Gender differences and similarities in sex and love

Transcription

1 Personal Relationships, 2 (1995), Printed in the United States of America. Copyright Cambridge University Press /95 $ Gender differences and similarities in sex and love SUSAN S. HENDRICK AND CLYDE HENDRICK Texas Tech University Abstract One s attitudes toward love and sexuality are influenced by many factors, including gender. To explore the role of gender (and other variables) in participants attitudinal orientations toward love and sexuality, data were collected in the United States at three time points (1988,1992,1993), resulting in a total sample of 1,090 participants. Data analyses showed gender differences in both sexual attitudes and love. Men were more sexually permissive than women (consistent with previous research), although women and men similarly endorsed other aspects of sexuality, including sex as an emotional experience. Men and women differed on several relationship variables (e.g., women were more oriented to friendship-based love, and men to game-playing love). However, correlational analyses showed many similar patterns for women and men. These findings underline the need to consider both gender differences and similarities in sex and love within intimate relationships. Researchers have long puzzled over the role of sexuality in close, romantic relationships. Beyond the simple but compelling biological drive toward reproduction, one way to consider sexuality is within the context of a wider romantic relationship between two sexual participants (Sprecher & McKinney, 1993). And such romantic relationship contexts differ in some ways for women and men. One characteristic of the existing social science literature on romantic relationships is the presence of gender differences in a number of areas of both sexuality and love. The purpose of the current research was to build on previous work on love (e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986, 1991) and recent work on sexuality (e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987c; Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Oliver & Sedikides, 1992) by linking sexuality and love in an exploration of gender differences and similarities. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Susan S. Hendrick, Department of Psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX Gender-Based Perspectives Gender provides one lens through which we view much of our world, including love and sexuality. Gender is intertwined with love and sexuality in complex ways and has been examined empirically in terms of gender differences in love and sexual attitudes and behavior, differential sexual expectations based on gender (e.g., the double standard ), and theoretical perspectives such as sociobiology or social learning theories which have sought to explain gender differences in sexuality and love. Sexuality Research has been fairly consistent in showing women s sexual attitudes to be more conservative than men s, although not in every area (e.g., Hendrick, Hendrick, Slapion-Foote, & Foote, 1985; Sprecher & McKinney, 1993). For example, men report their attitudes to be more sexually permissive than women report theirs to be, but women and men do not necessarily differentially endorse attitudes about the emo- 55

2 56 S. S. Hendrick and C. Hendrick tional meanings of sexuality or the importance of sexual practices such as birth control and sex education (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987~). A recent meta-analysis of gender differences in sexuality (Oliver & Hyde, 1993 ) found large gender differences on masturbation and attitudes toward casual premarital sex, but only moderate to nonexistent differences on the several other variables (21 total) under analysis. Changing attitudes exist toward premarital sexual involvement (more acceptable), and there have been accompanying changes in sexual behavior (higher rates of premarital sex for high school and college-aged women now match or exceed rates of men; e.g., Beeghley & Sellers, 1986). Thus, sexual attitude and behavior similarities between women and men coexist with attitude and behavior differences. Still other research has explored gender differences in society s normative expectations for premarital sexual behavior, referred to as the sexual double standard. In essence, the sexual double standard in regard to premarital sexuality means that premarital sexual intercourse is more acceptable for men than for women. Although a number of studies indicate that the traditional double standard has decreased, some aspects of the double standard remain. For example, Oliver and Sedikides (1992) found that, although women and men overall prefer less permissive partners to more permissive partners, men more than women preferred higher levels of sexual permissiveness in partners in low-commitment conditions (p. 326). In other words, in evaluating the acceptability of certain sexual behaviors, the gender of the participants is still relevant, but may be less important than it once was. Love Although an examination of gender and sexuality is important, linking sexuality with love and setting both within the context of a relationship is also important (Hendrick & Hendrick, Previous research on love using Lee s multidimensional love styles approach has found relatively consistent gender differences. In this approach there are six attitudes toward (or styles of) love: Eros (passionate), Ludus (game-playing), Storge (friendship), Pragma (practical), Mania (possessive, dependent), and Agape (altruistic) love. Men typically report themselves to be more gams-playing, whereas women are more likely to endorse friendship, practicality, and manic love (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). Gender differences in love are apparent when considering mean scores; however, patterns of relationships between the love styles and variables such as sexual attitudes, self-disclosure, and sensation-seeking are relatively similar for women and men (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987b). It is apparent that gender differences in sexual and love attitudes have been found rather consistently, although such differences are not uniform across all love and sex attitude variables. Indeed, there are many exceptions to what are considered typical gender differences in intimate relationships (e.g., Hrdy, 1981). In addition, love and sex are often examined separately. Further exploration of these variables-particularly when considered jointly-seems warranted; however, such explorations are most usefully guided by theory. Theoretical Perspectives In seeking to explore gender differences in sex and love, scholars have increasingly turned to sociobiological explanations (e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick, 1991; Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield, 1994), although social learning and related theories (e.g., social role theory, script theory [Gagnon & Simon, 19731, feminist theory [MacCorquodale, 19891) offer equally plausible explanations. Sociobiology Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists argue that the driving force for intimate romantic relationships is reproductive

3 Gender differences and similarities 57 success-the evolutionary fitness inherent in passing on one s genes (Symons, 1979). Such fitness is differentially achieved for women and men, as indicated by the parental investment model (Kenrick, 1989; Trivers, 1972). Men can maximize their fitness by impregnating as many women as possible, whereas women maximize their fitness by investing heavily in each of the relatively few infants they may produce (Kenrick, 1987). Implications for sexuality include greater sexual permissiveness for men, a greater number of sexual partners, and a more casual attitude toward sex (e.g., Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Differences in reproductive strategies suggest probable gender differences in other aspects of intimate relationships, including love (Hinde, 1984). Indeed, findings that men are more game-playing in their love styles than are women, while women are more practical and friendship-oriented, have been proposed to reflect the different reproductive strategies implied by sociobiological theory (e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick, 1991). More ludic game-playing by young males should, on the average, lead to more sexual liaisons, thereby enhancing their reproductive success. A more pragmatic orientation toward love by young females should, on the average, enhance their reproductive success because it will likely take into account both genetic and economic fitness of a potential partner (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1991, p. 211). Social learning theories Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and related theories such as script theory (Gagnon & Simon, 1973) make a similar major point: namely, that women and men are rewarded by society for behaving in ways congruent with traditional gender role conceptualizations. And both genders may be punished when they do not conform. Scholars in this tradition may argue that the strength of childhood learning of gender roles results in gendered sexual scripts (MacCorquodale, 1989, p. 103), which foster active, wide-ranging sexuality for men and passive, monogamous sexuality for women. Thus, men are expected to be sexually active and exploratory, as part of a traditional men s role (e.g., sexually permissive, gameplaying in love), while women (guardians of their own sexuality, as well as restraining forces for men s sexuality [Cate & Lloyd, 19921) should be more oriented to the emotional aspects of sex, to the stable and practical aspects of love, and potentially also to relationship investment and commitment. What is immediately obvious is that these two perspectives-sociobiology and social learning-are often congruent rather than conflicting (e.g., Sprecher et al., 1994). Indeed, both perspectives informed the current work. In addition, one critical aspect of the current work is the linking of sexuality with love. Mellen (1981) proposed that love evolved in humans as a bonding mechanism to promote parents investment in their offspring and in each other during the long period of human infant dependency, where both mother and father caretaking is required (see also Barash, 1986). Thus, love and sex are best considered together. Research Hypotheses Based on previous empirical work on love and sexuality and guided theoretically by both sociobiology and social learning theory, broadly construed, we generated a number of hypotheses, primarily centered on gender differences and similarities, to be tested. They are as follows: Sexuality. Consistent with previous research, as well as with both theoretical approaches, men were expected to be more permissive and instrumental in their sexual attitudes, and women were expected to be more oriented to the emotional aspects of sex. Love. Consistent with previous research, as well as with both sociobiology and social learning theory, men were expected to be more game-playing than women, whereas

4 58 S. S. Hendrick and C. Hendrick women were expected to be more storgic and pragmatic than men. Women were also predicted to be more manic (consistent with previous findings), although theoretical support for this hypothesis was less direct. Other relationship variables. Consistent with sociobiology as well as with some previous research (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1988), women were expected to report more investment in and commitment to their romantic relationships. Consistent with this approach, men were expected to report having had more sexual partners. For relationship satisfaction, women were expected to be more satisfied than men (Hendrick and Hendrick [1988] found women in dating relationships to be more satisfied than men in such relationships), although large differences would not be expected. Finally, based on these several predictions, women were also expected to report being more in love than were men. Additional hypotheses. Oliver and Hyde (1993) found that women and men showed similar mean levels of a particular variable (e.g., small differences in number of sexual partners) for which sociobiological theory might have predicted large differences, and Oliver and Hyde conjectured that more proximal relationship-relevant variables might govern patterns of sexuality in more complex ways than suggested by simple gender differences. Thus, the current research predicted that correlation patterns among relationship variables would be somewhat different for women and men, likely linking love and relationship variables (e.g., investment, commitment, satisfaction) to each other more strongly for women than for men, while showing stronger correlations between sexuality and relationship variables for men than for women. Method Subjects Participants were recruited and tested in groups during the fall 1988,1992, and 1993 semesters from undergraduate psychology classes at a large southwestern university. They were given a research packet consisting of a consent form, a cover sheet describing the research project, and several instruments. Participants providing incomplete or obviously inaccurate data (e.g., all responses the same) were excluded. The effective sample for time period 1 (1988) consisted of 365 participants (185 women, 180 men), for time period 2 (1992) 358 participants (254 women, 104 men), and for time period 3 (1993) 367 participants (207 women, 160 men). The total sample consisted of 1,090 participants. Description of the sample. For the total sample, 59% were women and 41% men. Some 81 YO were White-non-Hispanic, 12% White-Hispanic, 3% Black, 2% Asian, and 2% Other. For age, 77% were 19 or less, 17% were 20-22, and 7% were 23 or over. Some 41% were raised in towns of fewer than 50,000, whereas 58% came from towns or cities of over 50,000. In describing their intimate relationships, 41 YO of respondents said that they were not currently in love, whereas 59% said they were in love. Some 43% reported that they were not in a romantic relationship, whereas 57% said they were currently in one. Of those currently in a relationship, 34% said it was not sexual, whereas 66% said that it was a sexual one. Finally, 94% said that they were single, 4% married, and 2% separated or divorced. Additional questions were asked about age at first love, number of times in love, loving more than one person at a time, depth of current love, falling out of love, importance of romantic love, whether in love with relationship partner, whether in love with someone in addition to partner, whether cohabiting, number of previous romantic relationships, and number of previous sexual relationships. Measures Background information. This set of items solicited information about participants'

5 Gender differences and similarities 59 background and personal relationship history. Sexual Attitudes Scale. This instrument (Hendrick et al., 1985; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987c) is a 43-item scale designed to measure four attitude constellations about sexuality. The subscales measuring these attitude constellations include permissiveness (casual sexuality), sexual practices (tolerant, responsible sexuality), communion (idealistic sexuality), and instrumentality (biological sexuality). The subscales are designed in a 5-point Likert format. Cronbach alphas for the current study ranged from.73 for sexual practices to.95 for permissiveness, and test-retest reliabilities (approximately 2-month interval) have been reported as ranging from.66 to.88 (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987~). Love Attitudes Scale. This instrument (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986, 1990), a 42-item measure with six subscales (7 items each), was designed to assess the six major love styles defined by Lee s (1973) theory of love. The subscales include Eros (passionate love), Ludus (game-playing love), Storge (friendship-based love), Pragma (practical love), Mania (dependent, possessive love), and Agape (altruistic love). This scale uses a 5-point Likert format, with current Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from.75 for Eros to.86 for Agape, and test-retest reliabilities (approximately 2- month interval) reported as ranging from.60 to.78 (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). The 1986 version of the scale was used in this research. Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS). This seven-item unidimensional scale assesses general relationship satisfaction and is presented in a 5-point Likert format (Hendrick, 1988). The current Cronbach alpha was 37. Additional measures. Additional items explored other aspects of relationships. Four items were drawn from a longer Commit- ment scale (Lund, 1985), with a current alpha of 38. Two items measured investment (time, resources, and emotion) by both the participant and the partner in a relationship and were summed. This measure has been used in previous research (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1988; Hendrick, Hendrick, & Adler, 1988) and has a reported Cronbach alpha of.75. Instructions for all relationship-relevant measures asked participants to respond with their current partner in mind, or if no current partner, then with their most recent partner, and if never in a relationship, then with their ideal partner in mind. Results Results will be presented in the following order. First, chi-square analyses comparing the three time periods on all demographic items will be presented briefly. Second, group comparisons will be presented on all dependent variables for gender. Finally, correlations of sexual and relationship variables will be presented, separately by gender. Subsample comparisons Chi-square analyses were performed to compare the three time period samples on 26 demographic and relationship items. Of these, 9 were significant. The first analysis indicated that there were relatively more women than men in the 1992 and 1993 samples than in the 1988 sample. Eight questions about relationships produced significant effects, although subsample differences were quite modest, and there were no discernible patterns. For example, 1992 and 1993 samples differed from the 1988 sample in that fewer people in the later samples had loved more than one person at a time. However, the 1988 and 1992 samples differed from the 1993 sample in that the 1993 sample had proportionately more people who were not in love. Overall, the three subsamples appeared to be quite comparable; there were no drastic differences in either relationship

6 60 S. S. Hendrick and C. Hendrick Table 1. R*, F ratios, and means for effects of gender on selected sexual, love, and relationship variables Means Variable Sex Attitudes Permissiveness Sexual practices Communion Instrumentality Love Attitudes Eros Ludus Storge Pragma Mania Agape Relationship Variables Investment Commitment Satisfaction Relationship History In love now How much in love Importance of love Times in love Previous romantic partners Previous sexual partners Men Women R2 Univariate F (N= 444) (N= 646) *** ** *** 23.49*** 17.78*** 8.98'* **" 27.35*** 17.15*** 21.49'** 24.32*** 14.71*** 4.7s *"* Note: For all variables, higher scores mean greater endorsement. Only univariate Fratios are shown. R2 provides a measure of association between gender and a given dependent variable. 'I' <.0s. "I-' < 01. *"hp <,001. experience or social attitudes. In addition, ANOVAs revealed few cohort differences. Thus, we concluded that the subsamples were sufficiently similar in terms of background and attitudes to warrant combining them for gender comparisons on the several dependent variables of interest. Mean comparisons for gender MANOVAs were performed using gender as the independent variable and sexual attitudes (permissiveness, sexual practices, communion, instrumentality), love attitudes (Eros, Ludus, Storge, Pragma, Mania, Agape), relationship variables (investment, commitment, satisfaction), and relationship history (whether in love; how deeply in love; the importance of love; and number of previous love partners; previous romantic relationships; and previous sexual partners) as sets of dependent variables. The overall MANOVAs for gender were significant for all four sets of dependent variables. The MANOVA F ratios were as follows: sex attitudes = (4,1085); love attitudes = (6,1083); relationship variables = (3,1086); relationship history = (6,1083);~ <.001 in all cases. The R2, means and F ratios for the four sets of variables are shown in Table 1. For sexual attitudes, there were two significant univariate effects. As predicted, men were more permissive and instrumen-

7 Gender differences and similarities 61 tal than women in their sexual attitudes. However, the hypothesis that women would be more emotionally focused than men (more endorsing of communion) was not supported. For love attitudes, there were four significant univariate effects. As predicted, men were more game-playing, whereas women were more friendship-oriented, practical, and manic in their love styles. For the additional relationship variables, all three univariate effects were significant. Consistent with predictions, women were more endorsing of relationship satisfaction on the RAS than men and also reported more investment and commitment in their relationships. For the relationship history variables, all six questions produced significant univariate results. Men reported having more sexual partners, more times in love, and more previous romantic relationships than women reported. But women were more likely than men to say they were currently in love, that they were more deeply in love, and that love was more important to them. The hypotheses predicted by sociobiology (and consistent with some social learning theories) that men would generally be more oriented to sex and women to love were largely confirmed. The variance accounted for by the gender difference in permissiveness was substantial (R2 =.28). The differences for Ludus (R2 =.08) and for number of previous sexual partners (R2 =.06) were also worth noting. Other differences were more modest. However, the small size of most of these differences was in line with expectations. Large differences between men and women would not be expected on many variables (e.g., Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Correlational comparisons for gender Based on previous research and theoretical support for men and women experiencing relational sexuality in somewhat different ways, correlations were computed-sepa- rately for women and men-between the sexual attitude variables and the love, relationship, and relationship history variables. Results are shown in Table 2. What is immediately apparent is that the correlation patterns for men and women are very similar. There were 60 pairs of correlations, and only 11 were significantly different between men and women. Only 5 of the 11 pairs involved correlations greater than.30 for at least one gender; of these, 4 of the 5 pairs involved sexual permissiveness, with men showing a greater positive correlation between permissive sexuality and game-playing love, number of previous romantic relationships, and number of previous sexual partners. Also, men showed a greater negative correlation than women between permissiveness and altruistic love. Men also showed a stronger positive correlation between instrumental sexuality and gameplaying love. Although such findings are consistent with either sociobiological or social learning predictions, they only partially support our hypothesis of different sex-relationship correlation patterns for women and men. The other 6 correlations showing significant differences (all under.30), as well as the nearly 50 correlations showing no differences, indicate that the links between women's and men's attitudes toward sexuality and other relevant relationship variables are very similar.' Because of the findings of both gender differences and similarities in sexual attitudes and relationship variables, some additional work was conducted. Additional exploration To explore the issue of gender similarities and differences further, a more qualitative approach was taken. Participants in advanced undergraduate psychology classes (as part of their class period) were asked to 1. Additional analyses employed regression to predict relationship satisfaction, separately by gender. Predictors for women and men were nearly identical.

8 62 S. S. Hendrick and C. Hendrick Table 2. Correlations between sexual attitudes and relationship variables, separately by gender Eros Ludus Storge Pragma Mania Agape Investment Commitment Satisfaction In love How much in love Importance of love Times in love Previous romantic relationships Previous sexual partners Permissiveness Sex Practices Communion Instrumentality * -.20 ** -.13** -.12** -.21*** -.20* * -.13*** -.24** -.16* * -.23*** -.21*** -.12* **.05.13***.03.14***.13** ** so*.11 -.lo* -.09*.16*** *.08*.23+ *.23**.2r.30 ** -.09*.04 I ***.18***.1v*.21***.14**.12**.16***.08*.17***.09*.14***.04.16*** -.23*** -.25***.12**.06.lo*.07.11*.11** ** * I -.22** -.09* -.14** * *** -.11** -.11* ** ** ***.08 I Nore: For each pair of correlations, the correlation for women is shown below the correlation for men. A significant difference between the two correlations is shown by a bar. In all cases, positive correlations reflect positive relationships and negative correlations reflect negative relationships. p <.os.**p <.***p <,001. provide some demographic information and to write an account of a romantic relationship, including the sexual aspects. The guiding sentence of the instructions said, We want to know how you and your relationship partner met, how the relationship developed, how love was experienced, and how you experienced the physicalhexual aspects of the relationship. Some 80 students (59 women, 21 men) participated in the research; however, for the current presentation, 21 of the women s accounts were drawn randomly and, along with the men s accounts, were examined. About 70% of the men and 80% of the women were under age 23. About 80% of both women and men wrote about current relationships, whereas 20% wrote about past or ideal relationships. The accounts were rated separately by the two authors on the basis of overall orientation to sexuality in the relationship, based on a typology developed by DeLamater (1989): Relational Orientation (sex

9 Gender differences and similarities 63 deepens a relationship), Procreational Orientation (sex is to produce children), and Recreational Orientation (sex is for fun). Based on both sociobiological and social learning theories, men might be expected to be more recreational and women more relational in their sexual accounts. In addition, the accounts were rated for affective tone of the relationship (positive or negative) and whether the partners mentioned in their accounts having had sexual intercourse with one another. There was good agreement for orientation (95% for women, 90% for men), tone (95% for men, 90% for women), and intercourse (95% for both women and men). For men, only 1 of the 21 accounts (5%) was recreational; all of the others (95%) were relational. Some 90% were positive (10% negative), and 62% of the relationships included intercourse, whereas 38% did not. For women, all accounts were relational, and 81% were positive, 14% negative, and 5% moved from positive to negative in tone. Some 71% included sexual intercourse, whereas 29% did not. Thus, overall, women s and men s accounts were relatively similar. Both men and women wrote about relationships that were largely relational and positive and that included sexual intercourse about twothirds of the time. In light of the instructions given to participants, it was not surprising to find such a preponderance of relational themes; nevertheless, we had not expected the absence of either recreational or procreational themes. However, in other respects these findings were consistent with previous research employing relationship accounts (e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick, 1993) and provided an interesting footnote to the quantitative findings. Discussion A number of findings have been reported, painting somewhat different pictures of women s and men s relational sexuality. First of all, the gender differences in the mean levels of the variables of interest are too consistent to ignore. In four MANO- VAs employing 19 variables, women and men differed on 15 of them, sometimes quite substantially. Women, as compared to men, were less permissive and instrumental in their sexual attitudes and more friendship-oriented, practical, dependent, and less game-playing in their love attitudes. Women were more committed to, invested in, and happier with their relationships. They also subscribed more to being in love, to being in love more deeply, and saying that love was more important. Men reported having been in love more times and having had more relationship partners and more sexual partners. Thus, the hypotheses based on sexuality, love, and relationship variables were in large measure supported. It is important to note that the findings were not as simple as men are sexually permissive, and women are not. In fact, both men and women were somewhat negative toward permissiveness (scoring below the neutral point of 3.0), defined by this measure as a casual, uncommitted attitude toward sexuality. However, given the caveat that both men and women may relatively disagree with permissiveness and relatively agree with friendship love, nevertheless they do differ significantly on several constructs (most notably on permissiveness). How can we best explain such differences? Given the nature of the differences, a sociobiological explanation appears viable; women and men have different mating strategies, with men being more sexually permissive in order to maximize their reproductive potential and women being more stable and committed in order to maximize theirs. However, a social learning explanation is also plausible; gender-based social and sexual scripts foster this wideranging sexuality for men and a more monogamous one for women. It would be tempting to stop the discussion at this point, noting that women are simply more relational and men more recreational in their orientations to sexuality in relationships. However, that would ig- - nore a number of additional findings.

10 64 S. S. Hendrick and C. Hendrick There is more to the issue Based on a consideration of the ANOVAs, women and men were similarly responsible, tolerant, and idealistic in sex and erotic and altruistic in love. This point is worth noting. In addition, correlations between the sexual attitude variables and the love and relationship variables were virtually identical for women and men-not supporting the hypothesis of gender differences in correlation patterns. Even in the written accounts, both men and women, virtually without exception, subscribed to a relational orientation whether the relationship involved intercourse or not. In reading the following passages drawn from four accounts, we believe many readers will have difficulty determining which ones were written by men and which by women. It seems we ve always knowneachother.we love to cuddle. Sometimes X spends the night at my apartment.... I love waking up in the morning next to X.... Sometimes when we re hugging, I tingle all over. Neither of us views sex as shameful or inhibited. We enjoy finding ways to please each other and exploring each other.... But I would have to say that our whole relationship developed from our friendship. I don t sleep around, and I was surprised that I d let myself be with X so soon. Things didn t go so well... but we didn t give up. Now I feel that our having sex-really making love-has brought us closer. The sex is good. X is very much into pleasing me-likes to touch and rub. But sex is not the essence of our relationship, and we don t sleep together every time we re together. But when we do have sex, it s terrific! The first two accounts were written by men and the last two accounts by women. Overall it appears that there are some consistent differences, but also many substantial similarities between women and men on various aspects of sexual relating. Gender differences have been well documented, and gender similarities are consistent with previous research on relationship variables (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987b). Sorting out the meanings behind these differences and similarities is no easy task. It has recently been proposed (Feldman, Araujo, & Winder, 1994) that men are more likely than women to have casual romantic/sexual relationships (e.g., more permissive), but are likely to be equally relational in their serious romantic relationships. Such arguments are consistent with sociobiological theory, which proposes that men promote their evolutionary fitness by bonding with the mother of their potential offspring, at least during the critical period of infant dependency (e.g., Mellen, 1981). Social learning theories and other research would also support the idea of men settling down into committed relationships after having done some sexual exploring (e.g., Cate & Lloyd, 1992). Such findings underscore the importance of attending to the context within which sexuality is experienced. It may also be that men s and women s experiences within the sexualhelationship context are not really so different, and that similarity of relationship experience will maximize fitness in the future. Although different reproductive strategies may have served men and women well historically, as Barash (1986) pointed out, our culture has rapidly outpaced our biology, and the two must be reconciled. The penalties for sexual permissiveness in the era of HIV are considerable, and, indeed, if enough emotional and material parental investment is not given to today s offspring, no one s fitness will be maximized. Thus, some essential similarities between women s and men s relational sexuality should not surprise us, but we cannot ignore the differences. However, it is important not to overemphasize these differences lest we promote an emphasis on trivial differences at the expense of broader and more consequential similarities (Wright, 1988, p. 371). What cay2 be concluded based on the current research is

11 Gender differences and similarities 65 that any discussion of gender and sexuality in intimate relationships must embrace both gender differences and gender similarities. References Bandura, A. J. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barash, D. P. (1986). The hare and the fortoise: Culture, hiology, and human nature. New York: Penguin Books. Beeghley, L., & Sellers, C. (1986). Adolescents and sex: A structural theory of premarital sex in the United States. Deviant Behavior, 7, Cate, R. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (1992). Courtship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. DeLamater, J. (1989). The social control of human sexuality. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Human sexuality: The societal and interpersonal context (pp ). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Feldman, S. S., Araujo, K., & Winder, A. (1994, February). The rclationship context: Its differential effect on sexual attitudes and behaviors. In W. Furman & R. Turner (Co-Chairs), Sexuality and interper,sonal relationships. Symposium conducted at the Fifth Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Diego, CA. Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social origins o f human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine. Hcndrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1988). Lovers wear rose colored glasses..journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1990). A relationship speciric version of the Love Attitudes Scale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, , Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1991). Dimensions of love: A sociobiological perspective. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, SO, Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987a). Love and sex attitudes: A close relationship. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 1, pp ). Greenwich, CT JAI Press. Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987b). Love and sexual attitudes, self-disclosure and sensation seeking. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987~). Multidimensionality of sexual attitudes. Journal of Sex Research, 23, Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1993). Lovers as friends..journal of Social and Personal Relutionships, 10, Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love, satisfaction, and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., Slapion-Footc, M. J., & Foote, F. H. (1985). Gender differences in sexual attitudes. Journal o,f Per~sonality and Social Psychology, 48, Hinde, R. A. (1984). Why do the sexes behave diffcrently in close relationships? Journal ojsocial and Personal Relationships, I, Hrdy, S. B. (1981). The woman that never evolved. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kenrick, D. T. (1987). Gcndcr, genes, and the social environment: A biosocial interactionist pcrspective. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender (pp ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kenrick, D. T. (1989). Bridging social psychology and sociobiology: The case of sexual attraction. In R. W. Bell & N. J. Bell (Eds.), Sociobiology and the sociul sciences (pp. 5-23). Lubbock, TX Texas Tech 1Jniversity Press. Lee, J. A. (1973). The c01or.s of love: An exploration of the ways 01 loving. Don Mills, Ontario: New Press. Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commitment scales for predicting continuity of pcrsonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationslzips, 2, MacCorquodale, P. (1989). Gender and sexual behavior. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Ifumun sexuality: The societaland interpersonal context (pp ). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Mellen, S. L. W. (1981). The evolution of love. San Francisco: Freeman. Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differcuccs in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Rullrtin, 114, Oliver, M. B., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Effects ofscxual permissiveness on desirability of partner as a function of low and high commitment to relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1 993). Sexuality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gcndcr differences cxatnined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, Symons, D. (1979). Evolution ofhuman sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental invcstment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexualselectinn and the descent ofmun (pp ). Chicago: Aldinc. Wright, P. H. (1988). Interpreting research on gender differences in friendship: A case for moderation and a plea for caution. Journal of Social und Personal Relationships, 5,