Gynephilic Men’s Self-Reported and Genital Sexual Responses to Relationship Context Cues

Original Paper

Abstract

The current study examined men’s sexual responses to relationship context. Chivers and Timmers (2012) previously reported that heterosexual men’s genital and self-reported sexual arousal varied by gender but not relationship context, suggesting that gender cues are more salient determinants of sexual response than relationship context cues for men. Those analyses were, however, significantly underpowered to detect relationship context effects (n = 9). The current study utilized the same paradigm as Chivers and Timmers’ study, exposing a larger sample of heterosexual men (n = 26) to audio narratives describing sexual interactions that varied by partner gender (man, woman) and relationship context (stranger, friend, long-term relationship), and observing effects on genital and self-reported sexual response. Results indicated that men’s genital response to relationship context cues mirrored those previously reported for heterosexual women (Chivers & Timmers, 2012); heterosexual men demonstrated less genital response to the friend than to the stranger or long-term relationship conditions. No significant effect of relationship context was found for men’s self-reported sexual arousal. These data suggest that, in addition to gender cues, relationship cues may also be an important determinant of men’s genital sexual responses.

Keywords

Sexual psychophysiology Sexual arousal Relationship context Gender-specificity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the study participants for their invaluable assistance in completing this study. This research was supported by postdoctoral fellowship grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and an Ontario Council on Graduate Studies Women’s Health Scholar Award awarded to M. L. Chivers, and an Ontario Women’s Health Scholar Award (funded by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care) and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Joseph Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship awarded to the first author.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

We have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical Approval

Study procedures were approved by the Human Research Ethics Boards at both our Toronto and Kingston sites. All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Afifi, W. A., & Faulkner, S. L. (2000). On being just friends: The frequency and impact of sexual activity in crosssex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 205–222. doi: 10.1177/0265407500172003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66–73. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brom, M., Both, S., Laan, E., Everaerd, W., & Spinhoven, P. (2014). The role of conditioning, learning and dopamine in sexual behavior: A narrative review of animal and human studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 38, 38–59. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.10.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Carvalho, J., Gomes, A. Q., Laja, P., Oliveira, C., Vilarinho, S., Janssen, E., & Nobre, P. (2013). Gender differences in sexual arousal and affective responses to erotica: The effects of type of film and fantasy instructions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1011–1019. doi: 10.1007/s10508-013-0076-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cerny, J. A., & Janssen, E. (2011). Patterns of sexual arousal in homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 687–697. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9746-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chivers, M. L. (2010). A brief update on the specificity of sexual arousal. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 25, 407–414. doi: 10.1080/14681994.2010.495979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chivers, M. L. (2017). The specificity of women’s sexual response and its relationship with sexual orientations: A review and ten hypotheses. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1161–1179. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0897-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2005). A sex difference in features that elicit genital response. Biological Psychology, 70, 115–120. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.12.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chivers, M. L., Bouchard, K. N., & Timmers, A. D. (2015). Straight but not narrow; Within-gender variation in the gender-specificity of women’s sexual response. PLoS ONE, 10, e0142575. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142575.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). A sex difference in the specificity of sexual arousal. Psychological Science, 15, 736–744. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00750.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., & Blanchard, R. (2007). Gender and sexual orientation differences in sexual response to sexual activities versus gender of actors in sexual films. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1108–1121. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., Laan, E., & Grimbos, T. (2010). Agreement of self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal in men and women: A meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 39, 5–56. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9556-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chivers, M. L., & Timmers, A. D. (2012). Effects of gender and relationship context in audio narratives on genital and subjective sexual response in heterosexual women and men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 185–197. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9937-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Derefinko, K. J., Peters, J. R., Eisenlohr-Moul, T. A., Walsh, E. C., Adams, Z. W., & Lynam, D. R. (2014). Relations between trait impulsivity, behavioral impulsivity, physiological arousal, and risky sexual behavior among young men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1149–1158. doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-0327-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher, W. A., & Byrne, D. (1978). Sex differences in response to erotica? Love versus lust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 117–125. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.2.117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freund, K. (1963). A laboratory method for diagnosing predominance of homo- or hetero-erotic interest in the male. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1, 85–93. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(63)90012-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Furman, W., & Shaffer, L. (2011). Romantic partners, friends, friends with benefits, and casual acquaintances as sexual partners. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 554–564. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2010.535623.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., Chaplin, T. C., & Earls, C. (1992). Maximizing the discriminant validity of phallometric assessment data. Psychological Assessment, 4, 502–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatch, J. P. (1979). Vaginal photoplethysmography: Methodological considerations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 8, 357–374. doi: 10.1007/BF01541879.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hawkes, K. (1983). Kin selection and culture. American Ethnologist, 10, 345–363. doi: 10.1525/ae.1983.10.2.02a00090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huberman, J. S., & Chivers, M. L. (2015). Examining gender specificity of sexual response with concurrent thermography and plethysmography. Psychophysiology, 52, 1382–1395. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Janssen, E., Everaerd, W., Spiering, M., & Janssen, J. (2000). Automatic processes and the appraisal of sexual stimuli: Toward an information processing model of sexual arousal. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 8–23. doi: 10.1080/00224490009552016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Janssen, E., & Geer, J. (2000). The sexual response system. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. G. Bernston (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 315–341). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 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. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9245-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Joyal, C. C., Cossette, A., & Lapierre, V. (2015). What exactly is an unusual sexual fantasy? Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12, 328–340. doi: 10.1111/jsm.12734.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelley, K., & Musialowski, D. (1986). Repeated exposure to sexually explicit stimuli: Novelty, sex, and sexual attitudes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 487–498. doi: 10.1007/BF01542313.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kuban, M., Barbaree, H. E., & Blanchard, R. (1999). A comparison of volume and circumference phallometry: Response magnitude and method agreement. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 345–359. doi: 10.1023/A:1018700813140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Leitenberg, H., & Henning, K. (1995). Sexual fantasy. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 469. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.469.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Meston, C. M., & Gorzalka, B. B. (1996). The effects of immediate, delayed, and residual sympathetic activation on sexual arousal in women. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 143–148. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(95)00050-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Effects of gender and psychosocial factors on “friends with benefits” relationships among young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 311–320. doi: 10.1007/s10508-010-9611-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Peterson, Z. D., Janssen, E., & Laan, E. (2010). Women’s sexual responses to heterosexual and lesbian erotica: The role of stimulus intensity, affective reaction, and sexual history. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 880–897. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9546-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Rieger, G., Cash, B. M., Merrill, S. M., Jones-Rounds, J., Dharmavaram, S. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2015). Sexual arousal: The correspondence of eyes and genitals. Biological Psychology, 104, 56–64. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.11.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., & Blanchard, R. (2000). The discriminative validity of phallometric test for pedophilic interests among adolescent sex offenders against children. Psychological Assessment, 12, 319–327. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.12.3.319.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., Harris, G. T., & Chivers, M. L. (2012). The sexual responses of sexual sadists. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 739–753. doi: 10.1037/a0028714.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Spape, J., Timmers, A. D., Yoon, S., Ponseti, J., & Chivers, M. L. (2014). Gender-specific genital and subjective sexual arousal to prepotent sexual features in heterosexual women and men. Biological Psychology, 102, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.07.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Strassberg, D. S., & Lowe, K. (1995). Volunteer bias in sexuality research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 369–382. doi: 10.1007/BF01541853.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Suschinsky, K. D., Lalumière, M. L., & Chivers, M. L. (2009). Sex differences in patterns of genital sexual arousal: Measurement artifacts or true phenomena? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 559–573. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9339-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Timmers, A. D., & Chivers, M. L. (2012). Sociosexuality and sexual arousal. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 21, 135–146.Google Scholar
  40. Toates, F. (2017). A hierarchical model might cast some light on the anomaly [Commentary]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1203–1205. doi: 10.1007/s10508-017-0956-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Wolchik, S. A., Braver, S. L., & Jensen, K. (1985). Volunteer bias in erotica research: Effects of intrusiveness of measure and sexual background. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 93–107. doi: 10.1007/BF01541656.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations