Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Sexual Access and Friendship

  • Paul A. MongeauEmail author
  • James Stein
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3765-1

Synonyms

Definition

Sexual interaction with a person considered a friend, but not a romantic partner.

Introduction

Sexual access can come from a variety of sources as sexual interaction can involve short-term (i.e., no desire for an ongoing relationship) or long-term mating (i.e., sex representative of closeness and loving) goals or all points in between (Buss 1995). Although they can range from strangers to spouses, sexual partners are typically known and liked others (Perlman and Sprecher 2012). As a consequence, cross-sex friends (CSFs) seem like a natural choice to fulfill this role (among heterosexuals at least). Friends typically know each other well, have developed a close relationship, and, put simply, like one another. Friendships are characterized by warmth, closeness, and intimacy (both psychological and communicative). If friends are intimate communicatively (e.g., self-disclosing personal information on a variety of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Afifi, W. A., & Faulkner, S. L. (2000). On being just friends’: The frequency and impact of sexual activity in cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, B. L. (1989). From front porch to back seat: Courtship in twentieth-century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Taboo topics in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164–168.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.3.164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships, 9, 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caspi, A., & Gorsky, P. (2006). Online deception: Prevalence, motivation, and emotion. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 9, 54–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dibble, J. L., & Drouin, M. (2014). Using modern technology to keep in touch with back burners: An investment model analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dibble, J. L., Drouin, M., Aune, K. S., & Boller, R. R. (2015). Simmering on the back burner: Communication with and disclosure of relationship alternatives. Communication Quarterly, 63, 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drouin, M. (2015). Sexual communication in the digital age. In L. D. Rosen, N. A. Cheever, & L. M. Carrier (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of psychology, technology, and society (pp. 176–191). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Epstein, M., Calzo, J. P., Smiler, A. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009). “Anything from making out to having sex”: Men’s negotiations of hooking up and friends with benefits scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Green, K. J., & Morman, M. T. (2011). The perceived benefits of the friends with benefits relationship. Human Communication, 14, 327–346.Google Scholar
  14. Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No strings attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guerrero, L. K., & Chavez, A. M. (2005). Relational maintenance in cross-sex friendships characterized by different types of romantic intent: An exploratory study. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 339–358.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310500305471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hancock, J. T. (2007). Digital deception. In A. N. Jolnson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U.-D. Rieps (Eds.) Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 289–301). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199561803.013.0019
  17. Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. J. (2005). What’s love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, love attitudes, and network support on friends with benefits relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 49–66.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310500034154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knight, K. (2014). Communicative dilemmas in emerging adults’ friends with benefits relationships: Challenges to relational talk. Emerging Adulthood, 2, 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2011). Sex differences in approaching friends with benefits relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mongeau, P. A., Serewicz, M. C. M., & Therrien, L. F. (2004). Goals for cross-sex first dates: Identification, measurement, and the influence of contextual factors. Communication Monographs, 71, 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mongeau, P. A., Knight, K., Williams, J., Eden, J., & Shaw, C. (2013). Identifying and explicating variation among friends with benefits relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Friends with benefits relationships as a start to exclusive romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 982–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perlman, D., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Sex, intimacy, and dating in college. In R. McAnulty (Ed.), Sex in college: What they don’t write home about (pp. 91–117). Santa Barbara: Praeger.Google Scholar
  26. Reeder, H. (2000). “I like you …as a friend”: The role of attraction in cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 329–348.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500173002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reiss, I. L. (1967). The social context of premarital sexual permissiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  28. Sprecher, S. (1989). Premarital sexual standards for different categories of individuals. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 232–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. (2008). Online communication and adolescent relationships. The Future of Children, 18, 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation, and the risk of subsequent marital dissolution among women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 444–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vanderdrift, L. E., Lehmiller, J. J., & Kelly, J. R. (2012). Commitment in friends with benefits relationships: Implications for relational and safe-sex outcomes. Personal Relationships, 19, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Werking, K. (1997). We’re just good friends: Woman and men in nonromantic relationships. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hugh Downs School of Human CommunicationArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Kevin Beaver
    • 1
  1. 1.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA