Sexual Access and Friendship
Sexual interaction with a person considered a friend, but not a romantic partner.
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...
- Bailey, B. L. (1989). From front porch to back seat: Courtship in twentieth-century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Green, K. J., & Morman, M. T. (2011). The perceived benefits of the friends with benefits relationship. Human Communication, 14, 327–346.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Reiss, I. L. (1967). The social context of premarital sexual permissiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
- Werking, K. (1997). We’re just good friends: Woman and men in nonromantic relationships. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar