Skip to main content

Defining Pleasure: A Focus Group Study of Solitary and Partnered Sexual Pleasure in Queer and Heterosexual Women

Archives of Sexual Behavior volume 45, pages 2137–2154 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. Participants identified their gender/sex from options of “female,” “male,” or “a gender not listed here (please indicate),” with an open-ended textbox option. We did not specifically inquire whether participants identified as cisgender or transgender, but no participants self-identified as transgender in the open-ended textbox.

  2. We held an additional session for this category because one group ran out of time before moderators addressed all of the main questions.

  3. One 26-year-old participant elected to attend an 18–24 session because she was a current undergraduate student, and one 39-year-old participant attended a 41+ session due to scheduling issues.

  4. Participants at one session did not complete feedback forms due to time limitations.

  5. An exception to this coding method was used to identify segments of discussion relevant to orgasms. Here, we used the Text Search Query function of NVivo to code for the word “orgasm” and synonyms (e.g., climax, come, get off). The first author read excerpts identified by the Text Search Query to eliminate any coding of potential synonyms of orgasm used in other contexts.

  6. van Anders (2015) has discussed how the line between solitary and partnered sexuality can become blurry in interesting ways; for example, is internet sex solitary because it occurs alone or partnered because it involves interaction with another person? Interestingly, our participants also noted that the boundaries of solitary and partnered sexuality could blur in contexts such as internet sex and mutual masturbation.

References

  • 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 

  • Backstrom, L., Armstrong, E. A., & Puentes, J. (2012). Women’s negotiation of cunnilingus in college hookups and relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bancroft, J., & Graham, C. A. (2011). The varied nature of women’s sexuality: Unresolved issues and a theoretical approach. Hormones and Behavior, 59, 717–729.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, C. P. (2014). Women’s masturbation: Experiences of sexual empowerment in a primarily sex-positive sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 363–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., Gavey, N., & McPhillips, K. (2003). The ‘fair deal’: Unpacking accounts of reciprocity in heterosex. Sexualities, 6, 237–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Wilkinson, S. (2005). Vagina equals woman? On genitals and gendered identity. Women’s Studies International Forum, 28, 509–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, A. J., & Morokoff, P. J. (2011). Sexual media use and relational satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Personal Relationships, 18, 562–585.

    Article  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 

  • Carvalheira, A., & Leal, I. (2013). Masturbation among women: Associated factors and sexual response in a Portuguese community sample. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 39, 347–367.

    Article  PubMed  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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, E. (2003). Masturbation as a means of achieving sexual health. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 14, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, S. J., & Chivers, M. L. (2014). Gender-specificity of solitary and dyadic sexual desire among gynephilic and androphilic women and men. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11, 980–994.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, A., & Schmidt, G. (2003). Patterns of masturbatory behaviour: Changes between the sixties and the nineties. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 14, 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fahs, B. (2011). Performing sex: The making and unmaking of women’s erotic lives. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahs, B. (2014). Coming to power: Women’s fake orgasms and best orgasm experiences illuminate the failures of (hetero)sex and the pleasures of connection. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 16, 974–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahs, B., & Frank, E. (2014). Notes from the back room: Gender, power, and (in)visibility in women’s experiences of masturbation. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 241–252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, C. (1999). Are focus groups suitable for ‘sensitive’ topics? In R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory, and practice (pp. 47–63). London: Sage.

    Chapter  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.

  • 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 

  • Garcia, J. R., Lloyd, E. A., Wallen, K., & Fisher, H. E. (2014). Variation in orgasm occurrence by sexual orientation in a sample of U.S. singles. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11, 2645–2652.

    Article  PubMed  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 

  • Gerressu, M., Mercer, C. H., Graham, C. A., Wellings, K., & Johnson, A. M. (2008). Prevalence of masturbation and associated factors in a British national probability survey. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 266–278.

    Article  PubMed  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.

  • Goldey, K. L., & van Anders, S. M. (2012). Sexual arousal and desire: Interrelations and responses to three modalities of sexual stimuli. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 2315–2329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. A., Sanders, S. A., Milhausen, R. R., & McBride, K. R. (2004). Turning on and turning off: A focus group study of the factors that affect women’s sexual arousal. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 527–538.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hermans, E. J., Putman, P., & van Honk, J. (2006). Testosterone administration reduces empathetic behavior: A facial mimicry study. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 31, 859–866.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hinchliff, S., Gott, M., & Ingleton, C. (2010). Sex, menopause and social context: A qualitative study with heterosexual women. Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 724–733.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, H., & Ingham, R. (2009). Masturbation among young women and associations with sexual health: An exploratory study. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 558–567.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horne, S., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2006). The Female Sexual Subjectivity Inventory: Development and validation of a multidimensional inventory for late adolescents and emerging adults. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 125–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Insel, T. R., Winslow, J. T., Wang, Z., & Young, L. J. (1998). Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neuroendocrine basis of pair bond formation. In H. H. Zingg, C. W. Bourque, & D. G. Bichet (Eds.), Vasopressin and oxytocin (pp. 215–224). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, E., McBride, K. R., Yarber, W., Hill, B. J., & Butler, S. M. (2008). Factors that influence sexual arousal in men: A focus group study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 252–265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaestle, C. E., & Allen, K. R. (2011). The role of masturbation in healthy sexual development: Perceptions of young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 983–994.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mah, K., & Binik, Y. M. (2002). Do all orgasms feel alike? Evaluating a two-dimensional model of the orgasm experience across gender and sexual context. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 104–113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mah, K., & Binik, Y. M. (2005). Are orgasms in the mind or the body? Psychosocial versus physiological correlates of orgasmic pleasure and satisfaction. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 31, 187–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mark, K. P., Fortenberry, J. D., Herbenick, D., Sanders, S., & Reece, M. (2014). The object of sexual desire: Examining the “what” in “what do you desire?” Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11, 2709–2719.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, S. I. (2011). Who is the “self” in self reports of sexual satisfaction? Research and policy implications. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 8, 304–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, S. I. (2013). “What do you mean when you say that you are sexually satisfied?” A mixed methods study. Feminism & Psychology, 24, 74–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPhillips, K., Braun, V., & Gavey, N. (2001). Defining (hetero) sex: How imperative is the “coital imperative”? Women’s Studies International Forum, 24, 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meana, M. (2010). Elucidating women’s (hetero)sexual desire: Definitional challenges and content expansion. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 104–122.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Montemurro, B., & Gillen, M. M. (2013). Wrinkles and sagging flesh: Exploring transformations in women’s sexual body image. Journal of Women & Aging, 25, 3–23.

    Article  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 

  • Nicolson, P., & Burr, J. (2003). What is ‘normal’ about women’s (hetero)sexual desire and orgasm?: A report of an in-depth interview study. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 1735–1745.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Opperman, E., Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Rogers, C. (2014). “It feels so good it almost hurts”: Young adults’ experiences of orgasm and sexual pleasure. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 503–515.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pascoal, P. M., Narciso Ide, S., & Pereira, N. M. (2014). What is sexual satisfaction? Thematic analysis of lay people’s definitions. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 22–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richters, J., de Visser, R., Rissel, C., & Smith, A. (2006). Sexual practices at last heterosexual encounter and occurrence of orgasm in a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 217–226.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, D. T., Crocker, J., & Boike, K. R. (2005). Doing gender in the bedroom: Investing in gender norms and the sexual experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1445–1455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schick, V., Rosenberger, J. G., Herbenick, D., Calabrese, S. K., & Reece, M. (2012). Bidentity: Sexual behavior/identity congruence and women’s sexual, physical and mental well-being. Journal of Bisexuality, 12, 178–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seal, D. W., Bogart, L. M., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1998). Small group dynamics: The utility of focus group discussions as a research method. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 253–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snowdon, C. T., Ziegler, T. E., Schultz-Darken, N. J., & Ferris, C. F. (2006). Social odours, sexual arousal and pairbonding in primates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361, 2079–2089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, I. P., Carey, M. P., & Steinberg, L. (1996). The Sexual Desire Inventory: Development, factor structure, and evidence of reliability. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 22, 175–190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tiefer, L. (1998). Masturbation: Beyond caution, complacency, and contradiction. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 13, 9–14.

    Article  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.

  • 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 

  • Toates, F. (2009). An integrative theoretical framework for understanding sexual motivation, arousal, and behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 168–193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Anders, S. M. (2012a). From one bioscientist to another: Guidelines for researching and writing about bisexuality for the lab and biosciences. Journal of Bisexuality, 12, 393–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Anders, S. M. (2012b). Testosterone and sexual desire in healthy women and men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1471–1484.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Anders, S. M. (2013). Beyond masculinity: Testosterone, gender/sex, and human social behavior in a comparative context. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 34, 198–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1177–1213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Anders, S. M., & Goldey, K. L. (2010). Testosterone and partnering are linked via relationship status for women and ‘relationship orientation’ for men. Hormones and Behavior, 58, 820–826.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Anders, S. M., Goldey, K. L., & Kuo, P. X. (2011). The steroid/peptide theory of social bonds: Integrating testosterone and peptide responses for classifying social behavioral contexts. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 1265–1275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Anders, S. M., Hamilton, L. D., Schmidt, N., & Watson, N. V. (2007). Associations between testosterone secretion and sexual activity in women. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 477–482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Lankveld, J., Hubben, D., Dewitte, M., Dingemans, M. E., den Butter, C., & Grauvogl, A. (2014). The partner’s presence in the sex research lab differentially affects sexual arousal in women and men. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11, 697–708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vares, T., Potts, A., Gavey, N., & Grace, V. M. (2007). Reconceptualizing cultural narratives of mature women’s sexuality in the Viagra era. Journal of Aging Studies, 21, 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, L. D., Kremer, E. C., & Brown, J. (2005). The incidental orgasm: The presence of clitoral knowledge and the absence of orgasm for women. Women and Health, 42, 117–138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whalen, R. E. (1966). Sexual motivation. Psychological Review, 73, 151–163.

    Article  PubMed  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 

  • Yuxin, P., & Ho Sik Ying, P. (2009). Gender, self and pleasure: Young women’s discourse on masturbation in contemporary Shanghai. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 11, 515–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Katherine L. Goldey & Amanda R. Posh

  2. Department of Psychology and Behavioral Neuroscience, St. Edward’s University, Austin, TX, USA

    Katherine L. Goldey

  3. Departments of Psychology and Women’s Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Sarah N. Bell

  4. Departments of Psychology and Women’s Studies, Programs in Neuroscience and Reproductive Sciences, Science, Technology, and Society Program, Biosocial Methods Collaborative, University of Michigan, 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Sari M. van Anders

Authors
  1. Katherine L. Goldey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda R. Posh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah N. Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sari M. van Anders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sari M. van Anders.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Standards

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.

Appendix

Appendix

Outline of Focus Group Discussion Guide

  1. 1.

    What are some things about being sexual that make you feel pleasure? These could be pleasurable aspects of solitary sexuality, partnered sexuality, or both.

  2. 2.

    Venn Diagram activity (see Fig. 2).

    Fig. 2
    figure 2

    Venn Diagram activity. Each participant was asked to arrange two cut-out circles to represent her answer to the following question: To what extent are the things you find pleasurable about solitary sexuality the same or different as the things you find pleasurable about partnered sexuality? The lack of overlap in a would represent that the participant considered solitary and partnered pleasures very different, and the overlap in b would represent that she considered them very similar. Participants selected one of 11 pre-marked positions, and a moderator scored the activities such that 1 = most overlap and 11 = least overlap. Thus, a would be scored as 10 and b would be scored as 2

    Full size image
  3. 3.

    What do you find pleasurable about partnered sexuality?

  4. 4.

    What are some motivations or reasons for engaging in partnered sexuality?

  5. 5.

    How do your feelings toward your partner affect your pleasure?

  6. 6.

    How do you measure your degree of pleasure in partnered situations?

  7. 7.

    When you engage in partnered sexuality, do you plan it and look forward to it? What do you look forward to? Is the anticipation itself pleasurable?

  8. 8.

    Are there circumstances that make partnered sexuality especially pleasurable for you?

  9. 9.

    What do you expect to get out of partnered sexuality?

  10. 10.

    What do you find pleasurable about solitary sexuality?

  11. 11.

    What are some motivations or reasons for being sexual by yourself?

  12. 12.

    Would there be a reason to engage in masturbation without orgasm? If so, what reason?

  13. 13.

    Do you feel that masturbation is ok when you are in a relationship or have a regular sexual partner? Why or why not? Have you felt this way in all of your relationships?

  14. 14.

    How do you measure your degree of pleasure in solitary situations?

  15. 15.

    When you engage in solitary sexuality, do you plan it and look forward to it? What do you look forward to? Is the anticipation itself pleasurable?

  16. 16.

    Are there circumstances that make solitary sexuality especially pleasurable for you?

  17. 17.

    What do you expect to get out of solitary sexuality?

  18. 18.

    Are there times or situations when you would prefer to engage in solitary activity rather than partnered activity? If so, what are those situations?

  19. 19.

    Are there times or situations when you would prefer to engage in partnered activity rather than solitary activity? If so, what are those situations?

  20. 20.

    What is the role of fantasy in pleasure? Is this important during solitary situations, partnered situations, or both?

  21. 21.

    Can use of erotica contribute to pleasure? Is this the case for solitary sexuality, partnered sexuality, or both?

  22. 22.

    Are there things you identify as similarly pleasurable about both solitary and partnered sexuality?

  23. 23.

    What is one positive thing in terms of pleasure that you get from solitary sexuality that you don’t get from partnered sexuality?

  24. 24.

    What is one positive thing in terms of pleasure that you get from partnered sexuality that you don’t get from solitary sexuality?

  25. 25.

    Venn Diagram activity repeated (to see if participants’ feelings have changed during the course of the discussion).

  26. 26.

    Following recap from moderator’s notes: Have we missed anything, or are there any other thoughts that you would like to share?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goldey, K.L., Posh, A.R., Bell, S.N. et al. Defining Pleasure: A Focus Group Study of Solitary and Partnered Sexual Pleasure in Queer and Heterosexual Women. Arch Sex Behav 45, 2137–2154 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0704-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0704-8

Keywords

  • Masturbation
  • Partnered sexuality
  • Pleasure
  • Solitary sexuality
  • Women
  • Sexual orientation