Casual Sex Relationships and Experiences in Emerging Adulthood
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•736 views
This document summarizes research on casual sexual relationships and experiences (CSREs) such as hookups, one-night stands, and friends with benefits relationships during emerging adulthood (ages 18-29). It examines the role of CSREs in emerging adulthood given delays in marriage. Different forms of CSREs are defined, including key differences between friends with benefits and fuck buddies. Predictors of engaging in CSREs discussed include intimacy goals, attachment styles, personal values regarding casual sex, alcohol use, and partner characteristics. Positive and negative consequences of CSREs are also examined.
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (11)
Similar to Casual Sex Relationships and Experiences in Emerging Adulthood
Similar to Casual Sex Relationships and Experiences in Emerging Adulthood (12)
More from Shamori Williams
More from Shamori Williams (19)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Casual Sex Relationships and Experiences in Emerging Adulthood
- 1. Casual Sexual Relationships and Experiences in Emerging Adulthood Emerging Adulthood: part 1
- 2. Abstract Casual sexual relationships and experiences (CSREs) such as hookups, one-night stands, friends with benefits relationships, and booty calls have received increasing attention in the past decade. This review examines the role of CSREs during emerging adulthood, as well as similarities and differences among the different types of CSREs. Furthermore, we examine the predictors and positive and negative consequences of engaging in CSREs.
- 3. Key words • Casual sex • Sexual behavior • Emerging adulthood
- 4. introduction Specifically, these relationships/ experiences are casual in that they occur outside of ongoing dating relationships (i.e., committed romantic relationships) and marital relationships. Notably, the word ‘‘casual’’ does not refer to the salience or importance of these relationships/experiences, but rather it denotes that these relationships/experiences occur outside of the context of formal romantic relationships. Second, CSREs are sexual because they involve sexual overtones and/or behavior. Finally, CSREs include experiences (e.g., Furman & Collins, 2009), but are not limited to experiences because
- 5. Role of CSREs in Emerging Adulthood The age period of 18–29, known as emerging adulthood, is an important period for the successful development of romantic relationships (Arnett, 2004; Arnett & Tanner, 2006). However, there has been a shift in dating and relationships in the past several decades such that individuals are marrying at later ages (see Bogle, 2007, 2008; Garcia & Reiber, 2008). In the United States, the average age of first marriage has risen to 28.2 for men and 26.5 for women, which represents a peak for the last century (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Furthermore, placing less importance on being married (marital importance) and the desire to delay marriage (marital timing) has been linked to sexual permissiveness in emerging adulthood (Carroll et al., 2007).
- 6. Role of CSREs in Emerging Adulthood This delay in marriage means that for many individuals emerging adulthood is no longer a time of settling down with a long-term committed relationship as suggested by romantic stage theories. Shulman and Connolly (2013) argue for ‘‘Coordinating Romance and Life Plans’’ as a transitional romantic stage during emerging adulthood. In this stage, emerging adults work through a variety of new relationship skills that were not relevant during adolescence before moving toward more long-term relationships.
- 7. Forms of CSREs • Hookups • Friends With Benefits (FWB) Relationships • One-Night Stands • Booty Calls • Sex Buddies
- 8. Hookups A ‘‘hookup’’ is one of the most commonly used terms to describe uncommitted sexual encounters, but it is also one of the least consistently defined terms in the area of sexuality research.
- 9. One-Night Stands One-night stands are primarily sexual relationships that occur one time only. Because of the brief nature of the experience, one- night stands generally take place with strangers or brief acquaintances
- 10. Friends With Benefits (FWB) Relationships
- 11. Sex Buddies and Other CSREs While hookups, FWB, one-night stands, and booty calls have received the most attention in the scientific literature, emerging adults use a variety of other terms to describe CSREs For example, fuck buddies have received little attention in empirical research thus far, which may be because of the potential overlap with FWB relationships.
- 12. The Difference Between a “Friend With Benefits” and a “Fuck Buddy” A friends with benefits will ask you how your day was, a sex buddy will ask you how the sex was. A friends with benefits will make plans to hook up later in the week, while a sex buddy will text you at 1am on Saturday night to see if you’ll be DTF in the next 30 minutes. A friends with benefits knows when your birthday is, what you like on your pizza, and that you have two sisters. A sex buddy only knows your favorite position, and maybe your preferred flavor of lube.
- 13. The Difference Between a “Friend With Benefits” and a “Fuck Buddy” A friends with benefits will compliment your new hair cut, and a fuck buddy won’t even notice.. unless it’s of the Brazilian variety. A friends with benefits will ask you if you want to grab a few drinks before you get naked, a fuck buddy will show up already drunk and couldn’t care less that you stayed in that night and you’re stone cold sober. A friends with benefits will actually watch an entire movie with you either before or after (and while) you hook up. A fuck buddy won’t even pretend he’s there for anything other than sex.
- 14. The Difference Between a “Friend With Benefits” and a “Fuck Buddy” A friends with benefits was in your life before you started hooking up, and will probably stay in your life when you stop. A fuck buddy will disappear from your life without so much as a see ya later. You might actually meet a friends with benefits’ other friends at some point, but a fuck buddy will keep you away from anything related to his actual life at all costs. In fact he’s probably terrified you’ll take it as a sign you could be more than fuck buddies.
- 15. The Difference Between a “Friend With Benefits” and a “Fuck Buddy” You’re probably your friends with benefits’ number one hook up, at least for awhile, but guaranteed, your fuck buddy has a few other girls on speed dial in case you don’t answer fast enough. A friends with benefits will show up to your birthday party, but a fuck buddy will just meet you after to give you your gift (aka his dick) in private. A friends with benefits might actually have the potential to turn into more if the timing is right, but a fuck buddy will never be more than someone you have sex with from time to time, and that’s how you want it to stay.
- 16. Booty Calls The literature on booty calls is relatively new, emerging in the last 5 years. A booty call has been defined as ‘‘a communication initiated towards a non-long-term relationship partner with the urgent intent, either stated or implied, of having sexual activity andor intercourse’’ (Jonason et al., 2009, p. 462). This term can function as both a noun to describe a person contacted for the purpose of sex or a verb used to describe arranging a sexual Meeting.
- 17. Predictors Researchers have unearthed a number of predictors of engagement in CSREs. With few exceptions (see Fielder & Carey, 2010a; Owen, Fincham, & Moore, 2011), research on predictors of CSREs has, however, been cross-sectional. This research has primarily focused on closeness and intimacy, personality, personal and religious values, alcohol use, situational triggers, and partner characteristics.
- 18. Closeness and Intimacy Having high levels of intimacy goals (desire for self- disclosure and mutual dependence within a relationship) has been linked with lower levels of sexual activity in casual sexual contexts for adolescents (Sanderson & Cantor, 1995). Adult attachment styles have also been implicated in involvement in CSREs.
- 19. Personal and Religious Values Personal values, especially regarding casual sex, also predict engagement in CSREs. For example, Puentes, Knox, and Zusman (2008) found that individuals who valued hedonism (the idea that ‘‘if it feels good, do it’’) were more likely to have an FWB relationship than those who thought that sex was acceptable within a loving relationship (relativism) or those who believed that intercourse was never acceptable before marriage (absolutism).
- 20. Sources Claxton, S. E., & van Dulmen, M. H. (2013). Casual sexual relationships and experiences in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 138-150.
Editor's Notes
- While casual sexual relationships and experiences (CSREs) are not an entirely new phenomenon (see Fisher & Byrne, 1978; Sonenschein, 1968), investigations in recent decades have established that most young adults experience—at some point—intimacy and/or sexuality outside of committed romantic relationships (e.g., Garcia, Reiber, Massey, & Merriwether, 2012; Heldman & Wade, 2010). These uncommitted relationships/experiences are often defined specifically in contrast to committed relationships.
- Qualitative research has shown that while male college students share a vague general understanding of what a hookup is, interpretations of the emotional ties and sexual behavior implied vary across individuals (Epstein, Calzo, Smiler, & Ward, 2009). Emerging adults may be drawn to the ambiguity of the term, which allows a single word to describe a variety of sexual encounters and sexual behaviors (Epstein et al., 2009; Glenn & Marquardt, 2001). However, this imprecision creates issues in conceptualization for researchers. Specifically, the hookup varies in regard to the types of sexual behaviors it encompasses, the length of relationship, who it involves, and if it includes or is separate from other CSREs. Definitions of hookups generally incorporate a great breadth of sexual activity from kissing to intercourse (Bogle, 2007, 2008; Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009; Stinson, 2010), although some researchers focus specifically on hookups involving sexual intercourse or oral sex (e.g., Gute & Eshbaugh, 2008). Many researchers have either explicitly limited the hookup to a one night encounter (e.g., Paul et al., 2000) or implied that these relationships do not need to involve interaction past one night (e.g., Burdette, Ellison, Hill, & Glenn, 2009). More recent definitions have moved toward a broader understanding that does not limit hookups to one-time encounters (see Heldman & Wade, 2010). Current research remains inconsistent regarding if hookups occur only with relatively unknown individuals or if hookups also occur among friends’
- From a historical perspective, the one-night stand is not new. However, it is just within the past 50 years that one-night stands have been recognized as an important topic of study in the scientific literature. For example, the one-night stand was recognized as a prominent relationship among homosexual men in the late 1960s, lasting only a brief period of time (a few minutes or hours to a full day or weekend) and occurring between individuals who did not know each other, or knew little about each other (e.g., Sonenschein, 1968). The specific study of a one night stand became more common over time, appearing in qualitative accounts of sexual behavior (e.g., Townsend, 1987) and with a high percentage of individual’s reporting having had a one-night stand by the late 1980s (e.g., Snyder, Simpson, & Gangestad, 1986). In more recent decades, the one-night stand has become both a common lay term and scientific topic of investigation (e.g., Wentland & Reissing, 2011). Because one-night stands are, according to some researchers, synonymous with hookups (e.g., Owen & Fincham, 2011b).
- Definitions of FWB relationships are fairly consistent within the literature and generally include the idea of sexual activity that occurs between friends who do not consider their relationship to be romantic. l FWB relationships do stem from preexisting relationships including friendships, romantic relationships, and sexual partners. FWB relationships differ from other CSREs in a number of ways. FWB relationships allow an individual to engage in sexual activity with someone in an ongoing friendship relationship while avoiding commitment associated with romantic relationships (Bisson & Levine, 2009). As such, FWB relationships are more stable and include an aspect of respect and emotional involvement not found in other CSREs (Lehmiller, VanderDrift, & Kelly, 2011; Wentland & Reissing, 2011). Furthermore, individuals participating in FWB relationships share a friendship on top of the sexual aspect of their relationship, making FWB relationships particularly difficult to navigate. For example, Bisson and Levine (2009) found that about 48.9% of college students who had experienced FWB relationships expressed uncertainty about the relationship.
- However, these relationships were identified by participants in a qualitative study by Wentland and Reissing (2011) as separate from FWB relationships. These relationships, participants suggested, are more derogatory than an FWB relationship but imply more recurring contact than a booty call. Further research is needed to tease apart the nature of fuck buddies, as well as other CSREs mentioned by emerging adults such as ‘‘play buddy,’’ ‘‘bang buddies,’’ ‘‘hit it and quit it,’’ and ‘‘last calls’’
- These relationships acknowledge the influence of social media on the way individuals engage in CSREs and have the unique factor of involving the use of cell phones and other technology to initiate sexual activity. While these relationships are recurring, qualitative accounts suggest that they tend to be less positive in nature than an FWB relationship (e.g., Wentland & Reissing, 2011). They are often a last resort or are initiated when other hookup attempts have failed (Heldman & Wade, 2010; Wentland & Reissing, 2011). Jonason, Li, and Cason (2009) argue that booty calls involve both short-term and long-term relationship factors and are therefore appealing to men and women for different reasons. Specifically, they include features of long-term relationships (some emotional intimacy) that are appealing to women, but they also include less commitment than committed romantic relationships which is appealing to men (Jonason et al., 2009, 2011). Qualitative data suggest that individuals in booty-call relationships have little affection for each other and do not engage in mutual activities outside of sexual behavior (Wentland & Reissing, 2011).
- Securely attached individuals, who tend to have trusting, lasting relationships, have been found to report fewer one-night stands and hookups as well as fewer total numbers of partners (Cooper, Shaver, & Collins, 1998; Paul et al., 2000). Individuals with avoidant attachment styles may follow one of the two patterns: They may avoid sexual intercourse all together (Cooper et al., 1998; Kalichman et al., 1994) or they may engage in casual sex, which has an absence of emotional involvement (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Feeney, Noller, & Patty, 1993; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Those with anxious attachment crave closeness but have difficulty maintaining this closeness. In general, these individuals are not accepting of casual sex (Brennan & Shaver, 1995). Their desire for intimacy, however, can make them prone to risky sexual experiences because they may have sex out of a fear of losing their partner (Tracy, Shaver, Albino, & Cooper, 2003). These individuals have been found to have unwanted but consensual sex (Gentzler & Kerns, 2004). Gender differences have also been found, such that the link between anxious attachment and casual sex is stronger for females than males and the link between avoidant attachment and sexual risk taking is stronger for males than females (Bogaert & Sadava, 2002; Kalichman et al., 1994). Overall, individuals who have secure attachment styles, characterized by low levels of anxiety and avoidance, and individuals who have high levels of intimacy goals appear to have low levels of CSRE engagement.