121 research outputs found
Women Get Worse Sex: A Confound in the Explanation of Gender Differences in Sexuality
No full textGender differences in sexuality have gained considerable attention both within and outside of the scientific community.
We argue that one of the main unacknowledged reasons for these differences is simply that women experience
substantially worse sex than men do. Thus, in examinations of the etiology of gender differences in sexuality, a
confound has largely been unacknowledged: Women and men are treated to different experiences of what is called
“sexuality” and “having sex.” We discuss four arenas in which women’s experience of sexuality may often be worse
than men’s: (a) anatomical differences, (b) sexual violence, (c) stigma, and (d) masculine cultures of sexuality. Then
we consider how each disparity might explain well-known gender differences in sexuality
The role of gendered entitlement in understanding inequality in the bedroom
No full textFive studies (using U.S. samples) examined whether men’s higher entitlement contributes to a sexual pleasure gap that disadvantages women. Participants indicated that men receive more sexual pleasure from their partners, whereas women provide more pleasure (Study 1a). Participants believed that men have more of a right to experience orgasm in both hook-up and relationship encounters and attributed higher negative affect to the male target than to the female target when the target did not experience an orgasm in a sexual scenario (Study 1b). In concert with the idea that pleasure is a privilege that men are perceived as being more entitled to, participants preferred men’s orgasm when forced to choose between the male and the female partner in an orgasm allocation task (Study 1c) and in an experiment (Study 2). Study 3 examined why people believe that men are more entitled to pleasure than women. Men’s higher sense of entitlement as an obstacle to gender equality in sexuality is discussed.</p
How WEIRD and androcentric is sex research? Global inequities in study populations
No full textPrevious researchers have noted the domination of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) samples in fields like psychology. In this study we asked: how WEIRD and androcentric is contemporary sex research? We focused on two historically underrepresented groups in research, namely non-WEIRD and women/gender non-conforming samples. We analyzed 2,223 articles drawn from five leading journals in scientific sexuality research (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Journal of Sex Research, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, Journal of Sexual Medicine, and International Journal of Sexual Health). We coded the national context and gender of sampled populations for articles published between 2015 and 2019 in these journals. Results indicated that WEIRD populations dominate the published findings in sex research (ranging from 68% to 88%). Two journals had a higher number of studies that only included men as participants, and one a higher number of samples that consisted of only women, and very few included gender diverse samples (i.e., non-binary, trans*, intersex). Recommendations for improving the current research and publishing practices are discussed.</p
Supplementary_Materials - Sexual satisfaction among individuals in monogamous and consensually non-monogamous relationships
No full textSupplementary_Materials for Sexual satisfaction among individuals in monogamous and consensually non-monogamous relationships by Terri D. Conley, Jennifer L. Piemonte, Staci Gusakova and Jennifer D. Rubin in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</p
Erratum: Investigation of Consensually Nonmonogamous Relationships: Theories, Methods, and New Directions
No full text Conley, T. D., Matsick, J. L., Moors, A. C., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Investigation of consensually nonmonogamous relationships: Theories, methods, and new directions. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 12, 205–232. doi: 10.1177/1745691616667925 The byline for this article should be as follows: Terri D. Conley1, Jes L. Matsick2, Amy C. Moors3, and Ali Ziegler1 </jats:p
Does Monogamy Harm Women? Deconstructing Monogamy with a Feminist Lens
No full textIn this paper, we utilize a critical feminist lens to analyze the advantages and disadvantages found within two different romantic relationship configurations: monogamy and polyamory. While visibility of polyamorous relationships has increased in recent years, there is still a lack of information and a plethora of misinformation concerning non-monogamous romantic relationship dynamics (Conley, Moors, Matsick, & Ziegler, 2012; Conley, Ziegler, Moors, Matsick, & Valentine, 2012). One such notion is that polyamory is differentially damaging to women vis-à-vis men. From a phenomenological perspective, sociocultural values dictate that women, unlike men, are prescribed to be dependent upon monogamy in order to define their selfhood; and indeed, research has provided evidence in support of this idea, as women are more apt to be offended by the idea of concurrent multiple relationships and are less likely to report a willingness to engage in these types of relationships than men are (Moors, Conley, Edelstein, & Chopik, under review-a). Using a previous review of monogamy as a starting point (Conley, Ziegler, Moors, Matsick, & Valentine, 2012), we will reanalyze two major points from the review piece: sex benefits and jealousy in monogamous and polyamorous relationships. Throughout, we examine if the presumed benefits of monogamy extend to women or if alternative relationship structures, specifically polyamory, afford greater advantages. Additionally, we consider other benefits that may be unique to polyamory for women, including increased agency, financial resources, and extended social support
Does Monogamy Harm Women? Deconstructing Monogamy with a Feminist Lens
No full textIn this paper, we utilize a critical feminist lens to
analyze the advantages and disadvantages found within two different romantic
relationship configurations: monogamy and polyamory. While visibility of polyamorous
relationships has increased in recent years, there is still a lack of information
and a plethora of misinformation concerning non-monogamous romantic relationship
dynamics (Conley, Moors, Matsick, & Ziegler, 2012; Conley, Ziegler, Moors,
Matsick, & Valentine, 2012). One such notion is that polyamory is differentially
damaging to women vis-à-vis men. From a phenomenological perspective, sociocultural
values dictate that women, unlike men, are prescribed to be dependent upon monogamy
in order to define their selfhood; and indeed, research has provided evidence in
support of this idea, as women are more apt to be offended by the idea of concurrent
multiple relationships and are less likely to report a willingness to engage in
these types of relationships than men are (Moors, Conley, Edelstein, & Chopik,
under review-a). Using a previous review of monogamy as a starting point (Conley,
Ziegler, Moors, Matsick, & Valentine, 2012), we will reanalyze two major points
from the review piece: sex benefits and jealousy in monogamous and polyamorous
relationships. Throughout, we examine if the presumed benefits of monogamy extend to
women or if alternative relationship structures, specifically polyamory, afford
greater advantages. Additionally, we consider other benefits that may be unique to
polyamory for women, including increased agency, financial resources, and extended
social support.peerReviewedpublishedVersio
Private land conservation services
No full textModerator: David Anderson. Panelists: Molly Fales, Bob Tate, Terri Schulz, Bill Martin, and Drew Bennett.Presented at the 2018 CNHP Partners Meeting held on March 9, 2018 in the Grand Ballroom D, Lory Student Center, Colorado State University Campus, Fort Collins, Colorado.Panelists discuss private land conservation and services in Colorado
Gender and Perceptions of Romantic Partners’ Sexual Risk
No full textResearch shows that in most situations, women perceive themselves to be at greater risk of harm than do men. Gustafson's gender role perspective on risk perception suggests that this is because women are socialized to feel that they need protection, especially from men.Based on Gustafson's gender role perspective on sex differences in risk perception, we predicted that in at least one context, perception of romantic partners’ sexual risk, this gender difference would be reversed. Specifically, women should rate boyfriends as having lower risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) than boyfriends rate themselves having.In two studies, we examined heterosexual couples and compared women's perceptions of their boyfriends’ sexual risk level with the boyfriend's self-perception of sexual risk.Self-reported measures of risk for STIs, perception of romantic partners’ risk for STIs.On multiple measures, women rated their boyfriends as having a lower risk for STIs than the men rated themselves. Men did not show this pattern and, in some cases, showed the reverse pattern of perceiving their girlfriends to have a greater level of risk than girlfriends themselves believed they had.Consistent with Gustafson's gender role perspective on risk perception, heterosexual women perceived their romantic partners as relatively less risky in terms of STI risk than men perceived themselves. One potential implication of this finding is that women may be less likely to protect themselves against disease in close romantic relationships because they believe that their partners are low risk, regardless of the partners’ actual risk levels. Conley TD, and Peplau LA. Gender and perceptions of romantic partners’ sexual risk. J Sex Med 2010;7:794–802.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78632/1/j.1743-6109.2009.01598.x.pd
The effects of ethnicity and gender on relationship perception: a study of Latin-American and European-American intra-ethnic and inter-ethnic couples
No full textThe current study examined observer's assessments of relationships as a function of variation in gender and ethnicity of couples depicted in photographs. A within subjects 2 (Latin-American Male, European-American Male) x 2 (Latin-American Female, European-American Female) factorial design was conducted with participants being 76 undergraduate psychology students. The participants viewed a PowerPoint slideshow of 16 couple photos, four couple photos in each of the four conditions. Participants were then asked to respond to questions regarding the couples' happiness, conflict, longevity, infidelity, and how likely the participant would encourage the couple to start a family. Standard demographic information was obtained including additional questions regarding participants' own relationship history, number of romantic and sexual partners, infidelity, sexuality, their likelihood to date inter-ethnically, and other related questions. The current study found that a couple that had a European-American couple member was predicted to stay together as a couple longer than a couple without a European-American member, in other words, the European-American intra-ethnic couple was reported to stay together the longest more so than any other couple. A secondary set of hypotheses found that participants were more favorable toward couples that had a European-American female as a couple member than those that had Latin-American female couple members. Ethnic � dating preferences of participants as well as overall study discussion and limitations of the study findings are reviewed.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 31-32)California State University, Northridge. Department of Psychology
- …
