Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Heterosexual Young Adults’ Interest, Attitudes, and Experiences Related to Mixed-Gender, Multi-Person Sex

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There has been little research on threesomes, a form of multi-person sex that involves sexual activity with two other people simultaneously. Therefore, we examined young adults’ attitudes toward, interest in, and experiences with one form of threesome, mixed-gender threesomes (MGTs), defined as sexual activity involving three people where at least one member of each gender is present. Participants were 274 (202 women, 72 men) heterosexual young adults who completed an online survey. Overall, 13 % of participants (24 % of men and 8 % of women) reported experience and 64 % reported some interest in engaging in an MGT. However, the overall level of interest was quite low and varied according to contextual variables (i.e., what other persons were involved). Men’s interest remained unaffected by third person status as long as the MGT involved familiar others (friends and acquaintances) rather than strangers, whereas women preferred familiar others only for MGTs with which they were the third person, not for those involving a romantic partner. Participants also reported fairly neutral attitudes toward MGTs. Compared to the women, the men reported significantly more positive attitudes and greater interest, and were more likely to report MGT experience. In addition, attitudes, interest, and experience were all positively associated with each other. Taken together, these results suggest that young people are not judgmental about others engaging in MGTs but are not highly motivated to do so themselves. Implications for researchers and sexual health educators are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahrold, T. K., Farmer, M., Trapnell, P. D., & Meston, C. M. (2011). The relationship among sexual attitudes, sexual fantasy, and religiosity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 619–630.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, H. L., & Reissing, E. D. (2014). Attitudes toward casual sex, dating, and committed relationships with bisexual partners. Journal of Bisexuality, 14, 236–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowleg, L., Lucas, K. J., & Tschann, J. M. (2004). ‘‘The ball was always in his court’’: An exploratory analysis of relationship scripts, sexual scripts, and condom use among African American women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 70–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8, 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., & Moors, A. C. (2013). Backlash from the bedroom stigma mediates gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 392–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, S. L., & O’Sullivan, L. (2005). Actual versus desired initiation patterns among a sample of college men: Tapping disjunctures within traditional male sexual scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 150–158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fielder, R. L., & Carey, M. P. (2010a). Predictors and consequences of sexual ‘‘hookups’’ among college students: A short-term prospective study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1105–1119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fielder, R. L., & Carey, M. P. (2010b). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual hookups among first-semester female college students. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 36, 346–359.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M. (2000). The role of theory in HIV prevention. AIDS Care, 12, 273–278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., Triandis, H. C., Kanfer, F. H., Becker, M., Middlestadt, S. E., & Eichler, A. (2001). Factors influencing behavior and behavior change. In A. Baum, T. R. Revenson, & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology (pp. 3–17). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. D. (2007). Sex of experimenter and social norm effects on reports of sexual behavior in young men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 89–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, S. R., Bolyard, M., Khan, M., Maslow, C., Sandoval, M., Mateu-Gelabert, P., … Aral, S. O. (2008). Group sex events and HIV/STI risk in an urban network. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 49, 440–446.

  • Frith, H., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). Reformulating sexual script theory: Developing a discursive psychology of sexual negotiation. Theory and Psychology, 11, 209–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furman, W., & Shaffer, L. (2011). Romantic partners, friends, friends with benefits, and casual acquaintances as sexual partners. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 554–564.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, J. H., Kolata, G., Laumann, E. O., & Michael, R. T. (1994). Sex in America: A definitive survey. New York: Little, Brown and Co, Time Warner Books.

  • Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social origins of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, J. R., Reiber, C., Massey, S. G., & Merriwether, A. M. (2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16, 161–176.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Geer, J. H., & Robertson, G. G. (2005). Implicit attitudes in sexuality: Gender differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 671–677.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No strings attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 255–267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guéguen, N. (2011). Effects of solicitor sex and attractiveness on receptivity to sexual offers: A field study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 915–919.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Häggström-Nordin, E. E., Hanson, U. U., & Tydén, T. T. (2005). Associations between pornography consumption and sexual practices among adolescents in Sweden. International Journal of STD and AIDS, 16, 102–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., Hutchison, E. S. S., Bensman, L., Young, D. M., & Rapson, R. L. (2012). Cultural, social, and gender influences on casual sex: New developments. In J. M. Turner & A. D. Mitchell (Eds.), Social psychology: New developments (pp. 1–37). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heldman, C., & Wade, L. (2010). Hook-up culture: Setting a new research agenda. Sex Research and Social Policy, 7, 323–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, S., Harrison, M. A., & Gallup, G. G. (2004). Sex differences in mating strategies: Mate guarding, infidelity and multiple concurrent sex partners. Sexualities, Evolution and Gender, 6, 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P., & Marks, M. (2009). Common vs. uncommon sexual acts: Evidence for the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 60, 357–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ku, L., Sonenstein, F. L., Lindberg, L. D., Bradner, C. H., Boggess, S., & Pleck, J. H. (1998). Understanding changes in sexual activity among young metropolitan men: 1979–1995. Family Planning Perspectives, 30, 256–262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LaBrie, J. W., Hummer, J. F., Ghaidarov, T. M., Lac, A., & Kenney, S. R. (2014). Hooking up in the college context: The event-level effects of alcohol use and partner familiarity on hookup behaviors and contentment. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 62–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrance, K. A., Taylor, D., & Byers, E. S. (1996). Differences in men’s and women’s global, sexual, and ideal-sexual expressiveness and instrumentality. Sex Roles, 34, 337–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Gall, A., Mullet, E., & Shafighi, S. R. (2002). Age, religious beliefs, and sexual attitudes. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 207–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Louderback, L. A., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1997). Perceived erotic value of homosexuality and sex-role attitudes as mediators of sex differences in heterosexual college students’ attitudes toward lesbian and gay men. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 175–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, N. B. (1987). Sexual scripts: Social and therapeutic implications. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 2, 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double standard still exist? Perceptions of university women. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 361–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Missildine, W., Feldstein, G., Punzalan, J. C., & Parsons, J. T. (2005). S/he loves me, s/he loves me not: Questioning heterosexist assumptions of gender differences for romantic and sexually motivated behaviors. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 12, 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1992). College students’ incorporation of initiator and restrictor roles in sexual dating interactions. Journal of Sex Research, 29, 435–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okami, P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 186–241.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). ‘‘Hookups’’: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2011). Gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors: A review of meta-analytic results and large datasets. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 149–165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles’ contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28, 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, E., Decker, M., Miller, E., Reed, E., Raj, A., & Silverman, J. (2012). Multi-person sex among a sample of adolescent female urban health clinic patients. Journal of Urban Health, 89, 129–137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seal, D. W., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (2003). Masculinity and urban men: Perceived scripts for courtship, romantic, and sexual interactions with women. Culture Health and Sexuality, 5, 295–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaughnessy, K., & Byers, E. S. (2014). Contextualizing cybersex experience: Heterosexually identified men and women’s desire for and experiences with cybersex with three types of partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 178–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaughnessy, K., Byers, E. S., & Walsh, L. (2011). Online sexual activity experience of heterosexual students: Gender similarities and differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 419–427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simms, D. C., & Byers, E. S. (2013). Heterosexual daters’ sexual initiation behaviors: Use of the theory of planned behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 105–116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. E., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2012). Gender differences in associations of sexual and romantic stimuli: Do young men really prefer sex over romance? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 949–957.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. E., O’Sullivan, L. F., Byers, E. S., & Shaughnessy, K. (2014). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward the sexuality of older adults in a sample of young adults. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue Canadienne du Vieillissement, 33, 259–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolman, D. L. (2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomkins, S. S. (1987). Script theory. In J. Aronoff, A. I. Rabin, & R. A. Zucker (Eds.), The emergence of personality (pp. 147–216). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, B. J., Wiederman, M. W., & Wryobeck, J. M. (1999). Correlates of heterosexual men’s eroticization of lesbianism. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 11, 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W. (1999). Volunteer bias in sexuality research using college participants. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yost, M. R., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2006). Gender differences in the enactment of sociosexuality: An examination of implicit social motives, sexual fantasies, coercive sexual attitudes, aggressive sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 163–173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the help of David Howland and Jessica Hersey through the entire research process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, 800 Algoma Blvd., Oshkosh, WI, 54901, USA

    Ashley E. Thompson

  2. Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick, POB 4400, Fredericton, NB, E3B 3A1, Canada

    E. Sandra Byers

Authors
  1. Ashley E. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Sandra Byers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashley E. Thompson.

Appendix: MGT Scale

Appendix: MGT Scale

MGT Attitudes Subscale

Engaging in a threesome, or a sexual act involving three people where at least one member of each gender is present, is…. [each of the following adjective pairs is rated on a 7-point bipolar scale]

  1. 1.

    Very morally right–Very morally wrong

  2. 2.

    Very bad–Very good

  3. 3.

    Very unpleasant–Very pleasant

  4. 4.

    Very negative–Very positive

  5. 5.

    Very worthless–Very valuable

  6. 6.

    Very normal–Very abnormal

  7. 7.

    Very unhealthy–Very healthy

  8. 8.

    Very helpful–Very harmful

  9. 9.

    Very desperate–Very fulfilled

  10. 10.

    Very pure–Very dirty

MGT Interest Subscale

If presented with the opportunity, how interested would you be to engaging in a threesome (i.e., having sex with two other people) if it involved…. [each of the following items is rated on a 7-point bipolar scale]

  1. 11.

    Two males and a female?

  2. 12.

    Two females and a male?

If presented with the opportunity, how interested would you be to engaging in a threesome (i.e., having sex with two other people) that involved…. [each of the following items is rated on a 7-point bipolar scale]

  1. 13.

    You and your romantic partner (spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend) and a mutual friend (with which you will have future contact)?

  2. 14.

    You and your romantic partner (spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend) and a casual acquaintance (with which you will have no future contact)?

  3. 15.

    You and your romantic partner (boyfriend/girlfriend) and a stranger?

If presented with the opportunity, how interested would you be in engaging in a romantic couple’s threesome as the third person if…. [each of the following items is rated on a 7-point bipolar scale]:

  1. 16.

    The couple are your close friends (with which you will have future contact)?

  2. 17.

    The couple are casual acquaintances (with which you will have no future contact)?

  3. 18.

    The couple are strangers?

MGT Experiences Subscale

Have you ever participated in a threesome (i.e., having sex with two other people):

  1. 19.

    With two males and a female? Yes__/No __

  2. 20.

    With two females and a male? Yes__/No __

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thompson, A.E., Byers, E.S. Heterosexual Young Adults’ Interest, Attitudes, and Experiences Related to Mixed-Gender, Multi-Person Sex. Arch Sex Behav 46, 813–822 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0699-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0699-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation