Jennifer Martin
April 24, 2014
Research Proposal
Previous research has reported several gender differences between men and women regarding the desire for sex. According to Randy J. Larson and David M. Buss's book Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature, men view pornography more often than women (d=.63). Men also desire more sexual partners, have more frequent sexual partners, and are more willing to accept offers of sex from a stranger (Hald & Hogh-Olesen, 2010). Evolutionarily, sex differences have relied on parental investment and sexual selection theory. The sex that invests less in offspring is less discriminatory in their selection of a mate. Because women have more of an obligatory role in parental investment, they place greater importance on mate selection whereas men place a greater value on a woman’s physical appearance. Although men score higher in ratings pertaining to the desire for sex, women score higher in emotional investment. Women tend to score higher on items such as passionate, cuddlesome, affectionate, and romantic (Larson & Buss 2014).
While there is much research resulting in gender differences between men and women, there are many similarities. The researchers of this study look to find whether the differences stated above hold true for men who have been emotionally invested prior to testing. Do men and women differ in the desire for sex after a relationship has ended where they were both emotionally invested? According to an article written by Brant R. Burleson, research has shown that both men and women desire intimacy from their close relationships (Wright, 1998) and view empathy and trust as two of the more important values of close relationships (Parks & Floyd, 1996). Both me...
... middle of paper ...
...r closest and longest romantic relationship with an emphasis on the emotional aspect of the relationship.
4) Self-ratings of desire of sexual variety in their current state using the “Number of Partners” measure, the “Time known” measure, and the “Short-Term Seeking” measure, originally used by Buss and Schmitt (1993).
We expect the results of this study to agree with our hypothesis. After comparing the scores for all three measures for both men and women, we expect to see a decrease in the desire for sexual variety for men in all three measures and no change in sexual variety for women after close relationships. According to the research presented at the beginning of this proposal, we have found that men and women do differ in their desire for sexual variety, but because they share similarities in their relationship values, men are affected by close relationships.
Chapter 9 Gendered Close Relationships is about stereotypes for men and women ideas on how to behave in relationships. The expectations for male and female in a relationships have been set by their gender roles. The meaning of personal relationships is where partners depend on each other for various things from affection to material assistance. Partners are expected affection, companionship and energy. The two main models of personal relationships are male deficit model and alternate paths model. Male deficit model suggests male lack skills in developing relationships with others. In alternate paths model, men and women just have different ways to sustain a relationship. It’s not that men lack skills but men show it in a different way.
In the article the researchers were trying to challenge the sexual strategies theory. It seems as though sexual strategies theory is different genders having different preferences when choosing a mate, in the case of long and short term relationships. The hypothesis at first was that both boys and girls felt that attractiveness was important. Girls would be more inclined to date someone because of social status and that boys would be the complete opposite. They also expected that social status would only become important when the person is attractive and social status would be important no matter if the person is attractive on no for girls. The last thing that was tested was according to Ha (2009) “the potential moderator effects of self-perceived mate value on adolescents desire to date with an attractive person.” Also according to Ha (2009) “They hypothesized that boys and girls preference for attractiveness and high social status would be independent of their own perceived mate value.” The information used to come to result of the theory has been known to be collect using surveys ...
Masters and Johnson were a pioneering team in the field of human sexuality, both in the domains of research and therapy. William Howell Masters, a gynecologist, was born in Cleveland, Ohio in 1915. Virginia Eshelman Johnson, a psychologist, was born in Springfield, Montana in 1925. To fully appreciate their contribution, it is necessary to see their work in historic context. In 1948, Alfred C. Kinsey and his co-workers, responding to a request by female students at Indiana University for more information on human sexual behavior, published the book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. They followed this five years later with Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. These books began a revolution in social awareness of and public attention given to human sexuality. At the time, public morality severely restricted open discussion of sexuality as a human characteristic, and specific sexual practices, especially sexual behaviors that did not lead to procreation. Kinsey's books, which among other things reported findings on the frequency of various sexual practices including homosexuality, caused a furor. Some people felt that the study of sexual behavior would undermine the family structure and damage American society. It was in this climate - one of incipient efforts to break through the denial of human sexuality and considerable resistance to these efforts - that Masters and Johnson began their work. Their primary contribution has been to help define sexuality as a healthy human trait and the experience of great pleasure and deep intimacy during sex as socially acceptable goals. As a physician interested in the nature of sexuality and the sexual experience, William Masters wanted to conduct research that would lead to an objective understanding of these topics. In 1957, he hired Virgina Johnson as a research assistant to begin this research issue. Together they developed polygraph-like instruments that were designed to measure human sexual response. Using these tools, Masters and Johnson initiated a project that ultimately included direct laboratory observation and measurement of 700 men and women while they were having intercourse or masturbating. Based on the data collected in this study, they co-authored the book Human Sexual Response in 1966. In this book, they identify and describe four phases in the human sexual response cycle : excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution. By this point in time, the generally repressive attitude toward sexuality was beginning to lift and the book found a ready audience.
In the second chapter, The A, B, C, and Ds of Sex (and Asex), Brock University Associate Professor and Asexuality author, Bogaert, examines “some of the fundamental psychological processes of asexuality as they relate to both sexual and asexual people.” Throughout this section, Bogaert explains the “A (attraction and arousal), B (behavior), C (cognition), and Ds (desire)” by going through each letter and explaining what it stands for. He tries to get the younger readers to understand the definitions of asexuality by aiming focus on the constituents of sexuality first. The similarities between sexuality and asexuality are outlined throughout this reading. Surprisingly enough, Bogaert explains the differences and the relationship between romantic and sexual bonds and how they appear in asexual people as well.
The two books examined in this paper, Martin Daly and Margo Wilson's Homicide and David M. Buss's The Evolution of Desire, suggest that human mating strategies have an evolutionary basis. The book written by Martin Daly and Margo Wilson supplies the theoretical groundwork and the book written by David M. Buss gives validity and empirical support for the theory. The two books make a strong scientific argument for evolutionary adaptations as the most crucial element to understanding human sexuality and desire. According to this argument, the key to understanding human sexuality lies in the evolutionary origin of our species.
The reason I am writing this paper is to share the information I attained about human sexuality by learning about sexuality in a college setting and by exploring my sexuality through personal experiences. I do not consider myself to have experienced much exposure to sexual behavior but I do have a cultural bias to what I consider a heavy amount of exposure because the North American culture is considered more promiscuous and sexually active than other cultures.
The community plays a key role when it comes to erotic plasticity, and the person’s sexual identity. Women’s sexual identity is seen as be adventures. Exploring ones sexual attitude, desire, decisions, and behavior. There sexual acts do not defined them, and can go through life without their high sex drive decreasing. However it is different for men when it comes to exploring their sex drive. Male sexuality is evolutionary and biological factor playing key roles in their life course. When a man experience sex with another man it is assumed they will always be gay. The so called deviant act, unlike to women defines their sexually identity. (McElwain, Grimes, & Melissa L. McVicker, 2009, p.
These studies reveal the phenomena of “playing hard to get,” the differences in sexual temptations, how sex ratio affects preference for mates and a possible future study relating how the societal norm of sexual permissiveness hampers the elusive attraction of “playing hard to get” within the genders. There are not many studies on how situational environments affect the elusive phenomena of “playing hard to get”. I think based on previous research it will be hypothesized that the situational effect of the societal norm of sexual permissiveness of having a surplus of females within a population will cause males to disregard the elusive phenomenon of “playing hard to get.”
Sassler, S, F Addo, and D Lichter. "The Tempo of Sexual Activity and Later Relationship Quality." Journal of Marriage & Family 74.4 (2012): 708-725.
Based on previous research, we hypothesize that participants scoring androgynous or scoring high on both masculine and feminine personality traits will be positively correlated with relationship satisfaction. A more androgynous personality will be linked to higher relationship satisfaction. The length of the relationship participants are involved in may also have an impact on relationship satisfaction. Longer relationships could perceive higher satisfaction because are more comfortable in the relationship. However, longer relationships might indicate less satisfaction if the people involved are getting to know each other better and realize they may not be right for each other. Shorter relationships could indicate more satisfaction if the people involved are in the earlier stages, and are just getting to know each other.
Kenrick’s ideas are supported by Buss’ 1994 experiment. Buss surveyed men and women in thirty seven countries to investigate important qualities in the opposite sex. The findings showed that women preferred resourcefulness and dependability whereas men valued chastity and youth. This study appears to support Kenrick’s “Parental Investment Theory” as Buss argues that men evolved to provide for their partners and are attracted to fertile women.
In the article “An Anthropological Look at Human Sexuality” the authors, Patrick Gray and Linda Wolfe speak about how societies look at human sexuality. The core concept of anthology is the idea of culture, the systems of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors people acquire as a member of society. The authors give an in depth analysis on how human sexuality is looked at in all different situations.
"Fulfillment at Any Age." Sexual Hookups and Psychological Health. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender difference in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29-51.
Gender roles and identity are constantly shifting throughout different societal generations. Men and woman both have notable similarities and differences in genders and they each contribute to their personalities and actions. In the past men have been viewed as a more dominant sex in society over women, both in careers, home life, and sexually, however, today women have bridged many of the gaps and society is accepting a more equal view of genders. The following examines the similarities and differences between men and woman by looking at biological characteristics, gender roles, and sexual responses.