Every Saturday, The CSPH highlights news or recent research in the field of human sexuality. This week we’re talking about a recent study in Clinical Neuropsychiatry that hopes to discover how time, relationships, and culture change sexuality.
In this article, the authors explore three theories that aim to determine what really drives sexuality. The first theory focuses on gender differences in how sociocultural factors affect sexuality and argues that females are more able to change their attitudes and beliefs, while the second theory looks at the interplay between intimacy and passion in relationships. Finally, the third takes an economical approach, viewing female sexuality as a commodity that follows the rules of all other goods in the consumer marketplace. While no theory holds completely true, there are certainly aspects of each that may appeal to anyone.
The Theory of Female Erotic Plasticity
This theory hypothesizes that the female sex drive is more responsive to the cultural and situational factors that influence human sexuality. This ability to change and respond to various factors is known as erotic plasticity, and it can be expressed by changes in either the object of desire (e.g. type of partner) or how sexual desire is expressed (e.g. type of sexual activity).
Evidence for this theory comes in three forms: intraindividual variability (a transient, within-person change in behavioral performance), sociocultural factors, and attitude-behavior consistency. In each area, women are more influenced than men; women’s sex drive and preferences change more over time than men’s, which often stay the same. Furthermore, females’ sexual activity and beliefs are more likely to be shaped by socio-cultural factors, such as the beliefs of their families, friends, and religious institutions. Finally, females’ sexual activity does not explicitly match up with their beliefs about sex as often as it does for men.
Passion and Relationships
While arguing that sexual activity changes over time due to the association between passion and intimacy in relationships, the second theory enables the authors to understand how romantic relationships, rather than mere individuals, affect sexual motivation. The authors define intimacy as “a condition of a relationship [bolded for emphasis],” whereas passion can be understood as “exceptionally strong feelings of attraction [bolded for emphasis]” (35).
Because of the different natures of intimacy and passion, their development and time course are different. Where intimacy tends to develop slowly but surely over time, passion tends to come in flares. In the beginning of a relationship, there is a rapid increase in intimacy and high levels of passion; however, as time goes on, increases in intimacy occur less frequently and are smaller in size. Therefore, passion is less frequent and less intense (e.g. frequency of sex declines over time).
It is important to note that there may be a gender difference with regards to the relationship between intimacy and passion. Specifically, females seem to require larger increases in intimacy to produce the same amount of passion. In other words, the idea that men need sex to feel intimate and women need intimacy for sex holds true within this theory. This has implications especially for sexual satisfaction in long-term closed monogamous relationships, per the authors, and is an area that needs to be explored more.
Theory of Sexual Economics
In this theory, female sexuality is viewed as a commodity. Women therefore are the figurative sellers and, men, the buyers. Following the principle of least interest, sexual economics argues that because women tend to have lower sex drives, and therefore are less invested in whether sex occurs, they hold power over the exchange. Men, on the other hand, are required to offer additional benefits (e.g. attention, love) to make the exchange both fair and enticing.
Within this figurative sexual marketplace, the price of sex is regulated by supply and demand like any other commodity. Essentially, this theory provides a market explanation for the women as sexual gatekeepers argument. As sellers, women can raise the price of sex by refusing to engage in it until certain conditions are met. The price really boils down to the behaviors of men and women, which, in turn, are determined by social norms of acceptable sexual behaviors.
Sexual economics may also play a role in creating sexual norms. For example, in this model, female sexual repression can be attributed to women working together to keep the price of sex high by restraining their sexuality and making sex less available for men. Any female who cheapens sex, say by starring in an adult film, is judged harshly by other women. On the other hand, when we see the supply of sex go up, say on a mostly female college campus, the social norms become less repressed as the competition to sell increases.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The presence of these various theories shows that there is no one perfect way to describe relationships. Each theory makes sense in some way and when applied to some situation. For example, when one looks at changing patterns of sexual norms over history, sexual economics appears to explain the changes perfectly. The strength of the first theory lies in its robust and varied evidence; it does, however, somewhat contradict the second theory. If women are more apt to change their sexual beliefs and actions, then keeping the passion alive should not be as difficult as the latter theory implies. That being said, the second theory is useful for looking at monogamous relationships.
Although it is the most practical, the third theory, is also the most problematic. Firstly, by making sex into something that can be bought and sold, this theory ignores the complex emotional and physical aspects of sexual acts. Furthermore, it assumes women have a lower libido without providing hard data to support—much less even recognize—the assertion that society plays a role in shaping this sex drive. Secondly, it completely ignores the idea that casual sex can successfully occur between two people. Thirdly, it assumes heterosexuality and a binary way of looking at sexuality, completely ignoring the full spectrum of sexuality and gender that actually exists. Finally, by implying that women withhold sex solely to raise its price, it is offensive and insensitive not only to females as a whole, but especially to those who sell sex, either voluntarily or not.
Conclusions
This study does a good job of synthesizing current and past research about the factors that drive sexual activity. Each of the theories discussed has positives and negatives and no one theory is likely to cover every situation; instead, when taken together, they show us that sex is influenced by a large number of factors ranging from the biological to the sociocultural. Additionally, the study shows us that although the changes occurring in sexuality over time are well documented and observed, they are not as well understood and additional exploration is required.
Citation
Ainsworth, S. E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Changes in sexuality: How sexuality changes across time, across relationships, and across sociocultural contexts. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9: 32-38.