Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 275–287 | Cite as

Sexual Motivation and the Duration of Partnership

  • Dietrich Klusmann


The variation of sexual motivation with duration of partnership is analyzed in data from a survey of German students. The sample of 1865 includes only students aged 19–32 who reported to be heterosexual and to live in a steady partnership. Main results are (1) sexual activity and sexual satisfaction decline in women and men as the duration of partnership increases; (2) sexual desire only declines in women; and (3) desire for tenderness declines in men and rises in women. Because these results are based on cross-sectional data, a longitudinal explanation is precarious. Individual differences in mating strategy associated with the probability of having a partnership of shorter or longer duration at the time of the survey may account for some part of the findings. This possibility set aside, post hoc explanations for the results as reflecting a modal time course of partnership are evaluated with regard to habituation, routine, gender role prescriptions, and polarization of roles. In addition, an explanation from evolutionary psychology is offered, entailing the following ideas: the psychological mechanisms of attachment in an adult pair bond have evolved from the parent–child bond. Due to this nonsexual origin, a stable pair-bond does not require high levels of sexual desire, after an initial phase of infatuation has passed. Nevertheless, male sexual desire should stay at a high level because it was selected for in evolutionary history as a precaution against the risk of sperm competition. The course of female sexual desire is assumed to reflect an adaptive function: to boost attachment in order to establish the bond.

sexual desire partnership gender differences evolutionary psychology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1995). Human sperm competition. Copulation, masturbation and infidelity. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Birkhead, T. (2000). Promiscuity: An evolutionary history of sperm competition and sexual conflict. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  3. Birkhead, T., Moore, H. D. M., & Bedford, J. M. (1997). Sex, science and sensationalism. [Reviewof the book Human Sperm Competition by R. Robin Baker & Mark A. Bellis. Chapman & Hall, 1995]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12, 121–122.Google Scholar
  4. Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1–49.Google Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of mind. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  6. Davies, S., Katz, J., & Jackson, J. L. (1999). Sexual desire discrepancies: Effects on sexual and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 553–567.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. DeLamater, J. (1987). Theories of human sexuality: A sociological approach. In J. H. Geer & W. T. O'Donohue (Eds.), Theories of human sexuality (pp. 237–256). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  8. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69–96.Google Scholar
  9. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of sex differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  11. Gomendio, M., Harcourt, A. H., & Roldan, E. R. S. (1998). Sperm competition in mammals. In T. R. Birkhead & A. P. Møller (Eds.), Sperm competition and sexual selection (pp. 667–756). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Haavio-Mannila, E., & Kontula, O. (1997). Correlates of increased sexual satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 26, 399–414.Google Scholar
  13. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, A. M., Wadsworth, J., Wellings, K., & Field, J. (1994). Sexual attitudes and lifestyles. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Koukounas, F., & Over, R. (1993). Habituation and dishabituation of male sexual arousal. Behavior Research and Therapy, 31, 575–585.Google Scholar
  17. Laan, E., & Everaerd, W. (1995). Habituation of female sexual arousal to slides and film. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 517–541.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Mealey, L. (2000). Sex differences: Developmental and evolutionary strategies. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Moore, H. D. M., Martin, M., & Birkhead, T. R. (1999). No evidence for killer sperm or other selective interactions between human spermatozoa in ejaculates of different males in vitro. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 266, 2343–2350.Google Scholar
  21. Neiswender Reedy, M., Birren, J. E., & Schaie, K. H. (1981). Age and sex differences in satisfying love relationships across the adult life span. Human Development, 24, 52–66.Google Scholar
  22. O'Donohue, W. T., & 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmidt, G. (Ed.). (2000). Kinder der sexuellen Revolution. Kontinuität und Wandel studentischer Sexualität 1966–1996. Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Schmidt, G., Klusmann, D., Dekker, A., & Matthiesen, S. (1998). Changes in student's sexual behaviour: 1966–1981–1996. A first report on a longitudinal study in West Germany. Scandinavian Journal of Sexology, 1, 157–173.Google Scholar
  26. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1987). Theories of human sexuality: A sexual scripts approach. In J. H. Geer & W. T. O'Donohue (Eds.), Theories of human sexuality (pp. 363–383). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  27. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 31–51.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, R. L. (1984). Human sperm competition. In R. L. Smith (Ed.), Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems (pp. 602–659). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Symons, D., & Ellis, D. (1989). Human male-female differences in sexual desire. In A. E. Rasa, C. Vogel, & E. Voland (Eds.), The sociobiology of sexual and reproductive strategies (pp. 131–147). London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Thiessen, D. (1994). Environmental tracking by females. Human Nature, 5, 167–202.Google Scholar
  32. Zeifman, D., & Hazan, C. (1997). The bond in pair bonds. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 237–264). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dietrich Klusmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Klinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin, Abteilung für Medizinische PsychologieUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations