your morals compromised.
• Sexual intercourse need not be the best way to achieve sexual satisfaction. Other possibilities include solo and mutual masturbation, which can be done in a variety of ways. (Masturbation tends to have much lower physical risks then sexual intercourse. In this essay, masturbation is treated as a type of sex.)
• Sex is sometimes wrong. Here are some valid reasons against sex - you may not enjoy sex, especially if it is done in a wrong way or with a wrong person - a longer interval between instances of sex can make sex more enjoyable - sex may involve physical risks (direct injury, pregnancy, sexual transmitted diseases) - guilt and shame you may have about sex (however, it is important for you to resolve these feelings) - the society may discriminate against you (or your partner) for having sex - your partner does not consent, has valid reasons against sex, or believes that the particular instance of sex is wrong. A person's moral opposition to sexual conduct should be given due respect and not ignored. - your partner expects sex to imply commitment of a kind that you do not wish to make
• Spiritual relationships can be stronger than even very strong (physical) sexual feelings. It is wrong to explicitly limit your relationships to (for example) people of a particular sex. While sexual attractiveness is frequently an important factor in one's relationships, other factors can be more important.

Morality of Adult-Child Sex

• As the more powerful and knowledgeable person, you have a duty to ensure morality of the relationship.
• Ensure that the relationship is consensual.
• Chronological age of the child is not relevant per se. What is relevant are the child's understanding, the societal views of sex with children, and the child's sexual preferences and anatomy.
• Avoid conduct with unacceptable physical risks. It may be best to avoid conduct with significant physical risks.
• You may have to keep your conduct secret (even from the child's parents and counselors), and instruct the child to do the same. Even in the absence of criminal prosecution, both you and the child may be discriminated against if the relationship becomes known.
• Since the relationship is secret, you will have to provide any necessary counseling to the child. Provide appropriate counseling before, during, and after the sexual conduct.
• If you are in a position of authority over the child, some counseling may even be necessary to ensure that the relationship is truly consensual.
• Do not have the relationship if you believe it to be wrong.
• Convince the child that the conduct is morally right before doing it. Do not have sex with the child if you fail to convince the child that the conduct is right. If child later feels guilty and betrayed, serious psychological harm may follow, even if he or she enjoyed the sexual experience. Also, make sure that the child wants the sexual relationship. It make take time for a child to overcome his or her irrational opposition to sex.
• Explain the nature of the child's sexual feelings to the best of your ability. Also, if appropriate, explain that other people are wrong in their condemnation of adult-child sex. A partial explanation may sound like "Genital massage is like ordinary massage. However, your feelings will be much stronger. It will feel very good. If it feels weird, just relax and enjoy it, or ask me to slow down. Contrary to what others may have told you, there is nothing wrong with these feelings or with such massage. It is harmless. If you don't like it, just tell me to stop. Do you want to do it?"
• Do not deceive the child. Do not make false statements like [as of 2012] "Genital fondling is a standard component of therapeutic massage."
• The risks of such a relationship include legal punishment and social discrimination, and for the child, harm from his or her erroneous beliefs related to the relationship. However, the existence of such relationships adds to the richness of the human experience, and such relationships are a source of joy for millions of children and adults worldwide.
• If you pay a child to have sex, then - ensure that the payment is fair and that the transaction (sex plus payment) is in the child's best interests - ensure that the child understands what the payment is - ensure that the payment is concrete and is not part of any special authority you may have over the child - if necessary, explain to the child that getting paid to have sex is OK, and is consistent with human dignity, and is not like selling one's body, etc. - If you act as the child's parent, then paying the child to have sex with you is probably a bad idea. - Even if the above conditions are met, this does not necessarily mean that the conduct is right.
• The above need not fully apply if the child is the one initiating sexual conduct, or if the child has sufficient experience.
• Verify that your participation is consensual. If not, then it is child sexual abuse. For victims of sexual abuse, a good coping strategy is to try to make the best of the experience. Also, counseling with a qualified person is important (however, unfortunately, current reporting regulations may deny you the option of keeping the sexual relationship confidential).
• In choosing whether to have sex, you are exercising your fundamental right to privacy, which is a part of your fundamental right to be free from arbitrary physical restraint. Your privacy is yours to keep or share. You have a right not to have sex, and if you do have sex, to set your limits, and to decide whether to allow recording of the sex for others to enjoy.
• Be careful if the adult only appears to care about you sexually. Trust and emotional connection are important.
• Do not accept alcohol, tobacco, or other recreational drugs from the adult. An adult offering you recreational drugs is probably disregarding your well-being; beware of such adults.
• Verify that the interaction is physically safe; some adults are reckless about this.
• Do not consent to sexual conduct that you do not want.
• If you feel overwhelmed with feelings, then consider asking the other person to stop. Ponder and contemplate your feelings and then decide whether to proceed.
• Do not tell other people (including parents and counselors) about your sexual relationship unless it amounts to sexual abuse, with the exception of those people who are likely to accept your relationship.
• On the other hand, do not hesitate to discuss your feelings with the adult, and with other people whom you can trust to keep your secret.
• Take time to think about what happened, but do not become obsessed with it. Sexual feelings are a healthy part of life, but should not be the dominant part.
• If you like the experience and choose it continue, then take a positive exploratory attitude toward your new feelings. Societies are often irrational about sex. Sex is not a guilty pleasure, and it does not make you impure.
• Be cautious and discreet about initiating sexual conduct with other people. Many people do not like it or have moral objections to it.
• Legal issues aside, getting paid to have sex is OK. However, do not let what may be a sudden access to money by a corrupting influence over you; moral corruption hurts not only other people but yourself as well.

Cultural Beliefs about Sex

The belief that sex is evil.

• Given the central role of sex plays in reproduction (and hence in societal survival), and given the intense feelings accompanying sex, sexual intercourse (whether or not it can lead to reproduction) is viewed as a special class of conduct, with its own moral rules and restrictions.
• Human nature--and romantic love, in particular--has a tendency towards monogamy. This may cause sexual monogamy to be viewed as the best state. Moreover, human nature (for evolutionary reasons) has a tendency towards disapproval of sex between a marriage partner and a third person. This may cause the society to consider such relationships immoral. Treating sex outside marriage as evil may help to channel sexual energy towards raising families. The evolutionary tendency is to disapprove of extramarital sex by your spouse (especially if you are heterosexual male) but not yourself: Extramarital sex by your spouse may cause you or your spouse to spend resources to raise a child who does not have your DNA. However, with contraception and paternity testing, this reason is less valid today.
• Sexual feelings are (in many cases) so exceptionally strong and pleasant that they impair the judgment and cause people to discount other moral considerations when seeking sex. Treating sex as immoral acts as a counterweight against the bias towards having sex. (Sex-related impairment of judgment may also be considered evil in itself.) Because of the strength of sexual feelings, people continue to have sex in the face of social opposition. Such defiance can increase the harshness of the societal intolerance as the society tries to take stronger measures.
• Because genitals are concealed in many cultures, and because genitals look different from the rest of the body, genitals may appear very ugly (as if they are abnormal) to many people. This causes a visceral aversion to most forms of sexual conduct, especially towards "unnatural" sex. Homosexual sex may be seen as contrary to the traditional gender norms.

Opposition to Adult-child Sex

• The primary mechanism of harm is moral conflict. The children involved often believe that they have done something wrong and therefore feel guilt or shame. This is reinforced by the society having a negative attitude toward sex (and by the need to keep sex secret). Moreover, if the child believes that the adult was wrong in choosing to have sex, the child may feel betrayed by the adult, and suffer from this feeling. Such harm is particularly strong if, for example, the adult is a priest who is otherwise preaching abstinence until marriage, or if the adult is a parent or a caretaker. The strength of both sexual feelings and sexual taboos magnifies the moral conflict.
• Given the current legal and social climate, adult-child sexual relationships are usually secret, which denies the child of opportunity to discuss and resolve the issues with the relationship.
• If the relationship becomes known, then the child may suffer from discrimination, as well as from the likely termination of the emotional relationship with the adult.
• Additionally, some types of sexual interaction involve substantial physical risks.
• On an individual level, people tend to follow the society in their beliefs, and are pressured by the society not to say that adult-child sex is often good for children.
• Adult-child sex is viscerally viewed as horrible and immoral, and therefore harmful.
• For children, having consensual sex with adults is correlated with being physically, emotionally, and sexually abused. Statistically, adults who like sex with children are more likely to select children who have been abused: Protecting children from abuse often includes "protecting" them from sex, so children protected from abuse are less likely to have sex with adults. Since the predominant moral view is that adult-child sex is wrong, adults who have sex with children are more likely to do what they or the society think is wrong, and hence are more likely to harm the children. Also, sexual abuse can break a child's moral opposition to sex and can cause the child to learn that sex feels good, which makes the child more likely to have consensual sex.
• When the relationship becomes known, the children involved are expected to behave like victims, and therefore they may behave that way, which leads to the appearance of harm (and can lead to actual harm as well).
• The media often fails to separate consensual from non-consensual adult-child sex, causing the public to conflate the two. Non-consensual sex is often very harmful.
• Most importantly, in the present society, notifying the public about the relationship would mean that the relationship will be terminated and the adult (and quite often, the child) punished or otherwise harmed. Consequently, the children are only likely to report the relationship if they view it as harmful or immoral, creating a strong sampling bias toward harmful cases.
• Adults are supposed to supervise children, and therefore be in control of children. A child will not (or should not) say "No" to an adult. Children (especially victims of sexual abuse) may fail to object to non-consensual sex because they are not aware of their right to object. Correspondingly, adult-child sex is viewed as much more objectionable than sexual play between children. For example, many people believe that it is normal and morally fine for a 10-year old boy to masturbate, and at the same time support mandatory prison terms for adults who massage genitals of 10-year old boys.
• Children do not really understand the meaning and moral implications of sex and therefore their consent is invalid. The view is that the children do not understand that sex is a poison for the soul, and thus adult-child sex is no more consensual than unknowing ingestion of poison.
• Sexual desires can cloud children's judgment. A sexual urge can short-circuit their consideration of the moral elements of sex and of the physical risks.
• Some sexual interaction involves physical risks which many children are ill-equipped to evaluate.
• The typical limitations of children's judgment are (it is argued) universally applicable to all children. Alternatively, because sex with children is so wrong, rational and informed children will always say 'no', so all children who say 'yes' are deceived, seduced, or coerced into sex.

Sex versus Drugs

Sex and drugs are often grouped together because both of them are considered by many to be immoral, both involve aspects that many find disgusting, both can be very harmful, both can involve strong pleasure, and both can cause an altered state of consciousness where normal concerns are suppressed. Such grouping leads some people to believe that since sex is moral, so are drugs. This belief is wrong.

• drugs are harmful
• drugs are addictive
• drugs impair judgment to the point of making their users temporarily less human. Once the drug is taken, this impairment is not consensual, that is it continues regardless of whether the user wants it.
• sex is not harmful
• sex is not physically addictive (but all good things can be psychologically addictive)
• sex is consensual
• sexual desire tends to be self-limiting in that a person will want to spend only a small portion of his or her time having sex.

Sex and Fundamental Rights

This section is not a general essay on fundamental rights. Instead, it is a detailed explanation of fundamental rights related to sex. Fundamental rights are a difficult topic, and parts of this section are more abstract than other sections.

Fundamental rights are the indispensable rights of the people in the civilized society. Fundamental rights exist independently of the government or popular will, and laws that contradict them are illegitimate. Protection of fundamental rights should be written in the Constitution so that the rights can be enforced through judicial review, and whenever possible, existing Constitutions should be construed to protect all fundamental rights. The United States Constitution protects all fundamental rights through the guarantee of due process, "no person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (with the exception of proportional representation for the Senate and for the presidential election).

A collection of rights

• prohibitions on distribution of certain information and ideas (such as child pornography) to certain people (such as children) (excluding reasonable non-disclosure agreements).
• prohibitions on safe consensual sex (excluding commerce)
• prohibitions on recording of sex when all participants give consent
• blanket prohibitions on nudity and sex in forests and other such public places, excluding cases with reckless disregard for the offensiveness of the conduct.
• laws requiring reporting of the above activities
• laws requiring parental notification or permission for exercise of children's fundamental rights
• general prohibitions on condoms or sex toys

The first right is the core of the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes the right to communicate arbitrary information to an arbitrary person. (Note: Reasonable penalties for breaking reasonable non-disclosure agreements may often be imposed since the person has agreed to the penalty through signing the agreement, provided that appropriate safeguards are met.) Freedom of speech is a necessary component of any democratic society. Information is equivalent to an integer or a binary sequence that encodes information. Thus, information is logically separate from claims about information. False claims are not (at least not always) constitutionally protected.

The right to receive information includes the right to view the information in visual form. For the blind, an analogue of visual image is high-resolution tactile stimulation. This right is necessary due to the limitation of typical human cognitive skills. It is very difficult to fully appreciate a painting just by reading its verbal description or by viewing a binary sequence that encodes the full picture. Some argue that conceivably, some visual pattern will directly cause fatal brain hemorrhage or some other such severe harm. However, the right to view information in visual form should still be construed categorically since

• It is very unlikely such harmful pictures actually exist.
• Given the nature of the human brain, it is difficult to separate harm of understanding of the picture from harm that occurs independent of the understanding. In both cases, feelings can cause physical distress, and the government must not be permitted to censor visual display of a picture based on harm from its understanding. Thus, misery (and even suicide or physical illness) from falling in love based on a picture cannot be grounds to prohibit its visual display.
• Categorical protection gives security and freedom that a partial protection lacks.

The third prohibition is invalid since the videotaping does no harm except through recording of information. To protect freedom of speech, the government is prohibited from arbitrarily suppressing information gathering. Thus, videotaping may not be prohibited unless an information source is privileged. However, a person is entitled to ownership of his or her body, and that right includes allowing collection of information about the body. This is particularly true for videotaping since it records only those pieces of information that are available anyway--the benefit of videotaping over remembering and telling is rather the easiness, reliability, and completeness of the recording.

The fourth prohibition is invalid since it serves no legitimate governmental purpose. The fact that the activity takes publicly is irrelevant if there is no overriding danger of unwilling persons being offended in a visceral way. Some amount and risk of visual offensiveness must be tolerated to protect fundamental rights. The government's sole interest is visual expressiveness of the act, and therefore the act receives substantial protection from the freedom of speech.

The fifth prohibition violates the right to privacy. The right to privacy is necessary to protect against discrimination by private people or misguided governmental officials. For example, by keeping sex private, a person may be protected from being fired from his or her job.

The sixth prohibition is invalid since fundamental rights may not be violated by any authority. Parental consent cannot be required for having safe consensual sex.

The right to manufacture, sell, and use condoms (consistent with general laws about business, safety, and manufacturing) is fundamental since a ban on condoms would be arbitrary but for the impermissible governmental interest in suppressing sex. A general ban on sex toys is similarly invalid.

The second prohibition is a particularly difficult one to analyze, and is the subject of the next section.

Freedom from Physical Restraint

The nature and scope of freedom from physical restraint.

Although freedom of communication is at the center of liberty, biological humans are more than just communicating entities. They have bodies, which are essential for survival, and thus protected through fundamental rights. Even if the issues of health are set aside, governmental control of human bodies would amount to a power too great and potential for coercion too strong to be acceptable. Thus, freedom to control one's body is (subject to certain restrictions) fundamental. This control implies freedom from arbitrary physical restraint, such as the right (again, with restrictions) not to have one's hands tied behind the back. The core scope of freedom from physical restraint is the right to choose the location and position of the body and its parts, both the location in itself, and the location relative to other people. This right (as explained below) in turn implies a right to engage in private physically safe consensual physical interaction.

However, while fundamental, physical freedom of the body is by itself too broad to be granted as an absolute right. The resolution to this dilemma is to analyze potential government interests and their effect on the liberty to determine the permissible legal grounds for restraint. Then, within the scope of these grounds, but not outside of them, governmental interests are balanced against the liberty of the person. The resolution is discussed below.

One legitimate interest is to prevent harm to other people. The harm need not be physical harm; for example (in some cases) unwanted sensory input can be prohibited. However, the relationship to harm must be sufficiently direct. For example, the government may not restrain person A because B threatens to kill C (or B) if A is not restrained.

The government also has an interest in protecting a person from causing physical harm to himself or herself, and it may (in some cases) restrain the person accordingly. This power is necessary to prevent victims from being coerced or deceived into committing suicide. However, the restrictions must be narrowly tailored. For example, when an activity is unsafe but for acceptable safety equipment (such as condoms), the government may not overreact and prohibit both the activity (on safety grounds) and the equipment since a more narrowly tailored regulation would be to require the equipment to be used. Moreover, if activity is protected, the government may not indirectly deter it by prohibiting the safety equipment (that would have been clearly legal but for the deterrence interest). If the danger is from a (human) third party, the government may (sometimes) restrict the person's location with respect to the third party (ex. prevent a meeting if the person is likely to be killed) and require other safety measures, but the government may not prohibit conduct merely because the third party is opposed to it, even in cases of clear and present danger (for example, A may not be prohibited from having sex with B even if C is likely to kill A because of the sex provided that the sex does not make it physically easier for C to kill A).

Especially with regard to children, the government -- in combination with parents/guardians -- has an interest that much (but not all) of the person's time is spent valuably (for example, for education). In pursuit of this interest, a reasonable limitation may sometimes be imposed on the timing and duration of interactions so as not to displace other valuable activities.

A restriction of interactions with other people as a natural consequence of incarceration or analogous punishment may also be imposed. However, the consequence must be a natural one. For example, in the absence of a physical danger, the government may not prohibit back massage as a condition of probation. Restraint to a certain body position (such as having hands tied) may not be used as punishment (as opposed to a reasonable restraint) because of unacceptable danger of cruelty and coercion.

The physical freedom includes a liberty interest in tools that enable the freedom. For example, the government may not prohibit walking canes to discourage the weak from walking, nor may the government prohibit sex toys to discourage sex.

Also, the government interests must be balanced against the significance of the restraint imposed. Safety regulations on sexual activity (ordinarily) must not be arbitrarily severe compared to generally applicable regulations (such as safety regulations in sports).

Human interactions are within the literal scope of freedom from physical restraint. Human interaction that goes beyond communication is central to the lives of biological humans. In consensual interactions, in so far as a certain movement of person B is intended by A, then with respect to harm to A, it is qualitatively similar to that movement being done by A. Thus, the government may not ordinarily prohibit the movement of B on the ground of harm to A beyond the government's capacity to prohibit A's movement on the ground of self-harm. (However, at least with respect to the policy, there are exceptions. For example prohibiting killing on request while permitting suicide is reasonable because it helps to ensure that the intent to kill/die comes from the victim.)

While physical harm provides a legal limitation on the freedom from physical restraint, consensual mental harm does not. The notion of mental harm is too amorphous and its scope too broad for the freedom from physical restraint to receive needed protection if there is a psychological harm exception to the freedom. While physical harm is clear, even profound mental changes can easily be morally unclear. While following certain rules prevents physical harm, the sources of mental harm are endless. Finally, mental harm comes essentially from thoughts, which are protected by the freedom of thought and thus outside of government regulation.

Appraisal of psychological consequences may not be required

Nor may the government require here an appraisal of the psychological consequences. Freedom generally implies freedom to act irrationally. The power to require an appraisal of certain consequences implies a power to suppress based on those consequences. It is one thing to require that certain (easily available) information be provided, but appraisal requires more. The requirement of appraisal implies a possible prohibition on the conduct if (1) the person does not understand the consequences stated, or (2) the person unreasonably disbelieves the stated consequences, or (3) the person is unreasonable in producing a decision based on these consequences.

These requirements are so flexible and open-ended that a hypothetical society of hyperintelligent beings could easily construe them so strictly as to effectively prohibit ordinary humans on Earth from giving informed consent to anything serious. For example, understanding the consequences may require an ability to research foreseeable consequences, as well as sufficient intelligence, linguistic ability, and background knowledge to understand the text. Properly reaching a decision may require integrating the moral value function over the space of possible consequences--something that few ordinary humans actually do.

In addition, the notion of being unreasonable is sufficiently ephemeral so as to permit the judges (even judges in advanced societies) to classify many true beliefs as unreasonable. For example, in a purely atheist society, evangelical Christianity may be misdiagnosed as schizophrenia (in particular, as bizarre delusions that cause significant mental distress).

Moreover, if the government could prohibit an action because of inability to understand the consequences, then presumably the government could prohibit the action when the consequences are unknown since in both cases, the person makes the decision without understanding the likely consequences.

Finally, psychological consequences are exceptionally difficult to predict, understand, and appraise, thus magnifying the danger of requiring informed consent to psychological harm. Informed consent is best described not in binary terms but as a matter of degree. The above is not intended to disparage the ordinary use of informed consent to balance interests, but merely its use as a qualification on a categorical right. The degree to which the consent is informed is important, for example, with regard to elective surgery.

Mental harm and physical harm

Finally, we address attempts to characterize psychological consequences as physical ones, thereby obviating the right to be touched in a psychologically harmful way. It is argued that all mental processes are physical processes in the brain and that therefore all psychological harm is brain damage. However, there is a qualitative difference between affecting brain through a physical injury, and affecting the brain through consensual sensory input. The government has a broad authority to regulate the former, but only a narrow authority to regulate the later. The difference is the mechanism by which the brain is affected. Moreover, while brain trauma can easily be characterized as harmful, the effect of sensory input is much more subtle and whether it is harmful or beneficial is usually a value judgment, not a medical one.

I do not believe that the right to choose sensory input is categorical. For example, the government may prohibit intentional self-inducement of brain seizures through flashing lights. However, such authority must be construed in a very narrow way. First the harm must be an inherent neurological harm and not a consequence of the person's or society's appraisal of the feelings or behaviors. Second, the government bears the burden of proving that the harm is inherent neurological harm. Third, even if the above conditions are met, the governmental action is subject to strict scrutiny review with respect to this harm. (Note: If technology creates new and qualitatively different types of sensory input, the government may have a broader authority with respect to these new types of input.) These conditions are necessary to deny governmental authority to prohibit on the basis of psychological harm. The burden of proof requirement is somewhat analogous to the requirement that a person must be proved guilty before being punished for a crime.

I am not aware of any case of consensual touching (with no direct physical harm) with normal persons where these conditions are met. Certainly, daily sexual stimulation to orgasm does not constitute such harm even if the orgasm is unusually powerful and even if the subject is a young child. (A conceivable exception is the presence of certain rare brain conditions; however, having a level of sexual desire comparable to that of a normal adolescent does not constitute such a condition.) Psychologists generally agree that masturbation in children is not inherently harmful to the brain (an exception is psychologists with a religious agenda). Millions of years of evolution have ensured that affectionate touch has a nurturing value, and that masturbation is not harmful. Moreover, the difference between self-massage of genitals and such massage (including oral stimulation) by an adult is primarily a mental one. (At the least, there is no proof of inherent neurological harm arising from the physical differences in the mechanism of touching.) Thus, guilt, anger, shame, powerlessness, and other such alleged dangers of consensual adult-child sex arise because of thoughts about the feelings rather than through involuntary low-level reactions to the signals emitted by the sensory neurons. Therefore, these consequences do not deprive the act of its constitutional protection.

An example of protected action

To illustrate the extent of the fundamental rights, here is an example of a protected action. A man performs oral sex on an ordinary seven year old boy about once a day. Sometimes, the boy performs oral sex on the man. Sometimes the man massages and penetrates the boy's anus with a lubricated finger. There is no unacceptable physical risk. The boy agrees to the sex because it feels good and recklessly disregards (or just does not understand) the usual warnings about possible psychological harm from adult-child sex. The parents of the boy object to the sex, but the boy chooses to do it anyway.

• The example is deliberately sexual and involves a child since the conflict between fundamental rights and current practice is greatest in sexual behavior, particularly with respect to children.
• Penetration is included in the right of relative positioning of one body relative to another.
• The interaction would be protected even if the adult is the child's parent or caretaker.
• The interaction would be protected even if there are additional (consenting) persons involved.
• The interaction would be protected even if the boy had orgasms.
• Videotaping of the activity would be protected if the boy agrees to it and understands the general nature of videotaping. An ordinary 7 year old is clearly capable of that. Specific understanding of the likely consequences of videotaping cannot be required.
• Fundamental rights are (predominantly) rights to make choices. Full exercise of the freedom from arbitrary physical restraint requires a (conscious) choice to act in that way. There is a wide disagreement between people on the point at which the human organism (or its soul) becomes sentient, or starts to make choices, or even about the nature of human choices. I will not address the disagreement here other than to state the following: Most children are fully conscious and are capable of making genuine choices before their seventh birthday. While 7-year old children may understand less than adults, they are not living in a non-sentient or in a dreamlike state. Also, one's consistent inclination to choose in a certain way merely indicates a preference and does not make the choice less genuine. In the example, the choice of the boy to have sex can be inferred from the clear appearance of such choice.

Consent to orgasm

We conclude this essay on a more immediately entertaining topic. So positive is the experience of orgasm, that the issue of consent to orgasm is often overlooked. A ban on orgasm would be silly for practical reasons, but here we are concerned with orgasm as a fundamental right.

Orgasm presents special issues of consent because

• Orgasm is involuntary, and thus it will continue regardless of the will of the person.
• The feelings during the orgasm may be extremely intense, and conscious thought may be suppressed during orgasm.
• For the first orgasm, the person may not know how it will feel.

However, the presence of a significant consequence does not automatically negate the fundamental right. Instead, a balancing of the interests must be performed. For the combination of the following reasons, an ordinary orgasm (including the first orgasm) is constitutionally protected:

• Although orgasm is involuntary, the physical stimulation as an act is voluntary. Orgasm is not under control of another person and is thus different from forced sex. Moreover, withdrawal of consent during the orgasm will dramatically diminish the usual mental impact of the orgasm. Suppression of conscious thought during orgasm is to a large extent a voluntary consequence as the person concentrates on the feelings. Additionally, since orgasm often takes place in a relaxed environment (such as in bed), a person's reduced responsiveness to the environment is fine. After all, most people spend hours sleeping in bed.
• Orgasm is a biologically natural and ordinarily a psychologically harmless event.
• The intensity of the feelings is compensated for by the short duration of the orgasm.
• For a majority of people, orgasm is an overwhelmingly positive experience.
• The naturalness and usefulness of the orgasm as the sexual climax, and the pleasure and intensity of the feelings magnifies the person's interests in having an orgasm.
• A person who previously had an orgasm can ordinarily appraise the feelings to decide whether to have an orgasm. This appraisal overrides the governmental interests against the orgasm.
• For the first orgasm, the issue of consent is exacerbated because the person may not know how it will feel. However, the person has a special interest in having the first orgasm because (1) by having an orgasm, the person will learn how it will feel, (2) the first orgasm is necessary for any subsequent orgasms. Also, there is no unacceptable risk of unbearable pain.
• The above analysis of orgasm is confirmed by the practically complete lack of legislation that ban orgasm in particular (as opposed to sexual stimulation in general).

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Sex, Gender and Sexuality — Gender and Sexuality

Gender and Sexuality

• Categories: Sex, Gender and Sexuality

About this sample

Words: 463 |

Published: Jan 29, 2024

Words: 463 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Definitions and concepts, historical perspective on gender and sexuality, intersections of gender and sexuality, impact on individuals and society, current debates and challenges.

• Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.
• hooks, b. (2000). Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. South End Press.
• Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3.5 pages / 1653 words

2.5 pages / 1185 words

12.5 pages / 5637 words

1.5 pages / 771 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Sex, Gender and Sexuality

The concept of sex, gender, and sexuality has evolved significantly over time, prompting a shift in societal perspectives and understandings. Understanding the relationship between these concepts is crucial in addressing issues [...]

Sexuality is a complex and multifaceted aspect of human identity that encompasses a wide range of behaviors, desires, and identities. In her book "Axiomatic," Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick explores the concept of sexuality in a [...]

“Gender is the structure of social relations that centers on the reproductive arena, and the set of practices that bring reproductive distinctions between bodies into social processes.” (Connell, Chapter 1, 2009). Unfortunately, [...]

In this course I have understand the sex and gender reading of discussion presented in class. Moreover, the cross-cultural element of sex and gender allowed me to make connections to my preceding beliefs about gender and human [...]

Freedom is an interesting concept, especially in the context of relationships and marriages. No one wants to feel as though they are being controlled or restricted by another, but in most cases with time, marriages begin to have [...]

Come you spirit, That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here. --Lady Macbeth More so than any other Shakespearean play, Macbeth functions the most vividly as a psychoanalysis of the state of humanity's development of a [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

English for Students

• Confused Words
• What is NEW?
• Nursery Rhymes
• Beauties of English
• Intermediate Level
• Advanced English
• Plain English
• Your English Teacher
• Business Letters
• Difficult Words
• Social Letters
• Short Stories
• English Poems
• Poem Topics
• TOP 100 Poems
• English Songs
• Famous Quotations
• Business Dictionary

Love and Sexuality

Love and sexuality :, popular pages.

• Privacy Policy

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Sigmund FREUD SEXUALITY AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LOVE With an I introduction by

Related Papers

Ajith Dinakarlal

Edison Miyawaki

Psicologia Argumento

Josiane Delvan

Ao refletir-se sobre o amor na contemporaneidade, percebe-se que a configuração dos vínculos afetivo-amorosos vem sofrendo grandes transformações na atualidade, na qual a lógica consumista – uso e descarte – tem-se aplicado também às relações amorosas, valorizando-se a troca rápida de parceiros acima da manutenção dos relacionamentos. Tais mudanças tiveram impacto também na clínica psicanalítica, que tem a transferência como peça fundamental para sua realização, ou seja, necessita de um vínculo duradouro em que o analisando deposita sua libido e confiança na figura do analista, que só assim poderá direcionar essa libido possibilitando o processo psicanalítico. Com efeito, o presente trabalho teve por objetivo geral investigar o amor na abordagem psicanalítica a partir de Sigmund Freud e Erich Fromm, visando o desenvolvimento de um diálogo epistemológico entre esses dois autores acerca do amor, pontuando as aproximações e os distanciamentos conceituais identificados a partir da leitu...

Human Studies, vol. 42, n. 4, 2019, pp. 543–563.

While Freud and Heidegger were antipathetic towards one another's ideas, a number of commentators have argued that the Freud-Heidegger relation is actually quite complementary. This paper contributes to this position by engaging with the relationship through the mediation of their respective views on the 'origins' of sexuality; a topic that is implicit to Freudian psychoanalytic theory and which is often taken to be absent from Heidegger's, with the consequence that it has been ignored when bringing them into conversation. Having shown that in the 1928 lecture course The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic, Heidegger does in fact address the question of sexuality in relation to the neutrality of Dasein outlined in the previous year's Being and Time, I (1) bring Freud and Heidegger into conversation on the question of the 'origins' of sexuality to suggest that there is a strong affinity between the two on this issue, insofar as both (2) argue against any form of sexual essentialism by depending upon a processual (rather than substantial) ontology and affirming an originary sexual indeterminateness, which in the case of Freud takes the form of an initial bisexuality and in the case of Heidegger an ontological sexual neutrality, before (3) concluding that, while Freud's initial bisexuality forecloses sexuality within a binary framework, Heidegger's notion of an ontological sexual neutrality does not, and so goes furthest in laying the ground for a rethinking of sexuality in non-essentialist, non-binary terms.

Jessica Wren Butler

Don Carveth

Raj Wali Khan

International Journal of Psycho-Analysis

Lewis Kirshner

Katja Guenther

Twelfth Night

William shakespeare, ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions.

In connection with the themes of deception, disguise, and performance, Twelfth Night raises questions about the nature of gender and sexual identity. That Viola has disguised herself as a man, and that her disguise fools Olivia into falling in love with her, is genuinely funny. On a more serious note, however, Viola's transformation into Cesario , and Olivia's impossible love for him/her, also imply that, maybe, distinctions between male/female and heterosexual/homosexual are not as absolutely firm as you might think.

The play stresses the potential ambiguity of gender: there are many instances in which characters refer to Cesario as an effeminate man. Even more radically than this, however, it also suggests that gender is something you can influence, based on how you act, rather than something that you are , based on the sexual organs you were born with. Twelfth Night also shows how gender-switches make the characters' sexual identities unstable. For instance, at times, Olivia seems to be attracted to Cesario because "he" is such a womanly-looking man, while Orsino at the end of the play seems as attracted to Cesario as he is to Viola.

Gender and Sexual Identity ThemeTracker

Gender and Sexual Identity Quotes in Twelfth Night

Gender and Cultural Studies: Intimacy, Love and Friendship Essay

Introduction.

The word “slut” is always associated with various negative connotations in society. According to the way many people have been socialized, monogamy is perceived as the only sacred and acceptable relationship to everybody. This essay focuses on Easton and Hardy’s way of managing happy relationships with ease. The duo defines “slut” to imply a person who enjoys his/her intimacy and pleasures in an ethical manner, far away from cheating.

Relationships are a very important aspect of human life. However, existing circumstances may separate one from their partners causing them to be isolated. Some of these reasons include incarceration, illnesses, and geographical isolation among other reasons (Easton & Liszt, 1997, p. 46). Relationships are formed through friendships that turn out to be a source of companionship, intimacy, and support during difficult moments.

It is however important to appreciate different levels of friendships to understand their value. In many other successful relationships, affectionate sex cements a relationship not necessarily for marriage reasons. On the other hand, being single can be enjoyable and highly recommendable to spend time alone. This only works when existing emotional, sexual, and other needs are met consciously. It may involve having friends who help you in meeting the needs.

Partnerships

Partnerships also form part of human relations. A good example is a serial monogamy which allows a couple to have multiple intimate friends outside their marriage. Nevertheless, priority has to be given to themselves and their needs in order to protect their relationship. Relationships therefore are not limited to two partners but can extend to form triadic or quadratic families in which members have varying roles (Easton & Liszt, 1997, p. 53). Through such relationships, circles are born which describe connections among people based on their sexual linkage. Lastly sluts enjoy intimate relationships through group sex environments which provide room for public sex among other intimate activities like parties.

Queer Intimacy and Polyamory

Heterosexuality and lesbianism have remained debatable topics around the world. These relationships have led to the emergence of deeper discussions concerning voluntary and compulsory connections that do exist in society. Of significance is monogamy whose definition among the heterosexuals and lesbians remains a challenge. Anti-monogamy, therefore, is arguably a major challenge towards compulsory heterosexuality practiced by some people.

Monogamous Relationships

Monogamy aims at strengthening the bond between two people who meet the needs of each other ranging from emotional, physical, and sexual. This is important in a family whose definition solely rests in childrearing and motherhood and does not recognize lesbians. As a result, women who live outside the boundaries of the family face a wide range of challenges. Many get ignored based on their peculiar behavior that is unacceptable among other women.

In either case, love is a major ingredient. Although love may not be qualified or quantified, there exists variation depending on whom it is being directed to within the social set up. Love determines how people relate and whom they relate with. For romantic relationships, sex is a major component that holds together those in love. Consequently, a lot of weight has been put on sex with those who are not involved in it seen as incomplete. For many years, women have been involved in forced heterosexuality and sexuality.

Insecure Monogamy

Among other benefits, monogamy is considered to be a more secure relationship as compared to non-monogamous ones. Nevertheless, the nature of security derived from monogamous relationships remains questionable. Does the existence of countless obligations and cases of forced monogamous relationships make it insecure? Sexual monogamy plays a double standard game and favors men – women friendships having received a negative press.

It allows men to get into extramarital affairs and the freedom to become prostitutes in society. In addition, monogamous relationships promote division among women. This is mainly made possible by their men who keep a close eye on them. As a result, it becomes impossible for lesbians to advocate for the need to develop intimate friendships outside the context of sex.

Happy relationships can be established and nurtured based on different aims. Regardless of the driving force, intimacy and sexual connections are common in many happy relationships.

It is clear that in a society that hates lesbians, the realization of passionate female women friendships cannot be easily achieved. Monogamy is perceived to be a secure social structure yet it favors men without considering the need for women to develop love among themselves.

Easton, D. & Liszt, C. (1997) The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities . Emeryville, California: Greenery Press.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 13). Gender and Cultural Studies: Intimacy, Love and Friendship. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-and-cultural-studies-intimacy-love-and-friendship/

"Gender and Cultural Studies: Intimacy, Love and Friendship." IvyPanda , 13 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/gender-and-cultural-studies-intimacy-love-and-friendship/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Gender and Cultural Studies: Intimacy, Love and Friendship'. 13 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Gender and Cultural Studies: Intimacy, Love and Friendship." March 13, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-and-cultural-studies-intimacy-love-and-friendship/.

1. IvyPanda . "Gender and Cultural Studies: Intimacy, Love and Friendship." March 13, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-and-cultural-studies-intimacy-love-and-friendship/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Gender and Cultural Studies: Intimacy, Love and Friendship." March 13, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-and-cultural-studies-intimacy-love-and-friendship/.

• Argument Against Monogamy
• Social Issues: Monogamy in Our Life
• "Slut" Word in Jamaica Kincaid’s "Girl"
• Contemporary Sexuality Class: Monogamy
• “Embracing Your Inner Slut” by Grosskopf
• Monogamy as an Acceptable System of Marriage in America
• "The Real Problem With Monogamy: Asymmetric Information"
• Different Societal Responses to Polygamy, Polyandry, or Polyamory
• Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and the Law
• “Sex and the City”: The Question of Monogamy and Polygamy
• Feminist Psychoanalysis From McRobbie’s Perspective
• Gender Division of Labor and Work Geography
• Gender Roles and Family Systems in Hispanic Culture
• Heterosexism and Its Explanation
• Gender and Communication Within the Workplace

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The Teen Trend of Sexual Choking

More from our inbox:, emergency abortions and the supreme court, our father, who led columbia, would be saddened today, hiring discrimination, trump’s own ‘fake news’.

To the Editor:

Re “ Why We Need to Talk About Teen Sex ,” by Peggy Orenstein (Opinion guest essay, April 14):

As a psychotherapist and psychoanalyst who has worked for decades with teens and college-age students, I’m disturbed but not surprised by the trend of choking during sex.

Choking is obviously very dangerous, and unfortunately, social media has made this once uncommon practice more mainstream.

Education is the key with both our youth and parents. Yes, sexual strangulation needs to be part of ongoing conversations about safe sex practices. There clearly needs to be more accountability about this behavior.

There is a line, a boundary, where rough sex, whether it’s consensual or not, crosses into danger, causing devastating long-term effects for participants.

Arden Greenspan Goldberg San Diego

While reading this essay, I was reminded of how feminist writers and activists waved warning flags about the pernicious effects of pornography on women back in the 1970s and ’80s. They published books and essays on the subject, marched in demonstrations and spoke out in the media. They were continually derided as prudes and censors.

Decades later, with violent porn pervasive online and a generation of young women subjected to the sadistic sexual violence normalized by porn, it turns out those prudes and censors were actually Cassandras.

I thank Peggy Orenstein and the researchers in this story for bringing new attention to the issue.

J. Jamakaya Milwaukee

I taught a course on human sexuality to college students during the AIDS epidemic. When I heard about sexual strangulation, I considered briefly: Should I link this practice to arousal and orgasm when speaking to these high-risk young people? I knew that many would then experiment. I chose not to mention it, but I taught them, through role play, how to verbally refuse inappropriate sexual invitations.

Today, I hope instructors in my position will discuss with their students sexual strangulation with a potential partner and help them practice responding to sexual pressure.

Pornography makes partners look willing. Evolution favored a strong sex drive. The planet doesn’t need it anymore.

Elizabeth Powell St. Louis The writer is the author of “Talking Back to Sexual Pressure.”

Re “ 5 Takeaways From the Supreme Court Arguments on Idaho’s Abortion Ban ” (nytimes.com, April 24):

Reading about the hearing at the Supreme Court, I was taken aback at the careful attention some justices paid to ensuring that physicians whose conscience precludes them from performing abortions are excused from violating their beliefs. But some doctors are being forced to violate their conscience by being prevented from performing an abortion on patients whose precarious condition might decline precipitously without such a procedure.

Being forced to refuse medically indicated aid, knowing that the dire consequences violate the Hippocratic oath to do no harm, is an affront to their consciences, which must be considered with the same attention.

Susan Swartz Philadelphia

Re “ On Emergency Abortion Access, Justices Seem Sharply Divided ” (nytimes.com, April 24):

You write that since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, uncertainty about the parameters for legal abortion in several states has led to complaints about doctors being forced to “think like lawyers.”

I am equally concerned that complex medical decisions are being made by nine lawyers being forced to think like doctors.

Jon D. Morrow New York The writer is an obstetrician-gynecologist.

Our father, Michael I. Sovern , played a leading role in resolving Columbia’s 1968 protests. He served as Columbia’s only Jewish president, from 1980 to 1993, and helped negotiate a peaceful end to weeks of anti-apartheid demonstrations.

We cannot know what our father, who died in 2020, would do if he were still president, but we have no doubt he would be deeply saddened by what is happening at the university that he loved and served for more than 60 years.

We believe that he would not want politicians and outsiders not affiliated with Columbia to exploit sincere student protest for their own gains, and, as in the 1980s, he would want protesters to ensure that they do not keep the university from providing the excellent education from which he and so many others benefited.

Finally, we know he would agree that anyone expressing opposition to the Israeli government or Hamas should not make Jewish or Palestinian students feel attacked or unsafe.

Jeff Sovern Elizabeth Sovern Doug Sovern Julie Sovern

Re “ Study Uses Fake Résumés to Measure Bias in Hiring ” (The Upshot, April 15):

The study on hiring discrimination in large U.S. companies, as reported in your story, highlights the importance of social capital in landing a job, especially for people of color.

The study found that even with equivalent qualifications, applicants with Black-sounding names were contacted by employers nearly 10 percent less often than those with white-sounding names.

In a world where such discriminatory hiring practices persist, the ability to build social capital — the relationships and networks that help open doors and advance someone in their career and life pursuits — is paramount.

Research shows that social capital — and in particular, cross-class relationships — is the greatest predictor of economic mobility. Educational institutions, from high schools to community colleges and trade schools, should prioritize helping students build social capital.

By teaching them how to build relationships, facilitating connections with industry professionals, creating mentorship programs that pair students with successful alumni, and, most important, teaching students how to make meaningful requests of those alumni, we can put more people on the path to successful careers.

Because opportunity should hinge on merit, not a name.

Nitzan Pelman Berkeley, Calif. The writer is C.E.O. of Climb Hire Labs, a national nonprofit teaching students and job seekers the art of building social capital.

Re “ Witness Recalls Burying Stories to Shield Trump ” (front page, April 24):

Finally, we have a rather compelling example of that “fake news” that Donald Trump has been ranting about for years.

He not only sought to bury damaging stories. It turns out that he and his fixer, Michael Cohen, working closely with David Pecker, the publisher of The National Enquirer, also concocted and released wholly untrue stories about his political opponents (for example, “Donald Trump Blasts Ted Cruz’s Dad for Photo With J.F.K. Assassin”). So says Mr. Pecker, under oath, in a Manhattan courtroom.

James P. Pehl Marlborough, Mass.

Who is Sophia Bush? Actress discusses infidelity rumors, queer relationship in 'Glamour'

Actress Sophia Bush is making headlines after "Glamour" published a piece she has written giving an inside look at her divorce after a year of marriage and her new queer relationship.

So who is Sophia Bush? And why do people seem to care so much about her relationships?

Here's what to know.

Who is Sophia Bush?

Bush, 41, is best known for her role as Brooke Davis on the WB series " One Tree Hill ," which ran from 2003 to 2012. Her character, a flirtatious cheerleader, evolved from a "from a trouble-making vixen to a fiercely loyal friend, and is a huge fan favorite," accord to her IMDb biography .

Bush currently stars as Dr. Sam Griffith in "Good Sam," though CBS recently announced it will cancel the show, according to AOL .

Who was Sophia Bush married to? Who is her ex-husband?

Bush married entrepreneur Grant Hughes in June 2022, according to People . She filed for divorce in August 2023.

An Oklahoman, Hughes earned a bachelor's of business administration from the University of Oklahoma, and continued his education at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles and the University of Michigan, according to People.

He co-founded FocusMotion with Cavan Canavan in 2012. The machine learning software company tracks human movement, helping people not only improve their workouts with better form or yoga poses, but also helping workers perform their tasks with less strain, according to Forbes .

Who is Sophia Bush dating now?

Bush began a relationship with Ashlyn Harris, 38, in October 2023.

Harris, a former professional soccer star, announced she was divorcing her wife, Ali Krieger, that same month after four years of marriage, USA TODAY reported . They adopted two children.

Both Harris and Krieger were members of the United States women's national soccer team and two-time World Cup champs. Both played for Gotham FC in the  National Women's Soccer League  after being traded from Orlando Pride in 2021. Harris, a goalkeeper, became the first NWSL player to reach 500 saves and retired at the end of the 2022 campaign after 12 seasons, according to US Soccer .

Sophia Bush addresses sexuality, infidelity rumors in 'Glamour' piece

According to USA TODAY , Bush discussed the lead up and "painful conversations" she and Harris had before pursuing a relationship in the "Glamour" essay. However, social media viewed it as an affair.

"The online rumor mill began to spit in the ugliest ways. There were blatant lies. Violent threats. There were accusations of being a home-wrecker," she wrote in her essay. "The ones who said I’d left my ex because I suddenly realized I wanted to be with women — my partners have known what I’m into for as long as I have."

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Pop Culture Happy Hour

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

What makes a good sex scene?

Linda Holmes

Aisha Harris

Christina Tucker

Ronald Young Jr.

Hafsa Fathima

Liz Metzger

Mike Katzif

Jessica Reedy

Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon star in the 1996 film Bound . Alamy hide caption

Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon star in the 1996 film Bound .

It's easy to notice when a sex scene is bad. But what makes a sex scene good? Today, we are recommending films with good sex scenes, including Bound , Love & Basketball, Magic Mike's Last Dance, and Oppenheimer.

Sophia Bush comes out as queer, confirms relationship with Ashlyn Harris

Actor Sophia Bush came out as queer in an emotional essay in Glamour and confirmed she’s in a relationship with retired U.S. Women’s National Team soccer player Ashlyn Harris. 

“I sort of hate the notion of having to come out in 2024,” Bush wrote in a cover story for the fashion magazine published Thursday. “But I’m deeply aware that we are having this conversation in a year when we’re seeing the most aggressive attacks on the LGBTQIA+ community in modern history.” 

Bush noted that there were more than 500 anti-LGBTQ bills proposed in state legislatures last year and said this motivated her to “give the act of coming out the respect and honor it deserves.” 

“I’ve experienced so much safety, respect, and love in the queer community, as an ally all of my life, that, as I came into myself, I already felt it was my home,” she wrote. “I think I’ve always known that my sexuality exists on a spectrum. Right now I think the word that best defines it is queer . I can’t say it without smiling, actually. And that feels pretty great.”

The “One Tree Hill” star filed for divorce from entrepreneur Grant Hughes in August. People magazine first reported in October that Bush and Harris were dating, but neither confirmed nor commented on the report. The pair later attended an Oscar’s viewing party together in March . 

In the essay, Bush addressed online rumors that her relationship with Harris began before Harris had officially divorced from fellow soccer star Ali Krieger, in September. 

“Everyone that matters to me knows what’s true and what isn’t,” Bush wrote. “But even still there’s a part of me that’s a ferocious defender, who wants to correct the record piece by piece. But my better self, with her earned patience, has to sit back and ask, What’s the f------- point? For who? For internet trolls? No, thank you. I’ll spend my precious time doing things I love instead.”

Bush said that after news about her and Harris became public, her mom told her that a friend called and said, “Well, this can’t be true. I mean, your daughter isn’t gay .” 

“My mom felt that it was obvious, from the way her friend emphasized the word, that she meant it judgmentally,” Bush wrote. “And you know what my mom said? ‘Oh honey, I think she’s pretty gay. And she’s happy .’”

Bush wrote that she felt like she was wearing a weighted vest that she could finally put down. 

“I finally feel like I can breathe,” Bush wrote. “I turned 41 last summer, amid all of this, and I heard the words I was saying to my best friend as they came out of my mouth. ‘I feel like this is my first birthday,’ I told her. This year was my very first birthday.”

For more from NBC Out, sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Jo Yurcaba is a reporter for NBC Out.

Taylor Swift, Travis Kelce Hit Vegas Hot Spot with Patrick, Brittany Mahomes

April Hot Shots … Celebs Ripped And Ready For Summertime!!!

Harry Jowsey Announces Skin Cancer Diagnosis

What's the Big Frigin' Difference?!

Noah Cyrus Blasts Troll with NSFW Comment After Family Love Triangle Joke

Paris hilton looks stunning in sexy magazine photo shoot, paris hilton poses totally naked for magazine shoot.

Paris Hilton has always been a sex symbol, but now, at 43, the mother of two has never looked better – or sexier!

Paris recently posed for a sultry photo spread for this month's Flaunt magazine -- and she showed off her amazing naked body on the cover while sporting cool black sunglasses and flashing chunky Versace and Saint Laurent wrist bracelets.

Waiting for your permission to load the Instagram Media.

Other images saw Paris dressed in provocative lingerie comprised of black panties, fishnet stockings, and a sheer leotard topped off by a maroon leather blazer.

Paris also ripped a page out of Bianca Censori 's fashion book with her black leather mini skirt that barely covered her butt and breasts.

As part of the shoot, Paris gave an interview to the mag, revealing that her husband, Carter Reum , was able to break through the barriers she put up around her heart from her past pain and trauma, which prevented her from letting anyone in.

She said Reum made her feel so safe her walls came crashing down and now she feels "this love that I've never felt before." The couple share 2 kids together -- 1-year-old Phoenix and their new kiddo, London .

Paris certainly has her hands full ... but from the looks of it ... she seems to be managing quite well.

Paris also joined Vampire Weekend on stage last weekend at Coachella ... and Ezra Koenig from the group told us all about how fun it was to work with the fashion legend.

• Share on Facebook

related articles

Paris Hilton Acquires Rights to Book About 2000s Tabloid Culture For New Doc

Paris Hilton Posts Pics of Daughter London For First Time After Fan Pressure

Old news is old news be first.