Defining Pleasure: A Focus Group Study of Solitary and Partnered Sexual Pleasure in Queer and Heterosexual Women
- 1k Downloads
Solitary and partnered sexuality are typically depicted as fundamentally similar, but empirical evidence suggests they differ in important ways. We investigated how women’s definitions of sexual pleasure overlapped and diverged when considering solitary versus partnered sexuality. Based on an interdisciplinary literature, we explored whether solitary pleasure would be characterized by eroticism (e.g., genital pleasure, orgasm) and partnered pleasure by nurturance (e.g., closeness). Via focus groups with a sexually diverse sample of women aged 18–64 (N = 73), we found that women defined solitary and partnered pleasure in both convergent and divergent ways that supported expectations. Autonomy was central to definitions of solitary pleasure, whereas trust, giving pleasure, and closeness were important elements of partnered pleasure. Both solitary and partnered pleasure involved exploration for self-discovery or for growing a partnered relationship. Definitions of pleasure were largely similar across age and sexual identity; however, relative to queer women, heterosexual women (especially younger heterosexual women) expressed greater ambivalence toward solitary masturbation and partnered orgasm. Results have implications for women’s sexual well-being across multiple sexual identities and ages, and for understanding solitary and partnered sexuality as overlapping but distinct constructs.
KeywordsMasturbation Partnered sexuality Pleasure Solitary sexuality Women Sexual orientation
We thank Lisa Diamond for guidance with interview questions, Sara McClelland for helpful discussions, and Shannon Burke, Emily Dibble, William Frey, Gayatri Jainagaraj, Melissa Manley, Taylor Moberg, and Lane Nesbitt for assistance with data collection and transcription. K.L.G. was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (Grant No. DGE0718128). The research described in this paper was supported in part by grants to K.L.G. from the Pillsbury Graduate Research Award, the University of Michigan Institute for Research on Women and Gender, and the University of Michigan Rackham Graduate School.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
This research was approved by the University of Michigan Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board.
Human Rights and Informed Consent
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Allen, L. (2002). Naked skin together: Exploring young women’s narratives of corporeal (hetero) sexual pleasure through a spectrum of embodiment. Women’s Studies Journal, 18, 83–102.Google Scholar
- Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Brotto, L. A., & Smith, K. B. (2013). Sexual desire and pleasure. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology. Person-based approaches (Vol. 1, pp. 205–244). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Chadwick, S. B., Burke, S. M., Goldey, K. L., Bell, S. N., & van Anders, S. M. (2016a). Sexual desire in sexual minority and majority women and men: The multifaceted Sexual Desire Questionnaire (DESQ). Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- Chadwick, S. B., Burke, S. M., Goldey, K. L., & van Anders, S. M. (2016b). Multifaceted sexual desire and testosterone: Considering cortisol and desire target. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- Fahs, B. (2011). Performing sex: The making and unmaking of women’s erotic lives. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
- Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2008). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, 80–92.Google Scholar
- Fredriksen-Goldsen, K., Simoni, J. M., Kim, H., Lehavot, K., Walters, K. L., Yang, J., … Muraco, A. (2014). The health equity promotion model: Reconceptualization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) health disparities. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84, 653–663.Google Scholar
- Frost, D. M., McClelland, S. I., Clark, J. B., & Boylan, E. A. (2013). Phenomenological research methods in the psychological study of sexuality. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 121–141). Person-based approaches. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Garnets, L., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). Sexuality in the lives of aging lesbian and bisexual women. In D. Kimmel, T. Rose, & S. David (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender aging: Research and clinical perspectives (pp. 70–90). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Goldey, K. L. (2015). Multi-method approaches to understanding bidirectional links between sexuality and testosterone in women. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/113340.
- Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
- Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
- Morgan, D. L. (2002). Focus group interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 141–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Morgan, D., Fellows, C., & Guevara, H. (2008). Emergent approaches to focus group research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 189–205). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Tiefer, L. (2004). Historical, scientific, clinical, and feminist criticisms of “the human sexual response cycle” model. In Sex is not a natural act and other essays (2nd ed., pp. 41–61). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
- Tiefer, L. (2012). The “new view” campaign: A feminist critique of sex therapy and an alternative version. In P. J. Kleinplatz (Ed.), New directions in sex therapy: Innovations and alternatives (2nd ed., pp. 21–36). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- World Health Organization. (2006). Defining sexual health: Report of a technical consultation on sexual health, 28–31 January 2002, Geneva. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
- World Health Organization. (2010). Measuring sexual health: Conceptual and practical considerations and related indicators. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar