Skip to main content

How Women’s Nonconscious Association of Sex with Submission Relates to Their Subjective Sexual Arousability and Ability to Reach Orgasm

Abstract

Common cultural stereotypes promote women’s submission to men, especially within intimate heterosexual relationships. Mirroring these stereotypes, women possess nonconscious associations between sex and submission (Sanchez, Kiefer & Ybarra, 2006). Moreover, women’s sex-submission associations predict greater reports of engagement in submissive sexual behavior (Sanchez et al., 2006). In the present research, we again found that women associate sex with submission at a nonconscious level. Study 1 showed that women’s nonconscious sex-submission associations predict reduced subjective arousability. Study 2 further demonstrated that these associations predict impaired ability to reach orgasm among women. These findings suggest that sex-submission associations may adversely affect women’s sexual functioning.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Male participants were not included in the present manuscript because their sex-submission and sex-dominance links failed to predict their arousability. Furthermore, in the regression analyses the gender by sex-submission interaction was a significant predictor of subjective sexual arousability, β = −.345, p = 0.001, in Study 1 and of ability to reach orgasm, β = –.129, p < 0.05, in Study 2. These statistical results justified our focus on the effects of these links on women.

  2. 2.

    Our interest in sexual arousability was limited to arousal with partners; therefore we excluded arousal from erotica and pornography. Results are unchanged by the inclusion of arousal from erotica. However, the erotica subscale by itself was unrelated to sex-submissive associations, r(34) = −0.14. The divergence of women’s responses to the erotic subscale from their responses on the other subscales may result from women’s infrequent use of, and negative attitude toward, erotic material as a source of arousal (Frable, Johnson, & Kellman, 1997; Leiblum, Rosen, Platt, & Cross, 1993).

  3. 3.

    Previous research that used 55 ms foveal priming showed that participants failed to recognize prime words at a rate better than chance (Sanchez et al., 2006).

  4. 4.

    Untransformed mean responses latencies are given for the purposes of illustration in both Study 1 and Study 2.

  5. 5.

    Sexual experience did not moderate these results. Furthermore, analyses were also performed for each arousal subscale. We regressed each subscale separately on sexual experience (whether or not they had experienced sexual intercourse), sex-submission associations, and sex-dominance associations. Findings were consistent. After controlling for sexual experience, sex-submission associations predicted lowered arousability for the caress subscale, β = −0.617, p = 0.001, seductive activities subscale, β = −0.528, p = 0.004, oral sex subscale, β = −0.538, p = 0.003, and sexual intercourse subscale, β = −0.603, p = 0.001. Sex-submission associations marginally predicted the erotica subscale, β = −0.374, p = 0.06, ns. Sex-dominance associations failed to predict arousal for the caress subscale, β = −0.097, p > 0.5, ns, seductive activities subscale, β = −0.197, p > 0.2, ns, oral sex subscale, β = −0.239, p > 0.1, ns, sexual intercourse subscale, β = −0.166, p > 0.3, ns, and the erotica subscale, β = −0.283, p > 0.1, ns.

  6. 6.

    Analyses were also performed without including sexual experience as a covariate. Results remained unchanged.

  7. 7.

    Although we only report the analyses after we controlled for sexual experience (whether or not participants had engaged in sexual intercourse) and relationship status, we also conducted several analyses with sexual frequency as an additional covariate. Participants who indicated having experienced sexual intercourse were asked to indicate sex frequency on a scale where (1) = less than once a month, (2) = 1–2 times a week, (3) 3–4 times a week, and (4) = 5 or more times a week. The average sexual frequency of sexually experienced participants in the current sample was approximately 2–3 times a week (M = 2.03, SD = 0.97). Sexual frequency predicted greater ability to reach orgasm, β = 0.355, p = 0.009; however, inclusion of sexual frequency in the analysis significantly increased missing data (N = 19), because participants who had never experienced sexual intercourse were unable to answer this question. Nevertheless, when we controlled for sexual frequency, submis’sive facilitation predicted diminished ability to orgasm.

  8. 8.

    Neither relationship status nor sexual experience moderated the effect of submissive facilitation on orgasm ability.

  9. 9.

    Because ability to reach orgasm and sexual arousability were self-reported and thus may have been influence by socially desirable responses, we conducted a pilot study on the influence of socially desirable responses on these measures. Analyses were conducted on a separate data set in which we assessed heterosexual women’s self-reports of sexual function as assessed in Studies 1 and 2 and their tendency to give socially desirable responses (N = 298; Sanchez et al., 2005). Correlational analyses were used to test whether reports of arousal difficulty and ability to reach orgasm were significantly related to social desirable responses as measured by the Crowne–Marlowe scale (1960). Social desirability was not significantly correlated with self-reports of ability to reach orgasm, r = 0.049, p = 0.41, ns, nor with self-reports of difficulty becoming aroused, r = 0.007, p = 0.90, ns.

References

  1. 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, 27–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amaro, H., Raj, A., & Reed, E. (2001). Women’s sexual health: The need for feminist analyses in public health in the decade of behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 324–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Andersen, B. L., Broffitt, B., Karlsson, J. A., & Turnquist, D. C. (1989). A psychometric analysis of the sexual arousability index. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 123–130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Arkes, H. R., & Tetlock, P. E. (2004). Attributions of nonconscious prejudice, or “Would Jesse Jackson ‘fail’ the nonconscious associations test?” Psychological Bulletin, 15, 257–278.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baker, C. N. (2005). Images of women’s sexuality in advertisements: A content analysis of Black- and White-oriented women’s and men’s magazines. Sex Roles, 52, 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54, 462–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253–286). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bargh, J. A., Pryor, J. B., Raymond, P., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power->sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768–781.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Baumeister, R. F., Cantanese, 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 

  11. Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (2000). The social dimension of sex. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bernard, J. (1966). The fourth revolution. Journal of Social Issues, 22, 76–87.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Blumstein, P., & Schwarz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, and sex. New York: Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Both, S., Spiering, M., Everaerd, W., & Laan, E. (2004) Sexual behavior and responsiveness to sexual stimuli following laboratory-induced sexual arousal. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 242–258.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dunn, K. M., Cherkas, L. F., & Spector, T. D. (2005). Genetic influences on variations in women’s orgasmic function: A twin study. Biology Letters, 1, 260–263.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dworkin, A. (1987). Intercourse. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543–558.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fazio, R. H., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE model of attitude–behavior processes. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 97–116). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Frable, D. E., Johnson, A. E., & Kellman, H. (1997). Seeing masculine men, sexy women, and gender differences: Exposure to pornography and cognitive constructions of gender. Journal of Personality, 65, 311–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Frank, E., Anderson, C., & Rubenstein, D. (1978). The frequency of sexual dysfunction in “normal” couples. New England Journal of Medicine, 299, 111–115.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gagnon, J., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Geer, J., & Janssen, E. (2000). The sexual response system. In J. T Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 315–341). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Grauerholz, E., & Serpe, R. T. (1985). Initiation and response: The dynamics of sexual interaction. Sex Roles, 12, 1041–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Greenwald, A. G., Schwarz, D. E., & McGhee, J. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in nonconsciously cognition: the nonconscious association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Haavio-Mannila, E., & Kontula, O. (1997). Correlates of increased sexual satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 399–419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Harris, G. (2004, February 28). Pfizer gives up testing Viagra on women. New York Times, p. 10, C1.

  30. Heiman, J. R. (1977). A psychophysiological exploration of sexual arousal patterns in females and males. Psychophysiology, 14, 266–274.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Heiman, J. R., & Verhulst, J. (1982). Gender and sexual functioning. In I. Al-Issa (Ed.), Gender and psychopathology, (pp. 305–320). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hrdy, S. B. (1999). The woman that never evolved. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hurlbert, D. F. (1991). The role of assertiveness in women’s sexuality: A comparative study between sexually assertive and sexually nonassertive women. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 17, 183–190.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hurlbert, D. F., Apt, C., & Rabehl, S. M. (1993). Key variables to understanding women’s sexual satisfaction: An examination of women in nondistressed marriages. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 19, 154–165.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jeffreys, S. (1990). Anticlimax: A feminist perspective on the sexual revolution. London: Women’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jhally, S. (1995). Dreamworlds 2: Desire/sex/power in music video [Video]. Northhampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Karpinski, A., & Hilton, J. L. (2001). Attitudes and the implicit associations test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 774–778.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kilbourne, J. (2000a). Killing us softly 3: Advertisings image of women [Video]. Northhampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kilbourne, J. (2000b). Can’t buy my love: How advertising changes the way we think and feel. New York: Simon and Shuster.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kim, J. L., & Ward, L. M. (2004). Pleasure reading: Associations between young women’s sexual attitudes and their reading of contemporary women’s magazines. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kitzinger, S. (1984). Woman’s experience of sex. New York: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Laan, E., Everaerd, W., van Bellen, G., & Hanewald, G. (1994). Women’s sexual and emotional responses to men’s- and women’s produced erotica. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 153–169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Laumann, E. O., Paik, A., & Rosen, R. C. (1999). Sexual dysfunction in the United States: Prevalence and predictors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 537–544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Leiblum, S. R., Rosen, R. C., Platt, M., & Cross, R. (1993). Sexual attitudes and behavior of a cross-sectional sample of United States medical students: Effects of gender, age, and year of study. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19, 235–245.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lowry, D. T., Love, G., & Kirby, M. (1981). Sex on the soap operas: Patterns of intimacy. Journal of Communication, 31, 90–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. MacKinnon, C. A. (1987). A feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Martin, K. A. (1996). Puberty, sexuality, and the self: Boys and girls at adolescence. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  49. McCreary, D. R., & Rhodes, N. D. (2001). On the gender-typed nature of dominant and submissive acts. Sex Roles, 44, 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Millet, K. (1970). Sexual politics. New York: Avon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Modleski, T. (1990). Loving with a vengeance: Mass-produced fantasies for women. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Morokoff, P. (1990, August). Women’s sexuality: Expression of self vs. social construction. In C. Travis (Chair), The social construction of women’s sexuality. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, MA: Boston.

  53. Muehlenhard, C. L., & McCoy, M. L. (1991). Double standard/double bind: The sexual double standard and women’s communications about sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 447–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mussweiler, T., & Förster, J. (2000). The sex→aggression link: A perception–behavior dissociation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 507–520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Understanding and using the nonconscious association test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 166–180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. O’Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1998). Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 234–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Perdue, C. W., Dovidio, J. F., Gurtman, M. B., & Tyler, R. B. (1990). Us and them: Social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 475–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Perdue, C. W., & Gurtman, M. B. (1990). Evidence for the automaticity of ageism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 199–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315–1328.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1977). Love, sex, and sex-roles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  64. 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 

  65. Sanchez, D. T., Kiefer, A. K., & Ybarra, O. (2006). Sexual submissiveness in women: Costs for sexual autonomy and arousal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 512–524.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Schwartz, P., & Rutter, V. (2000). The gender of sexuality (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Snitow, A. B. (1979). Mass market romance: Pornography for women is different. Radical History Review, 20, 141–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1993). Sexuality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Steinman, D. L., Wincze, J. P., Sakheim, B. A., Barlow, D. H., & Mavissakalian, M. (1981). A comparison of men’s and women’s patterns of sexual arousal. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10, 529–547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Tevlin, H. F., & Leiblum, S. R. (1983). Sex role stereotypes and women’s sexual dysfunction. In V. Franks & E. D. Rothblum (Eds.), The stereotyping of women: Its effects on mental health, (pp. 129–150). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Tolman, D. L. (2002). Femininity as a barrier to positive sexual health for adolescents. In A. E. Hunter & C. Forden (Eds.), Readings in the psychology of gender: Exploring our differences and commonalities (pp. 196–206). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997). Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 523–535.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Zilbergeld, B. (1978). Male sexuality. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Zurbriggen, E. L. (2000). Social motives and cognitive power–sex associations: Predictors of aggressive sexual behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 559–581.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Amy Kiefer was supported by a National Science Foundation graduate fellowship and a National Institute of Mental Health postdoctoral fellowship during the preparation of this manuscript. The authors wish to thank Lora Park and Norbert Schwartz for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy K. Kiefer.

Additional information

Amy K. Kiefer and Diana T. Sanchez made equal contributions to this research. Authorship was determined by a coin toss.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kiefer, A.K., Sanchez, D.T., Kalinka, C.J. et al. How Women’s Nonconscious Association of Sex with Submission Relates to Their Subjective Sexual Arousability and Ability to Reach Orgasm. Sex Roles 55, 83–94 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9060-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gender roles
  • Stereotypes
  • Power
  • Sexual function
  • Submission
  • Nonconscious associations