Abstract
Mixed-gender threesomes (MGTs) are a type of consensually nonmonogamous sexual encounter involving three people of more than one gender. Little research has been conducted on MGTs, and what little work does exist is limited to college students, who may actually be less experienced with MGTs than older adults. The present study investigated attitudes toward, interest in, experiences with, and outcomes of MGTs in two samples (college N = 231; online N = 1342), comprised of 907 heterosexual and 666 sexual minority participants in total. Results indicated that participants reported neutral-to-positive attitudes toward and moderate-to-high levels of interest in MGTs (81% indicated some degree of interest). MGTs involving familiar others were preferred to those involving strangers. Men, sexual minority individuals, and participants from the online sample reported more favorable attitudes toward and greater interest in MGTs as compared to women, heterosexual individuals, and participants from the student sample. In addition, 30% of participants indicated having experience with a MGT. Sexual minority individuals reported more experience with MGTs and more positive outcomes than did heterosexual individuals. In addition, on average, participants reported that their MGT experiences “met expectations.” Overall, these results indicate that MGTs are a common sexual behavior that often results in positive outcomes, especially among sexual minority individuals. Additional research on this understudied topic is needed, particularly as it relates to outcomes and the role of MGTs in consensually nonmonogamous relationships.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Notes
A secondary hierarchical binary logistic regression was conducted in which age was controlled for by entering it on the first block. Although age accounted for a significant amount of the variance associated with MGT experience (B = − .05, p < .001), sample was still significant (B = 0.87, p < .001), indicating that age can account for some of the sample differences, but not all.
A chi-square test was performed to determine whether CNM participants (those who reported that they and their partner were not sexually exclusive) were more likely to have had a MGT as compared to participants who self-identified as monogamous. Results indicated that 65.1% of participants identifying as currently being in a CNM relationship had engaged in a MGT, whereas only 24% of monogamous participants had done so, χ2(1, N = 904) = 109.81, p < .001. According to the odds ratio, CNM participants were 5.84 times more likely than those in sexually exclusive relationships to have had a MGT.
References
Abramson, P. R., & Pinkerton, S. D. (2002). With pleasure: Thoughts on the nature of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552164.
Beutel, M. E., Stöbel-Richter, Y., & Brähler, E. (2008). Sexual desire and sexual activity of men and women across their lifespans: results from a representative German community survey. BJU International, 101, 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2007.07204.x.
Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2.
Blanshard, A. (2018). Fantasy and the homosexual orgy: Unearthing the sexual scripts of ancient Athens. In M. Masterson, N. S. Rabinowitz, & J. Robson (Eds.), Sex in antiquity (pp. 119–134). London: Routledge.
Bonello, K., & Cross, M. C. (2010). Gay monogamy: I love you but I can’t have sex with only you. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360903445962.
Call, V., Sprecher, S., & Schwartz, P. (1995). The incidence and frequency of marital sex in a national sample. Journal of Marriage and the Family. https://doi.org/10.2307/353919.
Conley, T. D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022152.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013a). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x.
Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., & Moors, A. C. (2013b). Backlash from the bedroom: Stigma mediates gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 392–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312467169.
Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2013c). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312467087.
Diamond, L. M. (2016). Sexual fluidity in male and females. Current Sexual Health Reports, 8, 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-016-0092-z.
Fairbrother, N., Hart, T. A., & Fairbrother, M. (2019). Open relationship prevalence, characteristics, and correlates in a nationally representative sample of Canadian adults. Journal of Sex Research, 56, 695–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1580667.
Fielder, R. L., & Carey, M. P. (2010). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual hookups among first-semester female college students. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 36, 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623x.2010.488118.
Frank, K. (2008). ‘Not gay, but not homophobic’: Male sexuality and homophobia in the ‘lifestyle’. Sexualities, 11, 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460708091743.
Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social origins of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.
Google Trends. (2019). Retrieved December 28, 2019 from https://www.google.com/trends.
Hatfield, E., & Walster, G. W. (1978). A new look at love. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Haupert, M. L., Gesselman, A. N., Moors, A. C., Fisher, H. E., & Garcia, J. R. (2017). Prevalence of experiences with consensual nonmonogamous relationships: Findings from two national samples of single Americans. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 43, 424–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623x.2016.1178675.
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2013). Conditional process modeling: Using structural equation modeling to examine contingent causal processes. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 217–264). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Herbenick, D., Bowling, J., Fu, T. C. J., Dodge, B., Guerra-Reyes, L., & Sanders, S. (2017). Sexual diversity in the United States: Results from a nationally representative probability sample of adult women and men. PLoS ONE, 12, e0181198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181198.
Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 905–925. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00544.x.
Hosking, W. (2014). Australian gay men’s satisfaction with sexual agreements: The roles of relationship quality, jealousy, and monogamy attitudes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 823–832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0197-7.
Houngbedji, A., & Guillem, E. (2016). Profiles and sexual practices of current and past swingers interviewed on French websites. Sexologies, 25, e1–e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sexol.2015.12.004.
Hughes, S. M., Aung, T., Harrison, M. A., LaFayette, & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2020). Experimental evidence for sex differences in sexual variety preferences: Support for the Coolidge effect in humans. Archives of Sexual Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01730-x.
Jonason, P. K., & Marks, M. J. (2009). Common vs. uncommon sexual acts: Evidence for the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 60, 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9542-z.
Kalichman, S. C., & Rompa, D. (1995). Sexual sensation seeking and sexual compulsivity scales: Validity, and predicting HIV risk behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 586–601. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6503_16.
Kelley, K., & Musialowski, D. (1986). Repeated exposure to sexually explicit stimuli: Novelty, sex, and sexual attitudes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01542313.
Klesse, C. (2007). ‘How to be a happy homosexual?!’ Non-monogamy and governmentality in relationship manuals for gay men in the 1980s and 1990s. Sociological Review, 55, 571–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2007.00722.x.
Lehmiller, J. J. (2018). Tell me what you want: The science of sexual desire and how it can help you improve your sex life. Boston: Da Capo Lifelong Books.
Levine, E. C., Herbenick, D., Martinez, O., Fu, T. C., & Dodge, B. (2018). Open relationships, nonconsensual nonmonogamy, and monogamy among U.S. adults: Findings from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1439–1450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1178-7.
Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5.
Mark, K. P., & Lasslo, J. A. (2018). Maintaining sexual desire in long-term relationships: A systematic review and conceptual model. Journal of Sex Research, 55, 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1437592.
Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean? American Psychologist, 70, 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039400.
Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Schechinger, H. A. (2017). Unique and shared relationship benefits of consensually non-monogamous and monogamous relationships. European Psychologist, 22, 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000278.
Moors, A. C., Rubin, J. D., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. (2014). It’s not just a gay male thing: Sexual minority women and men are equally attracted to consensual non-monogamy. Journal für Psychologie, 22, 38–51.
O’Donohue, W. T., & Geer, J. H. (1985). The habituation of sexual arousal. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01542106.
O’Donohue, W., & Plaud, J. J. (1991). The long-term habituation of sexual arousal in the human male. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 22, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(91)90003-n.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017504.
Piemonte, J. L., Conley, T. D., & Gusakova, S. (2019). Orgasm, gender, and responses to heterosexual casual sex. Personality and Individual Differences, 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.030.
Polygyny. (2019). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved December 5, 2019 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polygyny
Rubin, J. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. (2014). On the margins: Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal für Psychologie, 22, 19–37.
Scheidel, W. (2011). Monogamy and polygyny. In B. Rawson (Ed.), A companion to families in the Greek and Roman worlds (pp. 108–115). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Scoats, R. (2019). ‘If there is no homo, there is no trio’: Women’s experiences and expectations of MMF threesomes. Psychology & Sexuality, 10, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2018.1546766.
Scoats, R., & Anderson, E. (2019). ‘My partner was just all over her’: Jealousy, communication and rules in mixed-sex threesomes. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 21, 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2018.1453088.
Scoats, R., Joseph, L. J., & Anderson, E. (2018). ‘I don’t mind watching him cum’: Heterosexual men, threesomes, and the erosion of the one-time rule of homosexuality. Sexualities, 21, 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460716678562.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.
Sizemore, K. M., & Olmstead, S. B. (2017). A systematic review of research on attitudes towards and willingness to engage in consensual non-monogamy among emerging adults: Methodological issues considered. Psychology & Sexuality, 8, 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2017.1319407.
Sizemore, K. M., & Olmstead, S. B. (2018). Willingness of emerging adults to engage in consensual non-monogamy: A mixed-methods analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1423–1438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1075-5.
Thompson, A. E., & Byers, E. S. (2017). Heterosexual young adults’ interest, attitudes, and experiences related to mixed-gender, multi-person sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 813–822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0699-1.
Thompson, A. E., & Byers, E. S. (2020). An experimental investigation of variations in judgments of hypothetical males and females initiating mixed-gender threesomes: An application of sexual script theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01729-4.
Thompson, A. E., Hart, J., Stefaniak, S., & Harvey, C. (2018). Exploring heterosexual adults’ endorsement of the sexual double standard among initiators of consensually nonmonogamous relationship behaviors. Sex Roles, 79, 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0866-4.
Thompson, A. E., Zimmerman, C. N., Kulibert, D., & Moore, E. (2017). Sex differences and the effect of rival characteristics on adults’ judgments of hypothetical infidelity. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-016-0076-2.
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.
Toomey, R. B., Ryan, C., Diaz, R. M., & Russell, S. T. (2018). Coping with sexual orientation-related minority stress. Journal of Homosexuality, 65, 484–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1321888.
Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. H. (2011). Sexual hookups among college students: Sex differences in emotional reactions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1173–1181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9841-2.
Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A., & Wells, B. E. (2015). Changes in American adults’ sexual behavior and attitudes, 1972–2012. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 2273–2285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0540-2.
Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A., & Wells, B. E. (2016). Changes in American adults’ reported same-sex sexual experiences and attitudes, 1973–2014. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1713–1730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0540-2.
Uecker, J. E., & Martinez, B. C. (2017). When and why women regret sex in hookups more than men do: An analysis of the online college social life survey. Sociological Quarterly, 58, 470–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2017.1331716.
Vrangalova, Z., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). Mostly heterosexual and mostly gay/lesbian: Evidence for new sexual orientation identities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9921-y.
Wiederman, M. W. (1999). Volunteer bias in sexuality research using college participants. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551968.
Woerner, J., & Abbey, A. (2017). Positive feelings after casual sex: The role of gender and traditional gender-role beliefs. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 717–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1208801.
Wosick-Correa, K. (2010). Agreements, rules and agentic fidelity in polyamorous relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 1, 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419891003634471.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Ethical Approval
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. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thompson, A.E., Cipriano, A.E., Kirkeby, K.M. et al. Exploring Variations in North American Adults’ Attitudes, Interest, Experience, and Outcomes Related to Mixed-Gender Threesomes: A Replication and Extension. Arch Sex Behav 50, 1433–1448 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01829-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01829-1
Keywords
- Mixed-gender threesomes
- Threesomes
- Multi-person sex
- Consensual nonmonogamy